Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order • Hacker News Board

Re: Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order

#331

Post by p1esk » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

thetmkay wrote: post #173

soylentcola wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts as well. Plus the price is roughly comparable to a higher end smartphone. Given the hardware and software involved, it's not terribly far off for a gen 1 device. I think of the Palm and WinMo phones I paid $500+ for during the early generations of smartphones and it starts to make more sense. And just as I'm sure those devices from Palm and HTC could've been a lot nicer even with the tech of the day, the…

Unfortunately this is socially positioned more like a TV or a games console, rather than a smartphone (used every day all day), which have much longer lifespans than a smartphone (5-10 years vs 2-5 years). The interesting question is how long before this version of the Rift becomes obsolete, or will Oculus provide a contract-based upgrade plan (like for phones).

No one in their right mind would expect this hardware to stay relevant for more than 1-2 years. If you can't afford to spend $600 once a year, get a better job, or stop buying expensive toys.

I'd be totally OK with it costing $1000 if it could really provide a great VR experience.

Re: Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order

#332

Post by corysama » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

tslug wrote: post #279

vegabook wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sick from Doom"?? I don't remember anybody getting sick from Wolfenstein or Doom. Controversy around (for the time) violent graphic realism? Sure. Seasickness? No.

I was one of the developers on the original Doom and got so sick from playing it that it motivated me to debug my code faster. The phases were no problemo, sweating, farting, nausea, then that was it: gotta lie down and hug the cold, firm floor. I eventually became less sensitive to it. I imagine the same will happen with VR after we get our "VR legs".

Bonus: "VR legs" have been shown to carry over into meatspace. As in, there are VR users reporting "I can read in the car for the first time!" But, it takes a lot of slow, careful build-up to do well.

Conversely, if someone has bad experiences and tries to power-through them anyway repeatedly, it can build up an aversion similar to a "bad tequila night" and ruin VR for that person permanently.

Thanks for making Doom! :)

Re: Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order

#333

Post by usrusr » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:50 PM UTC

vernie wrote: post #186

strictnein wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of like saying to buy a car you need a $300k house with a garage, when in fact many of the people buying a car already have a house with a garage. That's also not a "killer" desktop. The 290 is a a 2.5 year old card. The GTX 970 is equivalent to a 680 or 780. The 680 came out almost four years ago. If you had no computer at all, you could build that system for ~$700 - $750 ($200 CPU, $100 Mobo, $200 Used GPU, $5…

If a hub solved the problem, they probably would have integrated it into their hardware. I suspect that it won't play nice with many hubs.

The "n USB ports" is truly weird, considering that separate ports more often than not share controllers, so the bandwidth would be shared anyways (correct me if i'm wrong).

Maybe the number of ports is for power, obviating the need to bundle a region-specific mains adapter? In that case, a powered USB hub would be fine, a passive one wouldn't.

Re: Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order

#334

Post by gtaylor » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:50 PM UTC

neuromute wrote: post #254

RRRA wrote: post #202

All I want for christmas is a Portal 3 and a VR headset for Linux (that actually is using a standrad like VGA was)... ;)

I was surprised to discover that Oculus have dropped support for Linux and OSX, at least for the time being. I'm sure you can still run the headsets, but it seems like a somewhat risky purchase as long as there is no official support. I'd love to hear about other Linux users' experience with a consumer unit though. I'm really excited about VR and would love to pick up a headset at some point soon. I hope Oculus start…

> I was surprised to discover that Oculus have dropped support for Linux and OSX, at least for the time being.

The graphic driver situation is abysmal for both. With Linux, you might as well not even bother with modern AMD cards. They've done a terrible job the last few years, often eschewing such things as a change log that shows what this random update you're downloading does.

NVIDIA is much better on Linux overall, but even they have got a lot of limitations and quirks. Performance is much better than AMD, as long as you don't use the open source drivers.

On Mac, the drivers are crazy out of date and seem to be very tied to specific Mac OS releases. I don't know whether to be irate with Apple or NVIDIA/AMD. Linux benchmarks better on many games than Mac OS. Phoronix runs these periodically if you wanted to see some numbers.

Re: Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order

#335

Post by timecube » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:57 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #230

vocatus_gate wrote: post #157

I think the biggest risk to adoption is real-world interest. I get that VR is a fun tech, and has some potentially cool possibilities. But to me and seemingly many other people, it's just not that interesting. I don't know why, maybe I'm not geek enough, but I just have zero interest. And frankly it feels kind of like a gimmick. I'm especially averse to the idea of strapping on a clumsy headset every time I want to u…

I think you're right. I have a DK-1 and I think it's a cool novelty, but in terms of mass market appeal and everyday uses, I don't really see it. You look weird with the thing on your head, it's heavy and fatigues your neck, you still have to use a kb/mouse input device to control anything other than where your avatar is looking, you can't see anything else around you without pulling the HMD away from your face (bigg…

The big breakthrough with the Rift CV1 / HTC Vive is a system to track headsets and peripherals in 3D space, allowing for

Re: Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order

#336

Post by timecube » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 9:57 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #230

vocatus_gate wrote: post #157

I think the biggest risk to adoption is real-world interest. I get that VR is a fun tech, and has some potentially cool possibilities. But to me and seemingly many other people, it's just not that interesting. I don't know why, maybe I'm not geek enough, but I just have zero interest. And frankly it feels kind of like a gimmick. I'm especially averse to the idea of strapping on a clumsy headset every time I want to u…

I think you're right. I have a DK-1 and I think it's a cool novelty, but in terms of mass market appeal and everyday uses, I don't really see it. You look weird with the thing on your head, it's heavy and fatigues your neck, you still have to use a kb/mouse input device to control anything other than where your avatar is looking, you can't see anything else around you without pulling the HMD away from your face (bigg…

The big breakthrough with the Rift CV1 / HTC Vive is a system to track headsets and peripherals in 3D space, allowing for

Re: Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order

#337

Post by HCIdivision17 » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

chipsy wrote: post #314

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is the FIRST consumer release! This is the Palm Pilot 1 of VR. Actually, there were multiple VR technologies released in the 90s and 2000s. This isn't like being on the groundfloor of some new concept, its like a revival of something old. I wish Oculus all the luck in the world, but this technology has failed in the market many times. Yes, maybe more FPS and higher resolutions is what was needed, but I guess we…

In support of your comment, I would point out that gaming has become progressively less interesting for its technical developments over time. The first videogames really were revolutionary, even as they were derided for being crude, inauthentic, or simple transcriptions of games already playable with cards, pen and paper. The improvements from there have made them more accessible and appealing, but the forms and mean…

I think there's a good argument to be made that the sooner we make this tech boring, the better. I want this stuff to be off-the-shelf, got-it-by-default now. When it's fully proliferated and cheap with loads of Stack Overflow-like answers and tutorials for it (like phone accelerometers and motion capture software), the sooner we'll really start developing and digging into the cool stuff. And get the crufty stuff out of the way.

But I fundamentally disaggree that it's less interesting. I'm going to assume you're just jaded by the awesome we're constantly surrounded by instead of just taking the easy, boring interpretation. Even 2D animation is advancing where you wouldn't expect (I found the technical work giving the artists better control on The Paperman surprising [0]). New rendering philosophies, networking algorithms, AI/bots, social integration, all of this leads to a refinement that's well worth the effort.

It took a long, long time to get from oscilloscopes [1] to the Occulus, and hopefully in a couple generations we'll have even cooler stuff. Expect to see demos and then have to wait a while for the hard, brutal engineering work to make it actually usable [2].

For the Occulus, the real win is getting the feedback loop between a just-good-enough-monitor and the accelerometer down to few enough milliseconds the brain can kinda fall for it. Like a cartoon, but for motion feedback. Expect other companies to say "I can do better" and let the races begin. The Occulus is a big deal, and better stuff is just a little bit away.

Don't be jaded! Real cool stuff is in the pipe!

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_for_Two [2] http://dougengelbart.org/events/1968-demo-highlights.html

Re: Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order

#338

Post by Tepix » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #246

aresant wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I literally feel sorry for you, not in an unfriendly way, that you haven't seen the right demo yet and can't share the insane excitement that I have for this technology. This is the FIRST consumer release! This is the Palm Pilot 1 of VR. Yes most of the content right now is mediocre but there are some mindblowing experiences too. For instance Elite Dangerous + DK2 + Motion Sim. It literally feels like you are pilotin…

>This is the FIRST consumer release! This is the Palm Pilot 1 of VR. Actually, there were multiple VR technologies released in the 90s and 2000s. This isn't like being on the groundfloor of some new concept, its like a revival of something old. I wish Oculus all the luck in the world, but this technology has failed in the market many times. Yes, maybe more FPS and higher resolutions is what was needed, but I guess we…

The difference is presence. This gear is good enough to fool your lizard brain. That's the new part.

Re: Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order

#339

Post by cgarrard » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 10:09 PM UTC

tallanvor wrote: post #164

Has anyone with vision issues been able to try out the hardware? I suppose it's more of a software issue, but I'm blind in one eye, and if applications assume you have vision in both eyes, you could end up with usability issues when controls are only displayed on one screen or the other.

Totally blind or just legally blind? My left eye can count fingers up to a distance of 2' with peripheral vision and a complete lack of foveal vision. Playing around with the DK2 I still felt the "presence" VR tries to achieve.

Re: Oculus Rift: Available for pre-order

#340

Post by ericd » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #260

k-mcgrady wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say you're getting a lot more at a much cheaper price with Occulus Rift than you did with Glass. I think the point is charge more if that's what it takes to create a good experience. Google charged a lot more and the experience was awful. I used it for 1 week and to me Glass seemed like something that was a year or two from being ready for release. The extra expense didn't get you a killer experience.

Glass in mass production was supposed to be a $200 - $299 device from industry estimates at the time. One report claimed it contained $80 in parts. That's a lot of leeway to push itself into the low end of the tech enthusiast market, if Google ever really wants to make it a consumer item.

The Oculus is an amazing and wholly novel experience, the Glass is a completely underwhelming one. I don't think Google could sell many of them, even at a much lower price point.