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

401–410 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#401

Post by tpolischuk »

sevensor wrote: post #290
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 investor…

The hardware is not just cheaper, but its orders of magnitude more powerful. There have also been two huge breakthroughs that I think make this wave the real deal, sub mm motion controller tracking and 90 fps to the eye.

Re: VR

#402

Post by vehementi »

corford wrote: post #347
klintwood wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Should be plenty of places / people you can check out a rift/vive with without buying

Re: VR

#403

Post by r00fus »

k7carlton wrote: post #101

I think VR is still too focused on mainly males who are young and tech-savy. It can only grow so much while focusing on this demographic. I got involved in social media, and many smart-phone enabled technologies or apps (and many other things now that I think about it), because the popular kids at school were using them. I personally haven't seen this adoption by social trend setters happen with VR yet.

But take gaming (or the web) for example - same subset of the market, and gaming is now a huge market and culturally significant.

However, there was, in certain respects, a kind of community for those above examples that I don't really see.

Maybe there's some path to get before the inflection point happens.

Re: VR

#404

Post by dmix »

andybak wrote: post #374
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.

> LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches. I've lived through all of those and this generation of VR feels like a different thing. I'm normally reticent to buy into bleeding edge tech. (I'm a 'wait til the price drops' kind of guy) and I opened my wallet for a new PC and a Vive within 3 weeks of borrowing a DK2. This hype is enthusiast and consumer led - and no…

Laserdisc failed because of cost/competition from competing platforms. 3D TVs were an add-on to a commodity product to help differentiate it in a technologically stagnate market. Google glass was experimental.

VR on the other hand is a technology evolution. You could argue we're too early in the adoption hockey stick. But I doubt you could even begin to compare it to those other products.

It seems like there are already enough early adopters to fuel the growth it will require (product-wise) to get mainstream adoption.

As others have mentioned, this has only scratched the surface in the consumer market. But the B2B applications are so wide that this could be huge there alone in terms of simulation, training, and business process automation.

I doubt someones poor experience with some early stage VR tech is enough to discredit the wider potential of the platform. Even if the consumer gaming side is niche for another half decade.

Re: VR

#405

Post by mahyarm »

fooey wrote: post #394
c0nfused wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the same thing until I tried it. Seriously, try it out the level of immersion is insane, a more classic game feel can be amazing. But something where you move around is incredibly compelling. I watched a friend try to lean on a counter while cooking in Job simulator. I have hit basically every wall in my living room with a controller at this point as well as all the lights. On the exercise front, Not every…

I have a hard time seeing anything you're pitching as much beyond what you could get with a Wii, and that's completely dead and abandoned. How many people bought Wii fitness? Is that enough of a demographic to expect there to be an entire new ecosystem supporting it? I get that the technology is amazing, I just don't see it getting much mass market penetration.

Wii fitness was not fitness. It didn't approach anything of a challenge other possibly pushups, planks and a couple of other bodyweight exercises.

In VR you have to move a lot more for things to work and the the games are not fitness specific. It definitely gets your heart beating because you often have to hop around like your boxing or doing burpees. Burpees don't look that exhausting, but the constant floor to standing movement makes it challenging. I think this is what makes VR more physical.

Re: VR

#406

Post by mahyarm »

mozumder wrote: post #381
c0nfused wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the same thing until I tried it. Seriously, try it out the level of immersion is insane, a more classic game feel can be amazing. But something where you move around is incredibly compelling. I watched a friend try to lean on a counter while cooking in Job simulator. I have hit basically every wall in my living room with a controller at this point as well as all the lights. On the exercise front, Not every…

When I tried all I noticed was the pixelation and had to take it off. It was such a terrible user experience. It reminded me of some student science project, instead of a marketable product. VR isn't going to be popular until we have 8K or 16K headsets doing 120fps, and then we have to deal with the fact that it removes you from your environment. The first generation of VR died off because they couldn't figure out ho…

All the VR goggles are 1440p max, so we haven't seen "4K" yet to see how good it is.

Re: VR

#407

Post by Macha »

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 didn't think it could be much, but my first experience using the gear for a game of keep talking and nobody explodes convinced me otherwise. Even seeing the pixels and with the awful control method of that implementation (a classic iPod esque scroll wheel on the side of the headset which didn't map to the game that well), it was easy to get immersed.

Go up to using a rift or vice for Elite with my hotas and i can see it being awesome. Planning to get either a rift or vive this year.

Re: VR

#408

Post by kobeya »

nojvek wrote: post #390
mozumder wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I tried all I noticed was the pixelation and had to take it off. It was such a terrible user experience. It reminded me of some student science project, instead of a marketable product. VR isn't going to be popular until we have 8K or 16K headsets doing 120fps, and then we have to deal with the fact that it removes you from your environment. The first generation of VR died off because they couldn't figure out ho…

I agree. I own a occipital bridge. The resolution needs to get 5x better than retina to be believable. Also 6dof tracking with hand gesture tracking under 10ms is still a challenge. I think it's possible but needs serious hardware advancements. I love my bridge though. No hanging cables is definitely a good thing

Why 5x?

Re: VR

#409

Post by callmeed »

dmix wrote: post #404
andybak wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LaserDiscs, interactive TV, VRML (yes, "VR"), 3D TVs, Google Glass, and (probably) smart watches. I've lived through all of those and this generation of VR feels like a different thing. I'm normally reticent to buy into bleeding edge tech. (I'm a 'wait til the price drops' kind of guy) and I opened my wallet for a new PC and a Vive within 3 weeks of borrowing a DK2. This hype is enthusiast and consumer led - and no…

Laserdisc failed because of cost/competition from competing platforms. 3D TVs were an add-on to a commodity product to help differentiate it in a technologically stagnate market. Google glass was experimental. VR on the other hand is a technology evolution. You could argue we're too early in the adoption hockey stick. But I doubt you could even begin to compare it to those other products. It seems like there are alre…

Ok, so what other mainstream product/technology went through a similar evolution as you claim VR is doing now? Recall 2 things:

1. VR has been tried in the past and went nowhere.

2. Adoption of mainstream things is usually pretty steep (cell phones, PCs, TV, Internet access)[1]

If you're saying current VR hardware are the "mainframe computers of the 60s and 70s" and we're still yet to see what the "personal computer of the 80s/90s" will be for VR, I can maybe buy that but I still have unanswered questions and would bet against it.

Also, current VR is also an add-on to a commodity product (PCs and gaming consoles).

You say niche for half a decade ... he says an "explosion" in less than 2 years. I don't get it.

[1] http://imgur.com/a/dr5rQ

Re: VR

#410

Post by oblib »

I've yet to put a new one on.

I tried a wireframe VR headset game back in the `90's. It was a two player game where you tried to shoot each other. My wife was the other player and had a hard time time navigating the space. I moved right next to her and she couldn't find me, but what I could not do was pull the trigger. No way. Not even in VR.

I still don't do games, and I'm not really interested in wearing one of those headsets for hours no matter how "immersive" it is.

And to be honest, I really cannot imagine that people will do that on any large scale. I'm sure they will play with them, but I'd expect them to be more of a novelty than a daily use thing.

I would liken them more to a Segway. Awesome tech, but not near as popular in use as was imagined or predicted.

Same with "3D" movies. My kids don't like them all that much, but the tech is still impressive.

Post reply on HN