4 ms·

> Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex This comes somewhere on the tech tree after "practical flying cars" and "solving world

by glimcat 13y ago

> Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex This comes somewhere on the tech tree after "practical flying cars" and "solving world hunger." But eventually, sure, why not. > That said, could you be more specific about the problems caused with our current VR technology, and the reason they happen? The most common and superficial health issue with VR (and AR) would be simulator sickness. The visual cues don't match what the brain expects via other sense data, so you get sick. It happens to some people much more easily than others. More direct hazards: Safety issues, e.g. tripping on stuff you can't see while operating a VR headset, or being distracted due to virtual stimuli. Vision impairment, primarily in children younger than 6-10 years, but potentially also in older users with compromised vision systems. Temporary visual impairment, typically after sessions longer than 20 minutes. Pronounced eyestrain due to unnatural focal behavior, object tracking, display quality, and optical alignment. Nice papers to read: Costello, "Health and Safety Issues associated with Virtual Reality - A Review of Current Literature" http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.3025&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.3... Viire, "Health and safety issues for VR". It gets cited around lots even though it's over 10 years old now, but I couldn't find a free copy. Look it up on ACM if you have access. You can preview the first page at the following URL. http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/health-and-safety-issues-for-vr-wOI06QQ7aE http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machine... Stanney, "Realizing the full potential of virtual reality: human factors issues that could stand in the way." Starts on page 39 of the following PDF. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232654060_Pen-based_force_display_for_precision_manipulation_in_virtual_environments/file/72e7e51f1b1991a916.pdf#page=39 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232654060_Pen-based_... You'll note that these are all late 90s. VR research was much better funded then. You can find more recent stuff though, at least with appropriate database access. More work did get done, but shoehorned under different keywords since "virtual reality" stopped being trendy. > You are worried about supposed problems that came from 10+ year old tech. (from sibling's child) Nope. The main difference between 10 year old VR headsets and the ones you can buy today is that the use of bulky CRT eyepieces vs. LED-based eyepieces. The middle ground being LEDs with gradually improving dot pitch. The human issues remain more or less the same, seeing as nobody has re-engineered the human body in the last 10 years. My grad advisor had been involved in VR & AR research going back - I forget, 20 or 30 years. So I did a fair amount of reading on the topic. You can make slightly better headsets today, particularly if money is no object - but the core limitations are really the human factors, and the timing constraints necessary to accommodate human senses and rate of motion.

lotsofmangos 13y ago
Practical flying cars, at least as they are seen in films, requires a method of flying that does not rely on aerodynamics or reaction mass and has an energy store that is far better than petrol. Today we have experiments that bring limited sight to the blind and cochlear implants that bypass the ear are routine operations. I would say that gaming implants are a lot closer than you might think and are almost certainly closer than practical flying cars. Solving world hunger isn't really on the tech tree, given there is already surplus food. It is firmly on the politics tree.
- marvin 13y ago
  >Practical flying cars, at least as they are seen in films, requires a method of flying that does not rely on aerodynamics or reaction mass and has an energy store that is far better than petrol. That's not true. All you'd need is batteries with higher capacity and some clever engineering of ducted fan propellers with variable geometry. You couldn't manage nearly as high speeds as passenger airliners in the lower atmosphere, but you could certainly manage cruise at speeds and efficiencies around those of a car. A modern sailplane cruises at an effective energy consumption of 3 kW (4 HP) at 100kph (calculated as sink rate at max L/D times gross weight). You wouldn't get this efficient without some really smart engineering of the lifting surfaces, but there are plenty of avenues that haven't been explored yet if you've got VTOL capability and don't have to engineer the wings for safe landing speeds. The key is that the design has to use wings, it's the only practical way to generate lift efficiently.
  - lotsofmangos 13y ago
    I said as they are seen in films. The ones in films vtol right next to pedestrians and other vehicles and have no wings. To achieve that, they are not pushing air around. Of course you can always get a microlight, but they already exist and they are not flying cars.
    - marvin 13y ago
      There are huge engineering avenues that haven't been explored at all in this regard. As I said, all contemporary aircraft have large wings in part because they have to maintain high lift at low speeds, when landing. There is a big likelihood that some design compromise could be made where a lifting-body design, foldable wings or similar concept could be used to make a much smaller and more lightweight vehicle. A more realistic answer to your initial post is that we don't know yet, not that it is impossible.

by glimcat 13y ago

lotsofmangos 13y ago

Practical flying cars, at least as they are seen in films, requires a method of flying that does not rely on aerodynamics or reaction mass and has an energy store that is far better than petrol. Today we have experiments that bring limited sight to the blind and cochlear implants that bypass the ear are routine operations. I would say that gaming implants are a lot closer than you might think and are almost certainly closer than practical flying cars. Solving world hunger isn't really on the tech tree, given there is already surplus food. It is firmly on the politics tree.

marvin 13y ago
>Practical flying cars, at least as they are seen in films, requires a method of flying that does not rely on aerodynamics or reaction mass and has an energy store that is far better than petrol. That's not true. All you'd need is batteries with higher capacity and some clever engineering of ducted fan propellers with variable geometry. You couldn't manage nearly as high speeds as passenger airliners in the lower atmosphere, but you could certainly manage cruise at speeds and efficiencies around those of a car. A modern sailplane cruises at an effective energy consumption of 3 kW (4 HP) at 100kph (calculated as sink rate at max L/D times gross weight). You wouldn't get this efficient without some really smart engineering of the lifting surfaces, but there are plenty of avenues that haven't been explored yet if you've got VTOL capability and don't have to engineer the wings for safe landing speeds. The key is that the design has to use wings, it's the only practical way to generate lift efficiently.
- lotsofmangos 13y ago
  I said as they are seen in films. The ones in films vtol right next to pedestrians and other vehicles and have no wings. To achieve that, they are not pushing air around. Of course you can always get a microlight, but they already exist and they are not flying cars.
  - marvin 13y ago
    There are huge engineering avenues that haven't been explored at all in this regard. As I said, all contemporary aircraft have large wings in part because they have to maintain high lift at low speeds, when landing. There is a big likelihood that some design compromise could be made where a lifting-body design, foldable wings or similar concept could be used to make a much smaller and more lightweight vehicle. A more realistic answer to your initial post is that we don't know yet, not that it is impossible.