241–250 of 312 posts
I think all of these things are true: AR is really hard and anything that does it at all is impressive and could, believably, be the precursor to a revolutionary product. All current AR tech is more expensive than seems sustainable for a consumer product. It's also difficult to develop for and has few (if any) compelling experiences. These things are endemic to early stage products, but it is also possible that they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I've talked with quite a number of people who have bought VR systems, and I have yet to find one who uses it with the sort of frequency that people use their gaming consoles, PCs, laptops, or phones to play games. Maybe this wave of innovation will eventually take face-mounted VR from "novelty" to "daily driver", but it doesn't sound like it's here yet. I pretty much fully agree with your assessment, with the caveat…
Yeah, I got to try the Quest as well, and it's what the experience should be like. No cables, no beacons, no markers, no nothing. But the resolution and framerate is too weak right now. Needs 8K in 60fps, so it's just a matter of time.
But is resolution that important? If had to list the areas where VR needed improvement it would be fairly low down my list. I'd put comfort and FOV higher and improving the screen door effect would also probably trump resolution.
But I think none of these things are deal-breakers. Content is king as they say. Previous new media have not been held back by quality issues. Early consoles didn't suddenly leap into mass adoption when the graphics improved. Cinema didn't mature when film stock got better. It was content and people's awareness that changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well then you can come meet me and about 150 other friends. I pretty much play VR only at this point. Any time I try a typical flat screen 3D game something is missing. The frustration of having a camera stick. The boringness of having to "press the action button" instead of just reaching out and touch the thing I'm supposed to interact it. And of course most of all the feeling of "presence". The Citadel on the horiz…
> The boringness of having to "press the action button" instead of just reaching out and touch the thing I'm supposed to interact it. but "reaching out" in VR equates to waving around a VR wand in space and pressing buttons on it, I'm not sure what's the difference?
I don't entirely agree with OP. I enjoy VR even when it uses the gamepad. If the iteractions have a good "in-game" explanation - no matter how far-fetched - then your brain will stop raising the alarm. So if the game gives a good justification for pushing buttons in-world then that will do the trick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are confusing tech deficiency for the lack of interest. Imagine if the tech was available so you can see 3D content covering the entire human FOV in 8K resolution that with almost no weight on the head just for $500, would you not buy it and use it full time? Things have came long way and still long way to go but our biological construction demands 3D tech and it's not going to change anytime soon.
I don't think I would. I already have the experience of immersion with current screens. I don't think strapping screens to my face will improve anything. And given the metaphorical and literal headaches of trying to fool the human vision system, I don't expect that I'd enjoy anything in the facehugger category. This might change for me if we could bypass the eyeballs and the limbs, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me it's a very conflicted project. All they've done since release has been admirable, and NMS is now a good game well-worth the fee. Thing is, most of that work should've been done before release, and is it right to commend a company for marketing creme-filled donuts and then sending us the creme in the mail eighteen months later? Even so, I would've said yes it is, except for one issue: they still refuse to apol…
But when it’s Sony co-marketing can you really blame them? It was their first time ever getting that kind of attention from a publisher and they screwed it up. That’s how I’ve interpreted it at least.
The thing that got me about the Magic Leap is I couldn't find a reliable video of what it looked like through the lenses. Everything was clearly a CGI overlay or recreation. Reviewers claimed they were prohibited from showing video through the lenses.[0] I can understand not wanting their product misrepresented, but all the secrecy and censorship about it makes me believe it is bad, and I'm not going to spend money o…
I went to a magic leap developer event and tried the headset first hand. It was truly magical. It made me giggle. Now, at the current price point it’s too high for me to buy as a toy and I haven’t really been struck with any killer app ideas to buy it as a dev kit, but I really think it’s an extremely cool piece of kit.
They made a really myopic decision to exclude the short-sighted.
The demo in lab was shown to the investors. They were sold a bill of goods because the technology simply does not scale down to a headset size with proper heat dissipation and power needs. Ever hear of Microvision?
The bottom line? Magic Leap was completely arrogant and gave Devs the run-around. Then they hyped up the market with the fail whale videos that we're all CGI and served no practical need showcasing the technology helping to save time or fix a problem.
The dev kits shipped did showcase a lot of hard problems that needed to be solved and integrated. A cool glimpse of the future. However the waveguide system that they hyped investors on was never shipped in the dev kits. They used smoke and mirrors to fool people.
Magic leap is really based off of old Microvision hype with the great backroom demo for investors that will not manifest into a real product anytime in the near future.
Microsoft's going to own the Enterprise in this space with integrated cloud scale systems powering the headset.
I've tried the Magic Leap, HoloLens, helped launch the Gear VR, and was early in the old Valve VR room. Remember kids, don't believe the hype.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting article. Here's Abrash's wry summary of the problems facing AR: Leave aside the issues associated with tracking objects in the real world in order to know how to virtually modify and interact with them. Leave aside, too, the issues associated with tracking, processing, and rendering fast enough so that virtual objects stay glued in place relative to the real world. Forget about the fact that you can’t lig…
> Fix all that, and the problem remains: how do you draw black? This concern is technologically narrow-sighted. We already have VR headsets with forward cameras built in. If the real world image is a projection too, you can draw whatever you want, including black.
The Information has been unlocking the occasional article for HN users for a while now. I asked if they'd do that for this one and they agreed. Thanks! (The submitted URL was https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/06/report-magic-leaps-early-d... , which made sense while the original source was behind a hard paywall. Changed now.)