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

341–350 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#341

Post by Filligree »

twsted wrote: post #231
thenomad wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additional workout suggestion: try Thrill Of The Fight ( http://store.steampowered.com/app/494150/ ). It's the most physically intense experience I've had in VR so far - I'd say even more intense than Holopoint, although the two are close. Obviously you will have to enjoy boxing for it to be much use or fun, mind! You might also enjoy Climbey ( http://store.steampowered.com/app/520010/ ) - it doesn't look particularl…

Terrible graphics. I'm not up-to-date but are we still at this level?

It's just barely good enough to be a compelling experience.

VR games are a lot of fun, but this is going to drive GPU development for a long time to come.

Re: VR

#342

Post by wvenable »

callmeed wrote: post #322
wvenable wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> VR doesn't even replicate reality, let alone do more. Why does that make any sense? That's like arguing Pac Man doesn't replicate reality so video games are bad. It's funny LaserDiscs are on the list when DVD and Bluray took off like crazy -- LaserDiscs were just ahead of their time once the technology was right, it took off. The same is true for VR -- the question is not whether or not it will take off but whether…

I was riff'ing off the parent user's comment that: > Virtual reality does not merely replicate reality ...

That's a fair point; the entire point of VR is that it isn't reality.

Re: VR

#343

Post by klintwood »

corford wrote: post #325

Despite having two perfectly functional eyes, my brain only uses the right one due to a squint I had at birth which later improved but by then my brain had wired itself to ignore input from the left eye unless I close my right one (I get a quick shift to the left of everything in my FOV when I do this). As a result things like 3D cinema don't work for me (and I find using a telescope much easier than binoculars!). If…

The "3D" effect is one of the least exciting features of VR headsets. If that was all VR had to offer it would be just as much of a gimmick as 3D Video. You will still get all the benefits of moving your head around, motion controls and so on.

Re: VR

#344

Post by Stanleyc23 »

legohead wrote: post #11

It's not going to take off until someone solves the movement issue. The only games VR is currently suitable for are if you are stationary somehow -- pilot, tank gunner, etc. Which limits it pretty severely. Something like the Ghostbusters Experience[1] is what people want in their own homes. Also, maybe it's because I've been gaming my whole life, but the resolution in VR is still not good enough to "blow" me away, l…

I've been thinking about this and it's bad for active entertainment, but maybe it would be fine for futuristic productivity uses where you have factory workers remotely controlling heavy machinery that still can't be fully automated through a VR interface.

Re: VR

#345

Post by sedachv »

sedachv wrote: post #298
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.

The current crop of companies can experience something similar to the video game crash of 1983. I also agree that the "VR will change everything" hype is baseless - 3d user interfaces are just not that effective for most applications. Though as an entertainment technology the experience is so compelling that it is hard to imagine that it won't become massively popular eventually.

To provide some references for my assertion that "3d user interfaces are just not that effective for most applications," there are a lot of systems that have been tried in the 1990s and 2000s, most of which you can try out today to see why:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsn_(file_manager) (Free Software clone: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsv/)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet_Project

The one big non-entertainment application that 3d worlds are good at has been teleconferencing. There are a bunch of what are essentially 3d chat clients around, and many more have gone out of business.

Re: VR

#346

Post by Filligree »

overcast wrote: post #41
RangerScience wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but familiar with this - I don't notice it much while I'm still in it, but if you take it off and on again, it's then like putting on a sweaty shirt - it's gotten cold and clammy, but warms up and you stop noticing pretty quick. You do need to remember to rinse the padding tho, just like a sponge in the sink. Super easy.

I'll pass. Remind me when VR is a pair of glasses :)

Have you watched Dennou Coil, by any chance? :O

Re: VR

#347

Post by corford »

klintwood wrote: post #343
corford wrote: post #325

Despite having two perfectly functional eyes, my brain only uses the right one due to a squint I had at birth which later improved but by then my brain had wired itself to ignore input from the left eye unless I close my right one (I get a quick shift to the left of everything in my FOV when I do this). As a result things like 3D cinema don't work for me (and I find using a telescope much easier than binoculars!). If…

The "3D" effect is one of the least exciting features of VR headsets. If that was all VR had to offer it would be just as much of a gimmick as 3D Video. You will still get all the benefits of moving your head around, motion controls and so on.

Awesome! My main worry was depth perception stuff being problematic (I have occasional issues with that irl but no idea if it would be the same, better or worse in VR).

Re: VR

#348

Post by maturz »

ktRolster wrote: post #196
evo_9 wrote: post #12

I bought a Vive the week of Thanksgiving and have been using it roughly 2 hours a day. Every other day is my workout day most of the week (unless I'm playing hockey that day/night) and the VIVE has become part of my workout now too. After I complete my normal workout - a mixture of hockey specific training, free weights, aerobic and of course tons of pull-ups - I now spend an additional hour+ in VR. I typically play…

How do you deal with sweat getting all over your device? Doesn't it start getting dirty quickly?

One solution is to buy something called "3d sleep mask" costs $7 or so on Amazon but you can get them for less than $1 on Aliexpress with free shipping. Then you just cut out the middle part and the headband.

They won't be quite as soft as the normal ones since they are thinner but the advantage of this is that it increases FOV since you are closer to the screen. In my experience they also stick quite well to the Vive.

Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4gezog/8_sleep_mask_m...

Re: VR

#349

Post by fryguy »

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.

Assuming that it's feasible to do ~1080p per eye at 120hz today, 8k per eye is only 16 times more pixels. And considering that increasing the pixel size is embarrassingly parallel, I don't see that as a problem to be able to do in 10 years.

Re: VR

#350

Post by fooey »

sarreph wrote: post #120

I feel like a lot of the comments here blasting the technology are related to its ability to output at the hi-fidelity we are now used to on the web / mobile 3D experiences. This level of immersiveness/naturalness/fidelity will obviously come in due course. Michael Siebel is here talking about the opportunity (obviously) — which is IMMENSE. This is basically the iPhone/App-Store bandwagon all over again. If you can j…

I don't see VR as even remotely comparable to the smart phone revolution. A phone is a tool, it's an accessory. It's easy to use for a half a second, anytime you want. You can glance at your phone while you're working and not miss a beat.

VR is an activity. The effort to use VR is a magnitude more than the effort to use a TV, Laptop or Desktop, and those are a magnitude more effort than using a phone.

VR is more like a Wii or a Kinect than a phone, except it's significantly harder to use than either of those.

Post reply on HN