Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

#21

Post by brian-armstrong »

ideonexus wrote: post #11

I once loved Second Life. So many science demonstrations (NASA, NOAA, and many museums setup virtual campuses there that are still amazing), gatherings, museums, and educational experiences that only a virtual world can provide. Then it became a ghost town (with some mostly-NSFW exceptions). The problem is that SL is closed source. I once tried to run a virtual field trip with 10 kids to show them around, but Linden…

I'm skeptical that closed source is what's actually holding SL back. I think splintering it into lots of shards would actually hurt something like this, which is closer to a social network. Once you shard it out, you get even further from critical mass, lots of desolate servers with nothing going on and inconsistent rules/user experiences

Re: Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

#22

Post by logfromblammo »

ideonexus wrote: post #11

I once loved Second Life. So many science demonstrations (NASA, NOAA, and many museums setup virtual campuses there that are still amazing), gatherings, museums, and educational experiences that only a virtual world can provide. Then it became a ghost town (with some mostly-NSFW exceptions). The problem is that SL is closed source. I once tried to run a virtual field trip with 10 kids to show them around, but Linden…

I played with SL for about a week in 2005 before deciding that paying Linden Labs for the privilege of producing content for them was a fool's game.

Re: Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

#23

Post by sandworm101 »

amateurpolymath wrote: post #7
sandworm101 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Can it mimic all the qualities of a good hike -- visuals, body movement, sounds? I've got some VR hiking goggles to sell you. They are cheap, lightweight and totally wireless, but only work in the woods. They were featured on a recent SouthPark episode. Too many discussions focus on VR being a drop-in replacement for reality. Nobody should expect them to mimic reality any more than they expect computer screens to…

I think many people who are physically unable to take a hike (disabled, elderly, ill, etc.) would appreciate a VR system that can closely mimic a real hike. Also, if a VR system can perform well as a hiking simulator it would be able to realistically simulate things that don't exist, places that are too difficult/expensive for an average person to visit, or experiences that are too dangerous to attempt in reality. ED…

But if they are disabled, then they in fact want the VR system not to emulate a hike. They cannot walk and so do not want a VR system that makes them walk. The OP was discussing a VR scheme that would mimic body movements akin to the physicality of actually hiking (ie VR on a treadmill).

Re: Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

#24

Post by BOBOTWINSTON »

azinman2 wrote: post #4

Just because something is in 3D doesn't make it automatically better -- often times it's worse as you now have artificial constraints that you didn't have before. For example, it's far easier to scroll through Instagram with your fingers (a UI win) and have every photo at 100% scale than to glide through a 3d representation where much more work has to be done. Certainly you wouldn't want the world to scroll you in VR…

I agree with the key point here: VR will not replace all other forms of UI.

It is a mistake to look at VR UIs as strictly 3D. There is no reason you could not scroll through your photos on a 2D screen with your fingers in VR. You can even have the added benefit of spawning multiple giant 2D screens, then grabbing photos off them for a scrap book or a virtual art gallery.

I've shared a great deal of locomotion experiences with other Vive owners. VR sickness seems a lot rarer than it was hyped up to be, and definitely a lot easier to acclimate to. I wonder how many vomiting journalists would be fine if they eased into it over a day or two. I can fly around in Windlands without flinching these days. Don't get me wrong, nausea is still a real design constraint, but we might be a lot more adaptive to VR and weird locomotion.

On the topic of session lengths, I firmly believe this is just an issue with content and ergonomics. I've done a few 6 hours sessions in multiplayer games, the problem is barely any exist. I haven't heard anyone experience "immersion fatigue", but some games will cause actual physical fatigue. Thankfully I already stand all day and it isn't an issue. I think if you already can play a game for 8 hours, VR will be there to provide the same in the future.

Re: Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

#25

Post by phantom_package »

sandworm101 wrote: post #6
amateurpolymath wrote: post #3

I recently listened to an interesting discussion[1] about VR on a friend's recommendation. One of the guests had a great test for quality VR: can it perform as a hiking simulator? Can it mimic all the qualities of a good hike -- visuals, body movement, sounds? It seems to me we're much closer to a great AR experience than truly great and immersive VR. [1]: https://www.relay.fm/rocket/20

>> Can it mimic all the qualities of a good hike -- visuals, body movement, sounds? I've got some VR hiking goggles to sell you. They are cheap, lightweight and totally wireless, but only work in the woods. They were featured on a recent SouthPark episode. Too many discussions focus on VR being a drop-in replacement for reality. Nobody should expect them to mimic reality any more than they expect computer screens to…

Agreed. While I do think there are some interesting applications for building perfect reconstructions of reality, I think the most interesting experiences won't be in that direction.

Re: Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

#26

Post by sanderjd »

tlarkworthy wrote: post #13
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear "Virtual Conferences" as a big VR application. But how about we solve videoconferences first? Skype/Hangouts etc. hasn't improved noticeably in the last ten years. Videocalls still suffer from latency and poor image quality.

really? I frequently video conference to places will 11 hour time differences, and I am constantly amazed how well it works. I am pretty sure 10 years ago this wasn't practical.

It definitely wasn't. I worked at a web conferencing company in 2007 and my sense was that video conferencing was limited to big entities with deep pockets and dedicated setups. Now anybody can do it and it works pretty well. It would be nice to get from "pretty well" to "so close to perfect that everyone forgets this was ever a hard thing", and it does seem like progress has been a bit slow on that front, but it seems like we're at the point where it will continuously improve constantly but almost imperceptibly.

Re: Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

#27

Post by GauntletWizard »

azinman2 wrote: post #20
napworth wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. However on the otherhand, walking around a 3D art gallery where each wall is dedicated to one of the accounts you are following would be a benecicial use of the technology. You could easily scan the small framed images for those you like, and click on them to visualise them at full size in front of you.

Have you tried this? I've done a couple of 3d museums in the oculus & cardboard and it's a terrible experience. Scanning small images is not an improved experience over existing feeds on mobile phones, especially for something where you end up only looking at a photo you like for 0.4-2 seconds anyway.

If the content is 2d, I imagine a 2d interface is the right way to view it. Real paintings aren't 2d, though - Even modern fully-computerized paintings are actually 3d planar constructs, because artists use many layers in their construction, though that's often not exposed.

Real paintings have brushstrokes, bumps, texture and depth. Even the most high-res scans of paintings utterly fail to capture that. The Met has a fantastic collection of art scans that you can browse online[1]. Some of those works are stunning, even in thumbnails. But they still pale in comparison to how they are when you're up close, when you can see the grain of the canvas, the brushstrokes and dabs of paint, the way that it all pieces together. I always view a painting from multiple angles, looking from the left and right, tilting my head. Texture matters, a lot. VR can provide that in a way a 2d (or even flat 3d) monitor never could.

The real promise is an endless, densely packed 3d museum, where you can single out an exhibit, open it in it's own room, and enlarge/move it as you see fit. You walk down the aisle, viewing many pieces in an infinite array, and zoom in when you like one. You get many constantly changing angles, which is what our brains were built to deal with.

It's not there yet. Tilt Brush gives us a taste. More will come.

[1] http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection

Re: Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

#28

Post by BatFastard »

BOBOTWINSTON wrote: post #24
azinman2 wrote: post #4

Just because something is in 3D doesn't make it automatically better -- often times it's worse as you now have artificial constraints that you didn't have before. For example, it's far easier to scroll through Instagram with your fingers (a UI win) and have every photo at 100% scale than to glide through a 3d representation where much more work has to be done. Certainly you wouldn't want the world to scroll you in VR…

I agree with the key point here: VR will not replace all other forms of UI. It is a mistake to look at VR UIs as strictly 3D. There is no reason you could not scroll through your photos on a 2D screen with your fingers in VR. You can even have the added benefit of spawning multiple giant 2D screens, then grabbing photos off them for a scrap book or a virtual art gallery. I've shared a great deal of locomotion experie…

One BIG problem with SL is a horrible, hard to use, unintuitive UI.

-- It's easy to make things hard to use, it's hard to make them easy to use. --

Re: Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

#29

Post by Jtsummers »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #21
ideonexus wrote: post #11

I once loved Second Life. So many science demonstrations (NASA, NOAA, and many museums setup virtual campuses there that are still amazing), gatherings, museums, and educational experiences that only a virtual world can provide. Then it became a ghost town (with some mostly-NSFW exceptions). The problem is that SL is closed source. I once tried to run a virtual field trip with 10 kids to show them around, but Linden…

I'm skeptical that closed source is what's actually holding SL back. I think splintering it into lots of shards would actually hurt something like this, which is closer to a social network. Once you shard it out, you get even further from critical mass, lots of desolate servers with nothing going on and inconsistent rules/user experiences

Rather than sharding, consider federation. Anyone should be able to run a server and allow "doorways" or other access points to other servers, hyperlinks.

I recall, circa 2000, a project that I can't name at the moment that I toyed with in college that had this concept. You could host your own area and connect it to other areas hosted by other people. The name "Metaverse" is in my head, but googling it (quick search, probably missed something) was dominated by Stephenson's concept from Snow Crash and not a software project by that name.

Re: Fans of Second Life Hope to Bring VR Back to the Classroom

#30

Post by corysama »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #10
Jtsummers wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Negroponte's failure with the OLPC project comes to mind. A mix of cheap netbooks, tablets, and phones made it quickly irrelevant. To be fair to OLPC, it just predated those other devices. It [the hardware] was developed precisely because cheap laptops didn't yet exist, and then the form and market came into existence and obsoleted a large part of the project's efforts (the physical hardware development, not its ed…

Not really, but the time they were actually shipping the olpc in non-trivial deployments, the netbook revolution was already here. Intel also had the education aimed Classmate netbook as well. 2007 article on the two competing platforms: http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/03/acomparison-of-... >nd then the form and market came into existence and obsoleted a large part of the project's efforts It was also a ter…

I seem to remember around 2007 there were several netbook manufactures who were just getting started calling out the OLPC as the direct inspiration for creating the market segment in the first place. Meanwhile, that article describes Intel's device as having a better CPU, but half the screen rez, 1/5 the battery life and costing hopefully only a bit more than twice as much two years later.

The OLPC hardware was very low-spec. But, it was a brilliant design for being so low spec. It's UI was considered alien at the time. But, today the app-based, fileless approach has been proven out by the tablet market to be much better for the mainstream, non-hardcore user.

It's unfortunate they insisted on running so much in Python on such a tiny CPU. I understand that they really wanted view/modify source as standard for the kids. But, the only language I could see that working out well at the time would have been Lua --which doesn't have nearly as much clout as Python even today.

In my outside observation, OLPC was mostly tanked by politicians declaring that "If our kids can't use it to learn Microsoft Office, I don't want it even for free." There were a multitude of issues. But, that one really cut off the investment that could have overcome them.

Post reply on HN