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

541–550 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#541

Post by Styx- »

wtallis wrote: post #510
cbhl wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the real world, you look with your eyes much more than you look with your head. Unless you wear glasses.

Unless you wear bifocals . Single-vision lenses have a usable field of view that is as large as the comfortable range of movement of the eyes.

Anecdotally, I started wearing glasses a couple months ago and have been annoyed at how often I have to adjust my ahead when I would have normally just moved my eyes. My glasses tend to slip down my nose just a tad which cuts off a non-negligible amount of FOV.

Re: VR

#542

Post by fryguy »

lightcatcher wrote: post #522
fryguy wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looks like current technology is 1000x1000 per eye at 90Hz: http://www.digitaltrends.com/virtual-reality/oculus-rift-vs-... 8k x 8k per eye at 120Hz is 64x more pixels at 1/3rd increase in frequency ~= 85x more processing power. Making the (maybe faulty) assumption of doubling processing power every 2 years and that current setup is processor limited, this sort of processing power is ~13 years away. Same computation…

I guess I misspoke about being 1920x1080 which is a "2K" screen split in two. An 8K screen split in two would be ~4000x4000 per eye which is still 16x as many pixels as I said, plus the 33% increase in frame rate which I didn't include which matches your second one. Although with how embarrasingly parallel it is, I don't think it's as far off as it seems. Especially considering that it's the previous generation graphics cards that can handle current day VR fine so we're 1-2 years into the 9 years we have to wait, and with so many pixels anti-aliasing can probably be turned off completely. You could probably build something today that could do it, it just would be very expensive and I don't think 8K panels at cell-phone size exist yet.

Re: VR

#543

Post by ngokevin »

bencollier49 wrote: post #288

What's the model for building apps, then. Oculus is owned by Facebook. How do you create a game - does it require a paid SDK?

You could develop for WebVR (https://mozvr.com). That way you can publish whatever you want, no gatekeepers, and will eventually have instant distribution to anyone with a browser and headset.

Re: VR

#544

Post by ngokevin »

746F7475 wrote: post #259

> Because VR games are so physical, gaming will no longer be perceived as an unhealthy activity. I could have used this growing up. What kind of VR games are you playing? I haven't seen a single physically demanding VR game (unless you count standing "physical"). Unless everyone is going to have a dedicated room for their games or we come up with some kind of rental halls there won't be any physical activity in VR ga…

Thrill of the Fight

Re: VR

#545

Post by throwaway_374 »

westoncb wrote: post #180
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,…

I think you nailed it: you have to relax a certain amount and let your brain do it's own thing—like falling asleep. Some people have more of a tendency to latch on to the fact they're looking through a device and don't 'let go' and the magic doesn't happen. It's also probably situation dependent; your mind is less likely to let go of your actual environment and focus on the virtual if there are distractions or anythi…

I think the closest I experienced to this was when I first discovered Second Life. My dreams after an evening on Second Life were insanely realistic. That thrill of addiction sounds familiar, almost like a dopamine chasing rat.

Re: VR

#546

Post by sevensor »

tpolischuk wrote: post #401
sevensor wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The CAVE was driven by a big honkin' SGI computer in a machine room next door. It was powerful enough.

Re: VR

#547

Post by SeoxyS »

jackmodern wrote: post #533
foobarbecue wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried Oculus, expecting to be amazed. I found it annoying and not immersive at all. I can see every single pixel. Doesn't feel real at all. Possibly because I"ve been using high-resolution 3D displays for point cloud editing for the science I do for years. (Nvidia 3D Vision 2 -- probably the 3rd major attempt at consumer 3D that never really caught on)

this, I work at Facebook and try out all of the demo devices over at Oculus. I keep hoping that they are going to advance the pixel density, but have gotten so disappointed by it that I've stopped testing their new equipment at all in the last few months. That and the team of folks that work on it are outrageously arrogant. Looking at you Charmaine/pedoguy.

If you actually work at Facebook, this maybe isn't something you should share on a public forum…

Re: VR

#548

Post by sevensor »

mozumder wrote: post #459
tpolischuk wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those are the least of its problems. The big problem with VR is the product liability issues.

Honestly, I think the problem with VR is that people outside the bubble don't actually want it.

Re: VR

#549

Post by SeaDude »

Hm. Market potential is limited to upper-middle class (those having large work autonomy) or about 15% of the US population. Which may be plenty for your outlook, i'm no expert.

But I am a normal dude. And there is no way the remaining 85% of the population can check out of their real-world duties of getting kids ready for school, cooking, working, watching tv, etc to check-in to VR. No way.

VR's downfall IS its immersiveness. It's a serial activity that cannot be run in parallel with other life activities. With a phone, I can be texting, surfing ect and when my kid comes over, I can put the phone down and answer a question or continue cooking or whatever. VR-not so much. I'd have to first HEAR my kid come up to me, then unstrap the headset, put down my handset(s), etc...

If VR has large uptake as a technology, our interpersonal world, our family and social structures are fucked. Feels like the final checkmate in human history. Think I'll dig my heels in a bit and let you run over the cliff with that one.

Re: VR

#550

Post by SeaDude »

SeaDude wrote: post #549

Hm. Market potential is limited to upper-middle class (those having large work autonomy) or about 15% of the US population. Which may be plenty for your outlook, i'm no expert. But I am a normal dude. And there is no way the remaining 85% of the population can check out of their real-world duties of getting kids ready for school, cooking, working, watching tv, etc to check-in to VR. No way. VR's downfall IS its immer…

And look up "DPDR vr" when you have a sec. Lets see how many more mental disorders we can create by unleashing tech without ethical, philosophical, or human-first lenses. I'm getting a little jaded by this market-first approach.
Post reply on HN