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

281–290 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#281

Post by falcolas »

erikbye wrote: post #242
kurthr wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As slow as growth has become in the graphics card and general computing industry, getting to the point where we can do 120hz at 8k per eye is a lot further than 10 years off. It will require a significant change in how (where?) we're generating graphics, not just better hardware.

Re: VR

#282

Post by nsxwolf »

cr0sh wrote: post #136
madamelic wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cable is very long and it is "room-scale" (You can move around), meaning games involve actually moving around. And soon there will be wireless adapters.

The problem with "room scale" is very few people have a (near empty) room in their households which they can dedicate to a single-user VR experience. Every user in the household would need their own room (hmm - will new homes be advertised with these as "upgrades"?)...

I have a 2m x 2m area in the basement I use. I wish I had a little more space but it works well most of the time. The low ceiling is the problem - your brain is so convinced that there is sky or a high ceiling above you that you try to throw something over your head and smash the controller into the ceiling. I have marks on the walls and drywall dust embedded in my controllers. The chaperone boundaries can't do anything to warn you about that and those mistakes happen too quickly anyway.

Re: VR

#283

Post by carlosdp »

callmeed wrote: post #216
sixQuarks wrote: post #115

I can't believe some people are saying VR is a fad, that it's not going to work, etc, etc. Are you kidding me? The only real question is how long it's going to take before it's fully integrated into our daily lives, there is absolutely no doubt this will happen (unless we somehow go backwards technologically, due to world war or some other unforeseen event). It may not happen for another 10-15 years, but it WILL happ…

I'm hugely bearish on VR, I think its a fad (again), and I'm not kidding you. You talk in such absolutes that I wonder if you've ever done any research on past technology endeavors. LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches. VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more. While I can appreciate your enthusiasm, there are always doubts.

Idk dude, VR headsets have already sold to millions of consumers and new applications pop up by the day. Not only that, but unlike most of the technologies you mentioned, VR has massive backing already from some of the most powerful companies in tech.

It has billions in investment already, FB is putting hundreds of millions into Oculus and funding applications/games. HTC has basically pivoted their entire company to the Vive.

This isn't going away, VR/AR is going to replace current keyboard/mouse/screen interfaces, because why wouldn't it? The aforementioned are even further from replicating what I am trying to do on a computer. Why do I have to move a mouse in two dimensions or tap on a flat display to interact with many concepts much easier to work with in 3D?

Re: VR

#284

Post by codingdave »

I just said this a few days ago on another topic, but it bears repeating here -- people are thinking too narrowly. Replacing Input X for Input Y or Output X for Output Y are not seeing the big picture. Inputs and Outputs are now a multitude. We are entering the era of many-to-many for I/O.

The companies that succeed are not going be the software dudes who make their apps work for web, phones and VR (that will be a requirement, not a killer feature). No, the success stories will be those who build the glue to let everyone else easily make "all the things" work for all the inputs and all the outputs.

Re: VR

#285

Post by catshirt »

callmeed wrote: post #216
sixQuarks wrote: post #115

I can't believe some people are saying VR is a fad, that it's not going to work, etc, etc. Are you kidding me? The only real question is how long it's going to take before it's fully integrated into our daily lives, there is absolutely no doubt this will happen (unless we somehow go backwards technologically, due to world war or some other unforeseen event). It may not happen for another 10-15 years, but it WILL happ…

I'm hugely bearish on VR, I think its a fad (again), and I'm not kidding you. You talk in such absolutes that I wonder if you've ever done any research on past technology endeavors. LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches. VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more. While I can appreciate your enthusiasm, there are always doubts.

> "VR doesn't even replicate reality"

if you meant to use "doesn't"- then you're only proving OPs point. VR is a matter of when, not if.

if you meant to use "can't"- well- that seems a little short sighted for something that is so obviously in the realm of physical possibility.

Re: VR

#286

Post by rl3 »

artur_makly wrote: post #277

VR Porn will totally destroy all social norms and sexual IRL practices. It's WAY too damn real, especially if you mix it with a real partner.

All I can picture here is two clunky headsets colliding in awkward fashion.

There was an episode of Black Mirror that dealt with this though, using AR contact lenses instead.

Re: VR

#287

Post by mtw »

Am I the only one who's more excited by mixed reality such as Hololens?

I can't imagine VR being as omnipresent in our daily lives in its current state. Oculus or Vive implies you are shutting yourself from the outside world. You cannot interact. You cannot go out, talk with others etc. It's easy however to imaging how Hololens can enhance existing reality and how anyone (even my grandmother) could use it for their daily lives.

Re: VR

#288

Post by bencollier49 »

What's the model for building apps, then. Oculus is owned by Facebook. How do you create a game - does it require a paid SDK?

Re: VR

#289

Post by superplussed »

ehsanu1 wrote: post #226
superplussed wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please consider moon physics! I haven't heard anyone talk about this but I've thought this was the answer to locomotion in VR. It strikes a balance between realistic movement and not being too tiring, and moon jumping would be hella fun, especially in a FPS.

Ever played instagib with a low gravity mod in a regular FPS? It can be fun, but the gameplay becomes pretty limited, and I imagine the moon physics being similar in a VR FPS. Maybe projectile weapons only would make it work better, or the fact that hitscan is a lot harder in an HMD than with a monitor.

I always thought that the mitigating factor here would be that you don't have to take big loping leaps, you can also accomplish a fairly earth-like gait, just with fewer steps.

I could also see another way of using it that is similar to the teleport mechanic where you clear an area, make a big jump, and when you land you clear that next area before taking another jump. But it would be an interesting thing, almost like a angry birds pulling the slingshot back thing, where the accuracy of the jump is also put to the test.

Re: VR

#290

Post by sevensor »

iplaw wrote: post #10

Blown away? Hyperbole of the century. At CES this year, I tried all the VR/AR tech I could get my hands on. Microsoft HoloLens, HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, Sony VR, Galaxy Gear, and everything in between. I wasn't expecting much and yet I was still underwhelmed. There is zero immersion, primarily due to the poor resolution, the screen door effect, and the crippled field of view. It felt like watching a scene through a pai…

I'm old enough to remember the last VR boom. I was even lucky enough to work in a CAVE for a bit. That hype train derailed around 2000. The same promises were made, the same breathless enthusiasm, the same feeling that we were about to ascend into the cybernetic matrix. It didn't turn out that way, and the only thing that's fundamentally changed is that the hardware is cheaper. This is going to bankrupt some investors, and the remaining companies will serve a niche market.
Post reply on HN