5 ms·

Why not use something like the occulus rift? While the occulus rift is cool, I think you're missing the point. VR has been around for quite some time, and whil

Why not use something like the occulus rift? While the occulus rift is cool, I think you're missing the point. VR has been around for quite some time, and while it has it's applications, AR, IMHO, is more immediately applicable today. Even if you are selectively reproducing pieces of reality in your VR, that's going to take extra processing power and not going to be quite realistic (or real-time) for a long time. AR, on the other hand, is just rife with applications that we can use now. The classic one I always think of is helping someone with Alzheimer's get home by "painting" a path of footsteps on the ground. Try that with an occulus rift, or any other VR setup. Almost guaranteed to be cumbersome and dangerous, if it can even be used outside of a lab at all.

blhack 13y ago
of course that could be used outside of a lab. look at things like world lens.
- npsimons 13y ago
  1) Your original post I responded to was talking about oculus rift; while it may be possible to use the oculus rift outdoors or untethered, it's definitely not currently being developed for that use case. 2) FWIW, world lens is described as augmented reality. Also, it has a much narrower FOV, probably doesn't update in real-time (and probably doesn't need to), doesn't require wearing a bulky headset, doesn't occlude your entire FOV, and in any case, is not connected to an oculus rift.
  - blhack 13y ago
    World lens does update in [practically] real time. And bringing it up was to address your claim that it was computationally infeasible to retransmit video with some of the content changed.
    - npsimons 13y ago
      World lens does update in [practically] real time. And "practically real time" isn't going to cut it for something which occludes your view, that was why I brought that, and my other points up. I didn't claim it was infeasible; I claimed it was currently infeasible to do it for the entire FOV of a human, and with that being true, it was impractical to assume that VR and AR can currently be applied to the same problems. In the future, the distinction between AR and VR may not need to be made, but before that can happen, VR (as it currently is) has a long way to go.

blhack 13y ago

of course that could be used outside of a lab. look at things like world lens.

npsimons 13y ago
1) Your original post I responded to was talking about oculus rift; while it may be possible to use the oculus rift outdoors or untethered, it's definitely not currently being developed for that use case. 2) FWIW, world lens is described as augmented reality. Also, it has a much narrower FOV, probably doesn't update in real-time (and probably doesn't need to), doesn't require wearing a bulky headset, doesn't occlude your entire FOV, and in any case, is not connected to an oculus rift.
- blhack 13y ago
  World lens does update in [practically] real time. And bringing it up was to address your claim that it was computationally infeasible to retransmit video with some of the content changed.
  - npsimons 13y ago
    World lens does update in [practically] real time. And "practically real time" isn't going to cut it for something which occludes your view, that was why I brought that, and my other points up. I didn't claim it was infeasible; I claimed it was currently infeasible to do it for the entire FOV of a human, and with that being true, it was impractical to assume that VR and AR can currently be applied to the same problems. In the future, the distinction between AR and VR may not need to be made, but before that can happen, VR (as it currently is) has a long way to go.