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

VR

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#241

Post by Animats »

I've tried the Vibe and the Microsoft Hololens. The Vibe feels like a minor improvement over Jaron Lainer's original unit from the 1980s, which I tried back then. It's still too big and heavy. The update rate and position tracking are at last acceptable. It's going to be popular with the FPS gamer crowd, but beyond that, it doesn't seem worth the trouble.

The Hololens packs an incredible amount of hardware into a small package. That's a very good piece of mechanical and electrical engineering. While it can't really "draw dark", it does a decent job of trying, displaying against a filtered background of the real world. It's also cordless, which the VR guys really should have had by now. Its display field of view is too small; it can't maintain the illusion of markers on the world. A wider field of view and it will be useful.

Re: VR

#242

Post by erikbye »

kurthr wrote: post #183
erikbye wrote: post #30

Selling my Vive tomorrow, before it's too late (unsellable due to something better on the market). I'm not going back to try VR till the resolution is something like 8k per eye and the optical quality is far better. FOV needs to be much wider, HMD lighter and more comfortable, and of course wireless (I know you can get this now). I have a dedicated home theater and room scale still does not work, because you will nev…

I hope that you realize that 8k/eye at 120Hz is in the 100Gb/s range with compression, that you won't see because it's already a retina display (60ppd) at 130deg view angle. Also there are NO GPUs that could come close to rendering a single eye today at even 60Hz (even 30Hz would be absolutely top end). So, I think your requirements are completely unrealistic, but I agree that the current VR (1k/eye at Unfortunately,…

I said that was when I would go back to VR. Of course I know we don't have the consumer hardware to run it today. But we will in 10 years.

Re: VR

#244

Post by guelo »

People already spend significant amounts of time on game console screens and there hasn't been an explosion of non-game apps on those.

Re: VR

#245

Post by mquander »

iagooar wrote: post #199

I have mixed feelings about the potential of VR, and seeing YC pushing for it makes me reconsider my position. Let me explain. I preordered the HTC Vive as soon as it was available in Europe. I got it shipped and the excitement couldn't be bigger. When I first tried, I was blown away. It was an experience I never had had before. I described it once as the single, most beautiful digital experience in my life. And I re…

This matches the experience that I've had personally with VR. Maybe if a future phone-based mobile headset with quality hardware (i.e. decent controls a la Daydream or Leap Motion and inside-out tracking) comes to exist, then the commitment level will decrease dramatically and recurring use will increase.

Re: VR

#246

Post by erikbye »

janoc wrote: post #215
erikbye wrote: post #30

Selling my Vive tomorrow, before it's too late (unsellable due to something better on the market). I'm not going back to try VR till the resolution is something like 8k per eye and the optical quality is far better. FOV needs to be much wider, HMD lighter and more comfortable, and of course wireless (I know you can get this now). I have a dedicated home theater and room scale still does not work, because you will nev…

>Certainly VR has potential, I just think the HMDs we have now feel old and dated already. It's 2016 (when released) and it's heavy and wired, basically ski goggles with crappy monitors and crappy lenses hugging my face. While I agree with many of your sentiments, I don't think you are realizing that only 2-3 years ago an HMD meant something like a Sensics zSight or one of the Collins/Rockwell ones. Starting price $4…

I don't get why you, or the other person who replied, concluded that I thought 8k per eye was feasable now. I only said that was when I was going back to try VR. I'm positive we have at least that resolution in 10 years. I am also perfectly aware of all the challenges involved in outputting such a resolution and manufacturing such a display.

As for the history lesson, I played the SU2000.

Re: VR

#247

Post by mysterydip »

thenomad wrote: post #138
mysterydip wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've wondered if scaled movement was possible or if it would really mess with our brains. For example, 1m realspace = 3m in VR. Would your body adjust to smaller/slower movements, or would there be a disorientation?

That works for some people but not all - but for those it does work for, it works very well. I've added exactly that - scaled movement - as an option into my VR game, Left-Hand Path, and so far most of my users are very positive about it. I love it personally - it feels very much like it doubles my available play area. One of my playtesters hated it and found it made him nauseous, though, so like many VR locomotion o…

I'd love to read/hear more about your experiences, as a fellow gamedev and looking at VR but not ready to take that plunge yet (couple projects first).

Re: VR

#248

Post by monkeynotes »

enraged_camel wrote: post #19

Maybe it's just me but I'm much more excited about Augmented Reality than Virtual Reality. Recently I was looking for a new place to rent, and in every place I visited I kept trying to picture in my mind how my existing furniture would fit (and look) in the new space. It was so mentally tiring. I wish AR was advanced enough such that the rental agent would simply hire me a pair of AR glasses, I could log in to an acc…

I completely agree. VR is a false start for a couple of reasons.

1) Spending a couple of hours in VR messes with your body, many feel motion sickness and other effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality_sickness

2) As antisocial as staring at your iPhone is, VR is much worse. You can't even function in the environment you are physically in because your body thinks it's somewhere else.

I think VR is really interesting, don't get me wrong, but it's not the next app platform. Yes it suits gaming really well if you don't get sick, but Augmented Reality is the next iPhone, and we are probably many years away from doing it right. We're not even at the T-Mobile Sidekick stage yet.

I would buy a discrete AR headset like I'd buy a smartphone, but I can't see myself buying a VR headset for anything other than setting aside an hour or so to be entertained.

Re: VR

#249

Post by schnelle »

thesmallestcat wrote: post #163

Nobody wants VR. You can try and ram it down our throats all you want with TV adds showing befuddled old people discovering the wonders of a phone strapped to their head, or calling VR systems a "hot Christmas gift," but that won't change the fact that nobody wants it. It's too awkward, and it makes the user too vulnerable. You cannot create this market.

I wanted VR. I spent 800 on a Vive and 700 on a GeForce 1080.

Get some sleep, gramps.

Re: VR

#250

Post by 0xdada »

thenomad wrote: post #192
mwseibel wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree! The immersive experience not only makes you forget that you are working out but also makes you want to be better at moving around so you can perform better in the game.

Now just imagine how that'll play out when we have really good competitive VR games that are also cardio workouts - so you're aiming to out-fitness the millions of other players. The first DOTA or Counterstrike equivalent for VR that also rewards fitness with increased game ability will unleash a legion of very, very fit competitive gamers on the world. Bearing in mind - 7 hr a week is more or less the minimum to be…

It's more like 7 hours a day to be anywhere near competitive at DotA.
Post reply on HN