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

301–310 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#301

Post by timdeneau »

superplussed wrote: post #202
timdeneau wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think fitness is going to be huge with VR gaming. We’re developing an FPS game, and are researching walking and jogging in place to drive character locomotion. The new Vive trackers are an exciting announcement, because that means we can have ankle tracking. In-game hands and feet.

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.

We’re mostly intrigued with 1:1 locomotion and agility in competitive multiplayer. For instance players who can run a marathon, or throw a baseball, will have a distinct competitive advantage over players who cannot. But, in theory, if you played enough it would supplement physical training.

But moon jumping would be a fun game concept :)

Re: VR

#302

Post by kurthr »

falcolas wrote: post #281
erikbye wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're absolutely right... But by rendering separately the high resolution and low resolution views (each at 1k, but one 4x upscaled) we could do 60Hz today. It only requires 2 FHD renders (which is less than a 4k 2eye view at UHD) so 60Hz is very reasonable... possibly 90-120Hz. It also cuts the bandwidth by 8x (2/16) without compression.

Re: VR

#303

Post by mozumder »

carlosdp wrote: post #283
callmeed wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

None of that means it will succeed.

Apple Watch sold millions, and it's about to fail. Same with all the other smartwatches.

VR is going away, since it's such a terrible user experience compared to laptops/desktops/smartphones.

Re: VR

#304

Post by Zikes »

benmcnelly wrote: post #52
eduren wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your solution for mounting the base stations? I've looked into tripods before, but the sensors are meant to be much more firmly mounted from what I've read.

The best I have found so far* is a PVC 5 way side outlet with some short legs for stability and a tall sections based on how high you want to go. I wanted added stability to I made two per lighthouse, and a cross beam on top. Using some old go-pro accessories to attach. *You are right, you want it to be super stable, moving it while its plugged in can seriously damage it.

Could you post photos of them? I'd love to see if it's something I could also build.

Re: VR

#305

Post by sixQuarks »

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.

Yes, all of the past technologies you listed, I was bearish on. If you have tried the current crop of VR and don't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you. Come back to this thread 10 years from now so i can say "I told you so".

Re: VR

#306

Post by freehunter »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #269
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…

> The games I like the best works better without VR. Sim racing games could be one exception, but are, for the moment, better with a triple monitor setup. Games like Pillars of Eternity have no need for VR, IMO. This is a very valid criticism. The current limitations of VR require developers to design different kinds of games. I found Valve's The Lab to be excellent. It's frustrating as a designer, because you may no…

I haven't actually played any games in VR yet, but is there any reason the headset couldn't display a normal game? Even if it doesn't need VR and doesn't benefit in any way from head tracking or 3D visuals, just imagining a hypothetical future situation where all 2D monitors on the face of the Earth are replaced by VR headsets, you could still play Pillars of Eternity on a VR headset and it wouldn't be any worse, right? There's no technical reason a VR headset couldn't replicate a regular monitor?

Re: VR

#307

Post by romaniv »

problems wrote: post #280
pera wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so different from my experience with the HTC Vive: while I obviously perceived the poor resolution, screen door effect, etc., after the first minute I started feeling more and more immersed, and then something in my brain clicked, pretty much like when you are falling asleep. That's when everything started feeling almost like a lucid dream. My heartbeat was noticeable faster and I felt strangely happy/exited,…

Interesting. I've got a 4k setup with a GTX 1080 at home right now. I'm sort of debating about a Vive or another 1080 when I've got some extra cash to blow. The Vive seems harder to rationalize because it seems like a really expensive toy with only a few crappy games for it. Am I wrong about this? Is the VR really worth it? I keep reading awful things about the resolution and about motion sickness issues - I care ver…

The coolest thing about VR right now isn't the visuals, it's the controllers. Being able to move around and interact with things in virtual space is a very powerful experience/concept. I can actually see some future apps/games using controllers without the goggles.

Re: VR

#308

Post by erikbye »

kurthr wrote: post #302
falcolas wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're absolutely right... But by rendering separately the high resolution and low resolution views (each at 1k, but one 4x upscaled) we could do 60Hz today. It only requires 2 FHD renders (which is less than a 4k 2eye view at UHD) so 60Hz is very reasonable... possibly 90-120Hz. It also cuts the bandwidth by 8x (2/16) without compression.

There are so many new rendering tricks popping up all the time... new APIs also give less overhead, which is nice.

Either way...

580 gtx gflops: 1581

1080 gtx gflops: 8228

7 years. 420% increase in float calc perf.

Re: VR

#309

Post by huntermonk »

mtw wrote: post #287

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 d…

I feel the same way. In Sam Altman's most recent interview he talked about hours of use per day being an important metric for a new product.

It seems like the first high-use product in this category will be a lightweight regular looking set of glasses that simply displays your notifications.

Then in the future, add a camera to display overlays on the real world.

Re: VR

#310

Post by musha68k »

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…

IMHO presence wise we are there already, even with the PSVR (especially the PSVR in my case, prefer cockpit/controller based games). The resolution maybe needs a bit of imagination to make up for but again presence as described by John Carmack has been delivered by almost all of the devices you listed.
Post reply on HN