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

Google Open-Sources Cardboard

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 182 posts

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#141

Post by tootie »

EduardoBautista wrote: post #17
ipsum2 wrote: post #6

For those out of the loop: Google has gradually shut down and in some cases, open sourced their VR projects (Daydream, Mirage, VR180, Seurat, etc) over the last 6-12 months to be more focused on their mobile AR projects (ARCore, Google Streetview AR, Lens, etc). A sad day for VR.

It seems like Apple and Microsoft really nailed with focusing on AR instead of VR.

My company does some AR/VR development on behalf of customers along with more traditional web/mobile app development. We've done quite a few at this point and been successful from an internal point of view that we can concept, design and develop a high-quality product at a manageable cost. That being said, I see us struggling mightily to come up with an experience that's actually compelling in any way. We've got customers lining up asking us to help them get on this bandwagon and I see nothing but eye candy designed for a 30-second moment of joy and no real utility. I've seen some really cool experiences being built, but they're still mostly gimmicky and serving a tiny niche.

There's rampant speculation that Apple will deliver a glasses experience where Google already failed. I think this is possibly the last chance for AR to get traction before going back to the shelf for another 20 years.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#142

Post by cynic_ »

CrackerNews wrote: post #132
amanzi wrote: post #14

For what it is, Cardboard is pretty cool technology that opens up the VR world to a lot of people that would never be able to afford the high end equipment needed for real VR. I had a couple of cheap Cardboard viewers and then upgraded to the Samsung VR goggles which are also surprisingly good for the money.The Samsung/Oculus partnership seems to still be strong, for now at least.

>The Samsung/Oculus partnership seems to still be strong, for now at least. Gear VR doesn't support Note 10 and there's rumors that their partnership has ended. The VR industry is moving past mobile VR because it has trouble with user retention. Oculus can abandon Gear VR and Samsung to focus on their own VR solutions from Go to Quest to Rift. Samsung then is still working on their standalone headset and possibly a n…

Carmack's Eulogy For The Gear VR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfd2lNRjqH4

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#143

Post by [deleted] »

kolinko wrote: post #101
rosybox wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

As for VR being anti-social - from my experience it's the exact opposite. I've been visiting my friends who have VR, and organised VR mini-parties at my place. The setup goes like this: you show what's in VR on a tv screen, one person plays, and others watch, taking turns. Works extremely well with Beat Saber, FNAF, and some shooters. I also did social painting in VR, where people took turns drawing in Tilt Brush, an…

[deleted]

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#144

Post by djmips »

celticninja wrote: post #122
rosybox wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

I am probably a key demographic for them tech enthusiast, gamer with disposable income to cover these sorts of purchases, but the motion sickness aspect would need to be non-existent for me to spend any money on one of these.

One thing about the wild west of VR is that even if one single game solves the motion sickness aspect there are dozens more of first time developers who through ignorance or lack of care will create games that cause motion sickness.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#145

Post by moron4hire »

CrackerNews wrote: post #129
moron4hire wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not hard to solve. We've known the solution for years now. Don't do it. You can either keep your experience confined to the user's play boundary. You can teleport people to new locations. You can let people walk to the edge of their boundary and use a gesture of some kind (e.g. flicking one of their thumbsticks on their controller) to turn them around to do "redirected walking". You can provide a "strong stomach…

While those techniques are tricks that diminish sickness, they result in an experience that doesn't live up to a traditional gaming experience, but now VR and immersive. For example, Doom VFR only has teleportation movement and it results in an experience that doesn't feel very Doomlike. Instead of blitzing around like a rabbit with a gun, now Doomguy is a magical genie with a gun.

Well, there is "traditional" and then there is "traditional".

To start, I think it's a mistake to approach VR application design as "this app, but now VR and immersive", whatever the app may be. It might get better in the future, but for now there are too many compromises for the user to start your design process in that way. VR requires a bottom-up rethink of what you're creating. If all you are creating is "X but in VR", then you're not actually adding any value for the user, while simultaneously asking them to commit to the economic, ergonomic, and context-switching costs of entering into VR.

I am extremely skeptical that the first-person-shooter will ever be successfully ported to VR in such a way that it will continue to be of the same mainstream interest that it currently has. I see it as a similar issue to how the Adventure genre went from being the one of the most popular to an extreme niche with the advent of 3D graphics.

I think FPSes are popular on flat-screens because they specifically aren't realistic. Real combat is the most grueling thing one can do, basically by definition, because if you don't try harder than the other guy, you die, so you have to try your hardest and hope it's enough. The mouse-and-keyboard or gamepad system with a stationary screen completely removes that issue. And while I enjoy FPSes on flat-screens, I've personally found the experience of simulating killing people in real first person view to be psychologically disturbing.

I play FPSes strictly single-player, as I can't stand the other people invariably get paired with in public multiplayer, which I think we all know is a very common problem. If VR could kill off the FPS genre and cut out a huge swath of the most problematic portion of the gaming "community" (this issue is why I always weasel quote the word "community" when referring to gaming), then I think we'd all be the better for it. You don't see a lot of GamerGater's complaining about "SJWs" in the context of strategy game releases.

So there are very significant technical and ethical reasons why I don't think we should even try to be porting FPSes to VR, and instead focus on revisiting old genres and discovering new ones.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#146

Post by djmips »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #32
ipsum2 wrote: post #6

For those out of the loop: Google has gradually shut down and in some cases, open sourced their VR projects (Daydream, Mirage, VR180, Seurat, etc) over the last 6-12 months to be more focused on their mobile AR projects (ARCore, Google Streetview AR, Lens, etc). A sad day for VR.

I mean not a sad day for VR. Google is just being Google and thinking that XR is a tech problem. It’s not. The XR gap is in content, not developers, and not tech. Any VR play should be throwing money at creatives, not devs or APIs or frameworks.

VR for Google on Android is still a tech problem. With Cardboard, the tracking fidelity and update rates never met the lowest bar required to have a good experience.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#147

Post by djmips »

nindalf wrote: post #125
kolinko wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As for VR being anti-social - from my experience it's the exact opposite. I've been visiting my friends who have VR, and organised VR mini-parties at my place. The setup goes like this: you show what's in VR on a tv screen, one person plays, and others watch, taking turns. Works extremely well with Beat Saber, FNAF, and some shooters. I also did social painting in VR, where people took turns drawing in Tilt Brush, an…

There are two kinds of HN comments. The first is like the one GP made - absolutely sure of themselves and staying with certainty that there are intractable problems with something. On closer inspection you find that they have no personal experience but they’re really smart and can imagine the worst consequences of everything well. The second is the one I’m replying to. They have first hand experience and give a more…

I'm betting, the people in charge at Google who shut down all these projects were in the first category.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#148

Post by djmips »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #75
rosybox wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

>It is anti-social that's why location based experiences (LBE) is the solution. Different monetization route, it's basically a theme park model (invest in cutting edge tech/high value content) and maximize throughput like a VR "ride." Having gone through a number of the experiences I'd highly recommend them. Better than anything you can get at home, it's a fun outing with your friends, and the content is pretty aweso…

Like I mentioned in another comment, there's no quality control and testing in the wild west of VR games on Steam so many of them are terrible and cause motion sickness. My hope with LBE is that the experiences will have been thoroughly researched and tested to mitigate the sickness problem at least. The other advantage to the theme park model is that the experiences last under 10 minutes.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#149

Post by dyarosla »

rosybox wrote: post #53
kayoone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

Definitely the opinion of an outsider because all of these are non-problems. Other commenters have mentioned re: the anti-social / streaming / pets point but I wanted to touch on the outside visibility one.

Let me start by saying that I was a big VR skeptic until the Oculus Quest. I too thought that the outside visibility thing would be a base advantage that AR would just have over VR forever-but- surprisingly- the passthrough camera view [0] is more than good enough for several of the interactions/views you'd want to see outside of the device. You can see others, their reactions, and interact, all while having the device on your head. Soon the passthrough will also be triggerable at a moments notice too.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbh5vZaW_Dc

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#150

Post by moron4hire »

Animats wrote: post #82
moron4hire wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did an experiment where I tried to use the HoloLens as a "general purpose computer", replacing my desktop for a few days. Obviously, the processing power wasn't up to the task. It was a bit like trying to go back to an 800x600 CRT for work. But the HoloLens is a 3.5 year old AR headset by now. What I did get out of it was a glimpse into what "could" be, for some value of "AR headset". First of all, I wasn't tied to…

"There's no need to keep a dedicated space for it." That's what John Carmack now says is the argument for VR. It's not about virtual reality. It's about virtual screens . Now, you can have a wide-screen theater experience even if you're in some tiny apartment in Guangdong or San Francisco. And hang out with your friends, even. Think Sunday Night Football, not Doom VR.

Honestly, Carmack is a brilliant engineer and knows a lot about technology, but that isn't enough to make great games or applications. Yes, it's not Doom VR, but I think just replicating TV in VR is not a good enough value prop to warrant the economic, ergonomic, and context-switching costs of VR.

VR requires applications that can't be done on flat-screens, just as movies require content that can't be done in books and radio requires content that can't be done on MP3 downloads and TV requires content that can't be done in a movie theater.

For example, apps like Tilt Brush can't be done on a flat-screen. Yes, you can create 3D content on a flat-screen, but Tilt Brush is not just a 3D content generation tool. It's more of a 3D painting tool, a creative release rather than a productivity tool, and it's a social network of content from other people that you can explore. On a flat-screen, it just wouldn't have the same usability or impact.

There is a VR Digital Audio Workstation-like app called SoundStage that--while doesn't have the usability of Tilt Brush--does signal some interesting concepts for a potential Tilt-Brush-like DAW.

I originally didn't think Google Earth in VR was a good use of VR, but since starting to work in the language training industry, it has been a surprising source of content for us to improve language training for adults. As an app on its own, I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense past a basic demo, but the content and form factor are very useful if one can apply a purpose to it other than just exploration. (Though the exploration can be fun for a short time, too).

I think the use of action-oriented VR titles for exercise cannot be understated. It's pretty much the only form of exercise I have any patience for, anymore (between children, job, volunteer work, side projects, high-cost-of-living in the DC metro area, and a sports injury or two). Obesity is an epidemic. Mass adoption of VR could fix that.

As an addendum to that previous point, I also really enjoy VR meditation apps.

VR could (and in some offices, is) revolutionize teleconferencing. I've had meetings in AltSpace VR that, even 5 years ago, felt better than using Skype for remote meetings.

Right now, we have a very high cliff to get to be able to create content for VR. I think it's a very similar issue to when GUI operating systems first started to come out. If all you knew were CLIs, it was very hard to see the utility of the GUI. And when people first started adopting them, they frequently had to dump out to the CLI to do things. Less than 20 years later, the CLI was relegated to niche use. I don't think the vast majority of people could have anticipated the shear number of apps we use, the mass of files we manage, the ubiquity of computing in our lives, in the mid 1980s. But all of those systems that make that possible weren't a part of those first GUIs.

Post reply on HN