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

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

#281

Post by mhh__ » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

blackearl wrote: post #244

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.

assetto corsa is great because of the modding community. there are some hybrid fantasy/real life maps that are amazing. You can have these great casual drives through "California" mountains that are inspired by real life. I had a blast playing it with a wheel setup If you want a more realistic sim, iRacing is supposedly top dog, but it's subscription based.

For realism with anything other than hybrids you want rfactor rather than iracing (assuming the car is well modelled)

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

#282

Post by chrischen » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 4:30 AM UTC

untog wrote: post #222

baby wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re talking about a very specific type of game: single player games. Not to mention most people don’t play games the way you are describing and the appeal of games certainly isn’t just to be able to talk to people in the room with you while you’re playing (even if it is appealing for some).

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

#283

Post by Kaiyou » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 10:56 AM UTC

cybwraith wrote: post #184

Kaiyou wrote: post #145

If I could pay $200 to get the full experience, I'd already have paid. I can't, so I haven't. Unless they can get the price for the whole package including a game to below $500, it won't reach the masses and unless they get below $200 they won't reach me, because I'm a cheapskate that is satisfied with playing 30 year old games.

It'll get there. Oculus Quest is $400 and games can be had for pretty reasonable prices. In a few years I wouldn't be surprised to see an even more streamlined Quest reintroduced at $200.

Included in that price must be a PC that can handle VR, though.

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

#284

Post by Akinato » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #155

scottlocklin wrote: post #95

"Why we've never fallen in love with 3-d glasses" -fixed the title. Science fiction predictions of the future are almost universally comically bad. People should know this by now; we completely lack positronic brains, warp drives, moon bases and tricorders. VR is a science fiction prediction of the future, just like positronic brains. The fact that people won't pay lots of money for a cheesy 3-d glasses experience as…

Actually tricorders kinda exist, in that we have personal hand held computers with access to large databases of knowledge and a good number of environmental sensors.

We're just missing all of the sensors (and the accompanying data), but I imagine that's only a matter of time. We're already seeing the basics of biometrics being added in.

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

#285

Post by lostmsu » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 2:00 AM UTC

oblio wrote: post #217

ggreer wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :-)

Meh, my Mi Max 3 usually lasts 72 hours under moderate use (RSS, browsing, periodic navigation), and closer to 90 when I spend most of the time at home, only reading from it in the morning or late night.