Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oculus Rift S

oculus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 272 posts

Re: Oculus Rift S

#251

Post by fjabre »

moron4hire wrote: post #249
fjabre wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jury is still out on that. There simply is no research to prove or disprove what you or I are saying. My educated guess is that it actually is quite important and the key to making VR more comfortable for long term use. I think it is the primary issue. I am a software developer who works in the neuroscience field. I am not an MD but I have read enough research to know you cannot definitively say what the cause is…

I've been working in VR and AR for nearly a decade. I've even built my own headsets. The experiences that make people sick are always low framerate. I've put people through experiences pegged at 90FPS for hours at a time with no nausea.

Perfectly valid point. I still think vergence/accommodation needs to be solved as an important key step in VR dev for more comfortable experiences. Its harder to do than just upping frame rates.

You need foveated rendering to start with but im sure you know the rest. If you want VR, well you need actual VR. Its not enough to trick your vision superficially. You have trick the whole system. I digress.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#252

Post by BubRoss »

fjabre wrote: post #246
JabavuAdams wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this were true, why can I stay in The Lab for hours, but I get sick in Everest VR in minutes, on the same hardware? Why did the dozens of VR devs I have talked to get sick on 2014-2015 hardware, playing tech-demos, but they don't on 2018 hardware, playing games designed for comfort? Also, lack of positional sensing (versus angular) on mobile VR devices is a much bigger contributor to discomfort. I'm not sure why y…

I come from a neuroscience background hence my bias. It's the fundamental way in which we focus on objects in the real world. It is not functioning normally at all with a headset on. No one Ive met can stay in VR for hours regardless of game. Most of my friends who have tried or have VR devices get sick after 45 minutes. Admittedly they are not VR enthusiasts or hard core gamers however.

That sounds pretty anecdotal for a scientist.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#253

Post by philwelch »

gpm wrote: post #224
ux-app wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For most of what we do on a computer I don't think so though. arranging any number of work spaces (screens) in 3d would be awesome

To be clear I'm taking that (or even arranging individual windows) as the "virtual desktop" option that the person I replied to thought was ... unimaginative. I agree with you.

I agree with him too! What's unimaginative is taking the current Mac or Windows desktop and projecting that on a plane.

Old Mac users miss the "spacial UI" of the original Finder. Well, the third dimension gives you lots of room for a spacial UI. It doesn't have to look like you're flying through space like in Jurassic Park or anything, but a lot of existing desktop UI is constrained by the fact that screens--even if you have four of them--don't take up very much of your visual field and are relatively fixed in position.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#254

Post by gpm »

philwelch wrote: post #253
gpm wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear I'm taking that (or even arranging individual windows) as the "virtual desktop" option that the person I replied to thought was ... unimaginative. I agree with you.

I agree with him too! What's unimaginative is taking the current Mac or Windows desktop and projecting that on a plane. Old Mac users miss the "spacial UI" of the original Finder. Well, the third dimension gives you lots of room for a spacial UI. It doesn't have to look like you're flying through space like in Jurassic Park or anything, but a lot of existing desktop UI is constrained by the fact that screens--even if…

I probably just misread your comment then :)

Re: Oculus Rift S

#255

Post by JabavuAdams »

fjabre wrote: post #246
JabavuAdams wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this were true, why can I stay in The Lab for hours, but I get sick in Everest VR in minutes, on the same hardware? Why did the dozens of VR devs I have talked to get sick on 2014-2015 hardware, playing tech-demos, but they don't on 2018 hardware, playing games designed for comfort? Also, lack of positional sensing (versus angular) on mobile VR devices is a much bigger contributor to discomfort. I'm not sure why y…

I come from a neuroscience background hence my bias. It's the fundamental way in which we focus on objects in the real world. It is not functioning normally at all with a headset on. No one Ive met can stay in VR for hours regardless of game. Most of my friends who have tried or have VR devices get sick after 45 minutes. Admittedly they are not VR enthusiasts or hard core gamers however.

I'm curious -- which hardware devices? I find Vive and (current-gen) Oculus Rift the most comfortable. The biggest issue for me playing a well-designed game is fogging up due to sweating.

EDIT> I have a relatively low tolerance for motion sickness.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#256

Post by fjabre »

BubRoss wrote: post #252
fjabre wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come from a neuroscience background hence my bias. It's the fundamental way in which we focus on objects in the real world. It is not functioning normally at all with a headset on. No one Ive met can stay in VR for hours regardless of game. Most of my friends who have tried or have VR devices get sick after 45 minutes. Admittedly they are not VR enthusiasts or hard core gamers however.

That sounds pretty anecdotal for a scientist.

Not a scientist. I'm a developer who has been working in the neuroscience field for 15 years, specifically with brain stimulation devices.

I'm not saying this qualifies as any sort of degree nor was I saying you should count my anecdotes as facts.

It is simply my belief that the vergence-accommodation conflict needs to be solved before VR will be adopted by the masses. I think vergence-accommodation neurological process should stay coupled as it does in nature to provide a completely natural feeling and non strained experience for the user. The research here is scant. Perhaps someone is aware of some ongoing research on this topic.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#257

Post by fjabre »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #255
fjabre wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come from a neuroscience background hence my bias. It's the fundamental way in which we focus on objects in the real world. It is not functioning normally at all with a headset on. No one Ive met can stay in VR for hours regardless of game. Most of my friends who have tried or have VR devices get sick after 45 minutes. Admittedly they are not VR enthusiasts or hard core gamers however.

I'm curious -- which hardware devices? I find Vive and (current-gen) Oculus Rift the most comfortable. The biggest issue for me playing a well-designed game is fogging up due to sweating. EDIT> I have a relatively low tolerance for motion sickness.

They were Vive headsets. From the moment I put on the helmet something feels off and I can't quite focus on objects comfortably without some kind of strain. I've learned over time to let my eyes just relax and not try to focus but it still gets me after about 30-45 minutes. If I'm in Big screen watching a movie it's not a big deal because my eyes aren't moving around focusing on different objects in a room so much. But if I'm out walking around in Skyrim I feel sick after about 30 minutes.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#258

Post by JabavuAdams »

fjabre wrote: post #257
JabavuAdams wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious -- which hardware devices? I find Vive and (current-gen) Oculus Rift the most comfortable. The biggest issue for me playing a well-designed game is fogging up due to sweating. EDIT> I have a relatively low tolerance for motion sickness.

They were Vive headsets. From the moment I put on the helmet something feels off and I can't quite focus on objects comfortably without some kind of strain. I've learned over time to let my eyes just relax and not try to focus but it still gets me after about 30-45 minutes. If I'm in Big screen watching a movie it's not a big deal because my eyes aren't moving around focusing on different objects in a room so much. B…

What are the walking controls in Skyrim? Any kind of locomotion that is not strictly tied to the player's movement is a big no-no for comfort. This is a huge problem for the kinds of FPS games that people want to make for VR. The fundamental problem is that you're not moving but your whole field of view is telling you that you are.

I've read that this is a problem for astronauts IRL when they're in free-fall next to a slowly rotating or panning object that occupies a lot of their field of view. So, that would be a kind of existence proof that it's not vergence, but rather optical flow that is decoupled from the subject's actual motion.

It sucks, but basically FPS games are out for VR, until you can actually run around, leap, etc.

EDIT> Another example -- during a scene in Apollo 11 where the camera (and hence my view) was orbiting the spaceraft while my IRL body was still, I started to feel queasy. I was able to reduce the sensation by looking at the growing space-craft as it started to fill more and more of my field of view -- it was relatively stationary to me. This again speaks to optical flow, and motion that is out of whack with what the player's ears are telling them. Another cheat along these lines is to use a cockpit that is fixed relative to the player's view to reduce the amount of visual area that is giving wrong motion cues.

EDIT2> I'd be interested to know whether you can last longer in a game that uses only your own IRL motion + instant teleport. So, no thumbsticks, mouse, keyboard locomotion -- as these are all known chunder inducers. Unfortunately non-VR games with bolt-on VR are like the worst-case for comfort, but also often the games that we really want to see in VR.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#259

Post by droussel »

chillacy wrote: post #219
StillBored wrote: post #205

Hmm, I have a hard time understanding what advantage these all in one devices have over the various VR lens devices for random phones. That said i'm not really impressed with the basic rift device I have. Mostly because the core software seems like garbage. The first blue screens I've seen in over a decade were caused by it. Then there are all the non fatal problems like the fact that the software apparently wasn't t…

You have to try a 6DOF system, it’s a totally different ballgame.

I don't know much about all those and I experienced VR (other then the Avatar movie) for the first time this weekend at my friend's place on his PSVR. I really enjoyed Moss and still felt ok after about 45 minutes. I tried a kind of light sim demo with crappy 1995 looking graphics afterward and I thought I was about to vomit 2-3 times while "flying".

Anyway, what would be the difference between the PSVR and a 6DOF system?

Re: Oculus Rift S

#260

Post by ifiri90pokn »

mikenew wrote: post #98
Ajedi32 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that were improved: - Slightly higher resolution (1080×1200 per-eye -> 1,280×1,440 per-eye) - Inside-out tracking - Guardian can be set up via video passthrough - More comfortable halo head strap (better weight distribution, more surface area) - Wider lens sweet spot - Fewer god rays (better lenses) - Less pronounced screen door effect (better lenses, RGB-stripe subpixel l…

I'm not saying you're wrong, but we're on year 3 of this brand new tech and it's "kinda better, kinda worse". Think about the iPhone in 2007 vs 2010. They can call it whatever they like; it's still an utter disappointment, at least to a gamer like myself. If we're going to get to a point where VR actually feels like virtual reality then someone is going to have to push the envelope, and it clearly isn't going to be F…

The difference being the iPhone had much broader appeal and sold like crazy. Easily justifying the cost of R&Ding and producing bigger and bigger leaps in capabilities. And in that era, iPhones were still subsidized by carrier contracts.

VR is still of very limited appeal. Costs a bundle if you need to get a PC that can power it.

I have yet to try any of the options and I am pretty close to the target demographic: tech worker with dollars to spare, hardware hacker, neophyte game engine programmer, and I could not care less about VR.

Post reply on HN