VR • Hacker News Board

Re: VR

#421

Post by tchock23 » Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 2:04 AM UTC

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…

How long were your demos? Have you tried VR for an extended period of time (1+ hours without a break)?

The limitations you mention are absolutely issues, but they start to fade away and the feeling of immersion rises the longer you are in it. YMMV though.

Re: VR

#422

Post by archon810 » Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 2:05 AM UTC

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 wholeheartedly agree with you, but it's not hard to do so - it's the most logical and obvious explanation for what we're seeing. Just like any 1st generation technology, it's far from elegant and is clunky, so we have to give it a few iterations.

Re: VR

#423

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 2:05 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: VR

#424

Post by confiscate » Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 2:10 AM UTC

dougb1102 wrote: post #363

I applied to YC about 2.5 yrs ago with a VR-focused company for new construction homes software. Got rejected. Fast-forward today and I've built a successful company with it. It'll take a few yrs for VR to get mass adoption, but it shouldn't stop people from starting a B2B VR company. I've seen a lot of tech since my TRS-80 days and can tell you that this one is going to be transformative in a lot of areas.

What company is this? Because it sounds like Siebel would be interested to know/fund :)

Re: VR

#425

Post by JBlue42 » Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 2:13 AM UTC

rictic wrote: post #415

davebryand wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fe…

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

What was your alternative way to move across the country?

Re: VR

#426

Post by JBlue42 » Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 2:15 AM UTC

amitt wrote: post #336

I run a VR-focused VC firm (Presence Capital). We've done 25+ investments in this space, so you can say that we believe in the long-term potential of VR. Even given that, we're bearish on how quickly there will be a profitable/sustainable VR consumer business and have advised most of our portfolio companies targeting consumers to keep burn low. That being said, almost all of the comments here are taking a singular wo…

Are you looking at anything or have been pitched anything in the AEC space?

The firm I work for has a small R&D department that is heavily testing out VR. As I've said in other posts, I can only really see it as a marketing tool currently but some of that team are hoping there might be ways to "move and build" items in terms of visualizations.

Re: VR

#427

Post by elihu » Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 2:20 AM UTC

It'll be interesting to see how traditionally non-3D application translate to VR. For instance, what would a VR-enabled window manager look like, or an IDE, or a command-line shell, or a graphical file manager? What's the best way to manage web browser tabs in 3D or navigate a comment thread? What about interactive, graphical programming environments like puredata?

I expect there may be some generic solutions for problems like how to display a tree or graph in an intuitive way or how to manage a bunch of 2-D workspaces. Figuring out exactly what the best way to extract that generic functionality into libraries will be interesting, and I expect if VR becomes mainstream there will be a lot of competing VR widget libraries just like there are a lot of competing 2D gui widget libraries now.

Re: VR

#428

Post by dmix » Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 2:35 AM UTC

callmeed wrote: post #409

dmix wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I'm not saying that it's a mainframe. In regards to the consumer market I think it is the personal computer but rather a PC with Windows 3.1, while the market is waiting for Windows 95 - and the explosion in software that came with it.

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

PC's are a commodity product but not the software that runs on them. Which is why one generates trillions more dollars than the other.

Re: VR

#429

Post by andybak » Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 2:37 AM UTC

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?

Depends. Remember a lot of this stuff is driven by small dev houses and in some cases - one man bands. Sometimes the graphics aren't up to scratch.

Also - there's a tendency towards flat shading as an aesthetic choice - it actually looks great in VR and frame rate is king.

However - check out something like Valve's "The Lab" to see how skilled devs can produce stunning graphics that run really smoothly in VR. It shows it's possible...

Re: VR

#430

Post by gfodor » Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 2:39 AM UTC

Trying to predict the future of VR based on tech specs is kind of silly, because I feel the determinant of the timeline of its success is dependent upon what applications are built for it. All it will take is one or two well executed applications that require VR to be used, that motivates folks sufficiently to purchase hardware (a $99 mobile VR headset being a starting price point) that will bend the curve. But, obviously its hard to predict what these are, otherwise someone would have built it already.