Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by gwd » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #163

gwd wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we do have personal communicators, which are way better than sci fi ever depicted.

Not really. I can't just speak to communicator expecting it to understand me and only me in a fraction of a second and connect me to the right person. At least not without "ok google" or "alexa" or "hey siri".

> ...at least not without "ok google" or "alexa" or "hey siri".

I think it was pretty clear that you had to press a button (or tap a badge) for the thing to start listening. Not sure how Android works, but Apple does have such a button, where you can talk to Siri without saying 'Hey Siri'.

> I can't just speak to communicator expecting it to... connect me to the right person.

I've been watching ST:OS on Netflix recently, and this seemed like something that was written by someone who obviously had never had anything like the technology they were working with. At any random time, Kirk just says, "Captain to medical. Bones, are you there?" And McCoy never says, "Sorry Jim, I'm in the can; I'll get back to you when I'm done." Or even, "Sorry Jim, I'm in the middle of removing this piece of shrapnel from a red-shirt's knee; I'll have to get back to you in an hour." Nobody is ever going to the bathroom, or eating, or sleeping, or having sex, or even just busy doing something else; they're immediately available to talk to you, 24/7, right where you expect them to be.

That's obviously an unworkable nightmare. One way or another, you're always going to have to request a connection, and wait for the person to accept or reject it.

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

#222

Post by untog » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

baby wrote: post #127

untog wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt strapping the headset on is anywhere near the top For me personally, a side effect of that is the reason I'm not excited about VR: it's anti-social. I'm shutting myself off from anyone else in my apartment in a way a normal video game doesn't do. It makes me way, way less excited about the potential of VR.

Interestingly, I've had the most impressive social experience in VR. I got the Oculus Go when it came out and bought Catan (the board game, but in VR). I then launched a game online, and ended up playing for an hour with a finish kid and a canadian dude. We talked like we were all together, and at the end I couldn't just leave without saying goodbye (usually I just quit a game, but here I felt some social pressure to…

That's a very different social experience, though. You're still blocking yourself off from other people in the room with you.

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

#223

Post by hutzlibu » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

"This could be a way to revolutionize flight training, and make it more accessible. "

I rather think this could revolutionize any expensive training. Everything with heavy machines would benefit. And every other sector where a beginner misstake can literaly blow something up.

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

#224

Post by flyGuyOnTheSly » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

berdon wrote: post #168

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #157

I put a PS4 VR set on my head at my relatives over the holidays and I could not have been more disappointed. They had just been gifted it for Christmas and were trying out all of the demos. I put it on and while I could rotate my head in any direction like I was living inside some google maps experiment almost... The picture was extremely blurry and the entire experience gave me a headache... after probably only 10 m…

Did you try fixing the focus?

I was pulling the goggles away from and closer to my face if that's what you mean, I believe that was the only focus mechanism.

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

#225

Post by flyGuyOnTheSly » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 5:53 PM UTC

cybwraith wrote: post #175

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #157

I put a PS4 VR set on my head at my relatives over the holidays and I could not have been more disappointed. They had just been gifted it for Christmas and were trying out all of the demos. I put it on and while I could rotate my head in any direction like I was living inside some google maps experiment almost... The picture was extremely blurry and the entire experience gave me a headache... after probably only 10 m…

The PSVR is the lowest-resolution "high end" VR headset out there, and is on the underpowered PS4 hardware, with poor controller tracking and lots of motion blur and downsampling to make the games even run. You really ought to try an Oculus Quest or Rift S/Vive Pro. PSVR has 1080 vertical pixels, Quest has 1600 vertical pixels, much better lenses, and much better controllers. Not to mention the games run much more sm…

Alright thanks for that! My hopes for an impending VR future are no longer as dim. I didn't realize the PSVR came out in 2016 when I tried it. I figured it was brand new this year.

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

#226

Post by ergl » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

armitron wrote: post #26

Sensationalist article that is completely out of touch with reality on both social and technical levels. Oculus quest is a game changer - obvious to anyone that puts it on - and the fact that it’s not even mentioned says a lot. I doubt she has even tried it. On a social level, it is comical how myopic her vision for VR is and how far off the mark the focus on VR arcades lies. The big selling point of VR in the near a…

Are those use cases supposed to make VR sound good?

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

#227

Post by deskamess » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

codingmess wrote: post #122

gwbas1c wrote: post #106

I find that playing a game in VR is like listing to music in 5.1: It requires a lot of physical space and setup, which then limits the audience to a dedicated niche. The limitation, in this case, is being affluent enough to have a large empty indoor space to dedicate to VR so you don't bump into things as you walk around; and the desire to calibrate the thing correctly. It's like setting up a really good sound system…

That'S not an issue with the Occulus Quest anymore. You need a little space, but setup is very easy and requires no extra arrangements.

Can you project what you see on the headset only Oculus Quest to another screen? For example, if I am playing Beat Saber, can I project my view to TV so that family can watch? Or to a Chromecast/Alex/similar tech?

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

#228

Post by shostack » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

dade_ wrote: post #206

It isn't ready yet. We have come a very long way, but the hype always sets expectations - too soon for the quality and price consumers demand. Compare what was an amazing experience in 1995 with MechWarrior 2 VR ($3000 headset + $3000 PC in 1995 dollars) to the experience that Sony offers with the PS4 for less than 1/6th the cost today. I am still excited to see what comes next.

IMHO nothing matches the truly immersive experience of Battletech that they had at North Pier in Chicago when I was growing up.

It was a fully themed space and you'd walk into a room full of pods (cockpits) and they'd slide the hatch closed on you. Then lights and multiple monitors would come on and you had a joystick, throttle, foot pedals for rotating your turret, and a massive array of switches, buttons, and their associated little red digital displays for weapon assignments, etc.

It was unbelievable and at the end you all went into a room to watch a spectator view of the match and got a printout with every blow of the match described in log format.

I think I still have my membership card somewhere.

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

#229

Post by ascagnel_ » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 6:02 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #106

I find that playing a game in VR is like listing to music in 5.1: It requires a lot of physical space and setup, which then limits the audience to a dedicated niche. The limitation, in this case, is being affluent enough to have a large empty indoor space to dedicate to VR so you don't bump into things as you walk around; and the desire to calibrate the thing correctly. It's like setting up a really good sound system…

I own a PSVR, and even though that probably has the weakest software library, the most compelling VR experiences on that platform have all either been sitting or standing -- nothing that involves walking around (this may be due to the limits of the hardware, given that the headset must always face front).

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

#230

Post by mhh__ » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 6:08 PM UTC

tentboy wrote: post #211

mhh__ wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Haven't got it I'm afraid. I enjoy racing gt3s and do most of my online races in them but I wouldn't want to spend (or do I? If it's on sale...) that much money just on GT3 cars.

RF2 is so good - the only time i really leave for other Sims is if there isn't content for RF2. The big thing rfactor lacks right now is hybrid modelling unfortunately.