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

Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 285 posts

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#211

Post by tentboy »

mhh__ wrote: post #200
tentboy wrote: post #150

Sim racing, or for those unaware of it: basically racing games with realistic physics and usually a competitive online racing field, is incredible in VR. The sense of speed and immersion with a good wheel and pedal setup in VR is unmatched by a monitor based setup. I tried it at a VR arcade and kept adding time to my session to keep playing. I have a fairly nice and expensive sim racing setup at home right now, but m…

VR simracing can be hit and miss i.e. rf2 looks amazing but is rough around the edges (Hungaroring in the wet in a GT3 car is amazing in VR) but assetto Corsa looks awful. Don't bother with anything worse than an Index these days, the Vive is amazing in beat Sabre but awful if you want to read the dials.

Have you tried ACC in VR yet? I can barely run ACC as is on my older i5 but would love to play that in VR as GT3 racing is my favorite class

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#212

Post by mrguyorama »

iguanayou wrote: post #205
freediver wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you describe your setup in more detail?

Sure, it's a scratch-built PC (i7 / 2070 Super) with an HP Reverb, which is a lightweight VR headset. I use a physical yoke (Honeycomb), rudder pedals (Thrustmaster), and throttle quandrant (Saitek), but everything else in the cockpit can be manipulated with the VR controllers that come with the headset. You just interact with the cockpit as you normally would, pressing buttons, pulling levers, and twisting knobs. In…

How is the resolution/screen door effect of that headset? I use an original Vive with VTOL VR and other games and while they are still very fun and serviceable, I just built a new PC so I could purchase an Index when they go back on sale. I'm hoping the bump in resolution is as significant as I've heard

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#213

Post by iguanayou »

bronco21016 wrote: post #210
iguanayou wrote: post #183

As a pilot, I use VR with the XPlane flight simulator and it seriously feels like I'm in a real Cessna. True, the flight controls are a little off (for example, stalls and landings don't feel like a real plane), but other than that, everything is absolutely spot on. It's a great way to scratch my aviation itch and is also great for practicing procedures, especially when paired with a live air traffic control network…

Since the release of the original Oculus I’ve been curious about this. I fly for a living which is a very rewarding and satisfying way to earn a paycheck but it does come with some monotony and takes away some of the ‘fun’ that can really only be had from GA flying low and slow and taking in the scenery. I’m not able to afford an actual aircraft yet but I’m wondering if a good VR simulator set up could scratch that i…

You don't get any of the "seat of the pants" feeling of course, and the graphics, while super impressive, don't compare to real-life low and slow VFR flying (although hopefully MS Flight Sim 2020 changes that). It doesn't replace the real thing.

BUT I enjoy flying VFR in busy airspace with the PilotEdge network, and also IFR flying. For the communications and IFR flying, the mental tasks you do in the sim are identical to what you do for real. After an ILS approach to minimums in the sim, I feel like I got a workout. It definitely keeps my head in the game.

The controls become second nature very quickly.

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#214

Post by mrguyorama »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #147
rafaelvasco wrote: post #134

The price. That's the only reason for me. Other than that it's wonderful; Once the prices reach affordable for the masses level, it will surely blow up, given the right apps come with it. People yearn to fantasize, break away from reality, new sensorial experiences etc. If VR offers that at good prices it'll be an explosion. That's my view on it.

100% this for me. Every 6 months or so I go and price out a VR capable desktop machine along with a headset. It's hard not to spend close to $2000 and still have confidence the rig will hold up in 2-3 years. I've seen builds out there around the $1000 price point with people marketing it as "VR-ready", but honestly I'm skeptical of what exactly that means and whether or not it's durable towards upcoming content. The…

$2000 is enough for me to get a brand new Index, an RX 5700xt, and a ryzen 3600. For reference, my previous VR capable machine was an i5 4440 and an RX 580 8gb with an original Vive. You are misrepresenting what is required to play VR. All you need is a mid range processor newer than 6 years, and a $180 RX 580 or nividia comparable GPU. Vives are selling used for around $300 as people upgrade

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#215

Post by iguanayou »

mrguyorama wrote: post #212
iguanayou wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's a scratch-built PC (i7 / 2070 Super) with an HP Reverb, which is a lightweight VR headset. I use a physical yoke (Honeycomb), rudder pedals (Thrustmaster), and throttle quandrant (Saitek), but everything else in the cockpit can be manipulated with the VR controllers that come with the headset. You just interact with the cockpit as you normally would, pressing buttons, pulling levers, and twisting knobs. In…

How is the resolution/screen door effect of that headset? I use an original Vive with VTOL VR and other games and while they are still very fun and serviceable, I just built a new PC so I could purchase an Index when they go back on sale. I'm hoping the bump in resolution is as significant as I've heard

The resolution is good enough to read all of the gauges easily. It won't look as nice as a good monitor, but the immersion more than makes up for it. I do notice a screen door with the Reverb. Not bad, but it's there.

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#216

Post by xyzzyz »

rafaelvasco wrote: post #134

The price. That's the only reason for me. Other than that it's wonderful; Once the prices reach affordable for the masses level, it will surely blow up, given the right apps come with it. People yearn to fantasize, break away from reality, new sensorial experiences etc. If VR offers that at good prices it'll be an explosion. That's my view on it.

Oculus Quest is $400, which is cheaper than original NES.

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#217

Post by oblio »

ggreer wrote: post #208
oblio wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never saw captain Kirk recharging his Well, if the current trend of battery improvements holds, and considering the unfathomable amounts of money and time thrown at the problem, we're hopefully about 10 years away from devices that can last 1 week on a single charge. Not quite Captain Kirk material, but we have about 240 years to get there. > nor fiddling with it when he was bored Do you consider this a minus? Mo…

The iPhone 11 Pro Max has a 15 watt-hour battery. If it lasted a week on a single charge, it would need a 105 watt-hour battery. That's the same amount of energy in 90 grams of TNT.

Hmmmm: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/09/iphone-11...

"The iPhone 11 Pro Max beats that estimate by some margin, lasting just minutes shy of a full 48 hours between charges."

For 1 full week we need 3.5x capacity.

Plus, at a certain point, the gap between (weak) explosives and batteries becomes really small. After all, the main difference is how they release that energy :-)

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#218

Post by epaga »

I agree with everyone here who is praising the Quest.

How they’d write an article like this and not mention the Oculus Quest even once is beyond me. It is a game changer and two of my friends have bought one after trying it out once. No cables, no PC, minimal setup, and incredibly immersive.

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#219

Post by scottlocklin »

ggreer wrote: post #208
oblio wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never saw captain Kirk recharging his Well, if the current trend of battery improvements holds, and considering the unfathomable amounts of money and time thrown at the problem, we're hopefully about 10 years away from devices that can last 1 week on a single charge. Not quite Captain Kirk material, but we have about 240 years to get there. > nor fiddling with it when he was bored Do you consider this a minus? Mo…

The iPhone 11 Pro Max has a 15 watt-hour battery. If it lasted a week on a single charge, it would need a 105 watt-hour battery. That's the same amount of energy in 90 grams of TNT.

>it would need a 105 watt-hour battery. That's the same amount of energy in 90 grams of TNT.

It's the same amount of energy as 11 milliliters of gasoline or a third of an ounce of fat on a piece of steak. Batteries (and explosives) are shitty at storing energy compared to hydrocarbons.

Re: Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality

#220

Post by bronco21016 »

iguanayou wrote: post #213
bronco21016 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the release of the original Oculus I’ve been curious about this. I fly for a living which is a very rewarding and satisfying way to earn a paycheck but it does come with some monotony and takes away some of the ‘fun’ that can really only be had from GA flying low and slow and taking in the scenery. I’m not able to afford an actual aircraft yet but I’m wondering if a good VR simulator set up could scratch that i…

You don't get any of the "seat of the pants" feeling of course, and the graphics, while super impressive, don't compare to real-life low and slow VFR flying (although hopefully MS Flight Sim 2020 changes that). It doesn't replace the real thing. BUT I enjoy flying VFR in busy airspace with the PilotEdge network, and also IFR flying. For the communications and IFR flying, the mental tasks you do in the sim are identic…

I think this is where I diverge from the Flight Sim community. Most sim-ers are searching for realistic IFR, busy airspace, ATC, and airline/commercial type operations because it’s something that is basically not an option without a career in the field. This means most of the development work focuses on that type of flying. Plus it has commercial applications, like use in training simulators.

As someone who has a career in all of this I just want a way to fly low and slow without dropping $20k+ on an aircraft plus all of the other ongoing expenses and time that incurs.

MSFS2020 certainly looks promising but so did FSX. I suppose I’ll just have to continue waiting until the VFR experience improves or I can afford an aircraft.

Thanks for sharing your experience!

Post reply on HN