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

411–420 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#411

Post by beachstartup »

fooey wrote: post #389
bsmith wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having to crane your neck around to see what's going on sounds like a PITA This is a step too far in my opinion. You already have to "crane your neck around" to see what's going on in the real world, all around you, all the time . I'm also sure there are less physically demanding games/experiences for those interested. Pick your poison.

In the real world, you look with your eyes much more than you look with your head. As you're playing games or working, the only time you ever turn your head is when something external distracts you, and you can resolve it in a split second. If you're using VR and something external distracts you, you have to abandon whatever your doing and dismount the device.

not really. ever wear a neckbrace, or pull a muscle in your neck? it really, really sucks.

i don't think physical movement will be a requirement of vr as a concept. you can sit and eat cheetos all day long if you want.

and in the future, i think we'll have instant-on instant-off see through LEDs so you can hit a button on the side and see through the headset into reality.

Re: VR

#412

Post by TTPrograms »

>> 4. Large companies solving the primary hardware problems: headset and input innovation plus distribution. I think this might be too expensive for startups to tackle.

Translation: Because startups are for software and if your idea is hard you should probably not bother.

Re: VR

#413

Post by XorNot »

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…

I have a DK2, and for sitting games like Elite Dangerous I'm very happy with it hence not buying a commercial version.

But...man, this makes me want a Vive so badly. The only thing stopping me at the moment is I keep telling myself I'm hanging out for the next resolution bump (and the attendant massive HTPC I'll happily build to drive it).

Re: VR

#414

Post by mhenr18 »

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

The definition of Retina varies based on viewing distance. The DPI needed for Retina in VR is a heck of a lot higher than what's needed for a smartphone.

IMO we need to go through at least two resolution quadruplings on the Vive to get it to be crisp enough for the screen-dooring to not be noticeable.

Re: VR

#415

Post by rictic »

davebryand wrote: post #267
rictic wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the Vive is a little like the release iPhone. It has all of the pieces, but it's also clunky and extravagant. You had to have a pretty good imagination to look at any 2004 phone and envision the iPhone, but once you had the 1st gen iPhone it's pretty easy to imagine a modern smartphone. It's pretty much just the same thing only more so.

I don't know, that first iPhone was pretty special. Just having a fantastic web browser (mobile Safari) was a game changer. The gap feels bigger with VR, to me.

Agreed that the first iPhone was special, it let me move across the country without knowing a soul for two thousand miles with confidence.

The limitations were obvious though. The small screen and low resolution made it hard to read much text. It was really slow, both in processor and in its 2G connection. And it was clear that there was a lot of work to be done on the software and design technology side.

The Vive feels pretty special to me too. Presence, that feeling of being in another place, a fictional place with fictional rules. Perceptually perfect hand and head tracking. The chaperone system to let you move around the room with confidence.

The limitations are obvious: high system reqs, cords everywhere, low resolution, flaky software, and again we need to question a lot of our assumptions about the kind of software that we write. All of that's being aggressively engineered away. I'm bullish.

Re: VR

#416

Post by hota_mazi »

Pretty mundane and naive observations, which is not surprising since it looks like he tried a VR headset for the first time a month ago.

Re: VR

#417

Post by cma »

aphextron wrote: post #156

As someone who owns both headsets from day one and has been developing software for Vive, I'd honestly say the current generation of tech just isn't worth it for most people. In five years when we have wireless headsets with eye tracking and full FOV displays with no discernible pixelation and the library of games are finally here it will be worth it. As it is most people would probably be let down after the initial…

> In five years when we have wireless headsets with eye tracking and full FOV displays

Wireless at least ships in Q1 in China, Q2 for the US (TPCast)

Re: VR

#418

Post by panic »

rictic wrote: post #252
aphextron wrote: post #156

As someone who owns both headsets from day one and has been developing software for Vive, I'd honestly say the current generation of tech just isn't worth it for most people. In five years when we have wireless headsets with eye tracking and full FOV displays with no discernible pixelation and the library of games are finally here it will be worth it. As it is most people would probably be let down after the initial…

I think that the Vive is a little like the release iPhone. It has all of the pieces, but it's also clunky and extravagant. You had to have a pretty good imagination to look at any 2004 phone and envision the iPhone, but once you had the 1st gen iPhone it's pretty easy to imagine a modern smartphone. It's pretty much just the same thing only more so.

You didn't have to buy and configure a gaming PC to use the release iPhone, though. There's a certain out-of-the-box simplicity that's missing from the Vive and Oculus.

Re: VR

#419

Post by confiscate »

mwseibel wrote: post #207
hubalew wrote: post #36

Kind of odd that it takes yc this long to understand such a world changing technology. And their point is that other vcs are even more pessimistic and unexcited about technology. It really shows you how absolutely myopic and limited the current startup ecosystem is. Many thousands of people could tell VR was real this time back when Oculus did a Kickstarter. But vcs take +n years? Shows how much room for improvement…

You make a good point - many investors (maybe us as well) don't start thinking a new technology is cool until they can investing in companies using or leveraging that technology... From a user perspective though, I bought Oculus Rift dk2 and thought it was horrible. The user experience has come a long way since then.

What is different now, compared to when Oculus did Kickstarter years ago, that would be the reason why you want to pay attention on VR now? Is it just that the hardware is better, or are there other reason for you to think the timing is now right as opposed to years ago when Oculus did KS

Re: VR

#420

Post by archon810 »

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.

At this point, I have to assume you haven't tried VR, and your point is void until you do. It blows minds. Wii was a gimmick (especially with its accuracy).
Post reply on HN