161–170 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parts are all listed right there on GitHub via the How to Build link, either with prices or direct links to AliExpress where you can see the price. The build comes in under $200. I don't understand the whinging in the comments.
The lcd screens listed are 195 right now. With a lower res screen it might get close. Pricing might be variable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither does this headset. Oculus Go has at least a 6D IMU, that gives it 3DOF (no position tracking), while this headset has a 6D IMU. The Quest and Rift have cameras on them for positional tracking. If it was possible to have reliable positional tracking just from an IMU, John Carmack would have delivered it on the Go. This OSS headset has "experimental positional-scaling" using "any camera". On github, they say: "…
So it does have position tracking. I guess it uses an external camera directed at you - of course that will be far from perfect, especially if you only have one. But it has potential. With more cameras and an improved model, it could possibly even do FBT in the future. At no or marginal upgrade cost. I see more in this than just a weekend project. Even the fact that you can just buy a new lens when one gets damaged m…
This might be a fun weekend project to work on, but cannot be built for $200. The displays alone (and their driver PCB that accepts DisplayPort) cost $195. They are also not 2K but rather 1440x1440 (or 2.0736M pixels). Maybe the displays were cheaper when they built this. They also hookup a 6-axis tracking chip (MPU-6050) to an Arduino board and feed it to a PC via usb. Even if tracking was working perfectly, this wo…
4K is 3840X2160, but you wouldn’t be wrong to call 2048x2048 4K, especially in a VR display where you have two displays, doubling width, and in the end what matters is pixel density.
To the creators: this is a really incredible achievement, especially to have done at age 15, and really well communicated. Please don't get disheartened by the mass of comments around this not actually being a $200 headset[1] or your unusual[2] spelling. This is freaking awesome, please keep it up! [1] It definitely would be cool to see some sort of parts list, but that's not really the point here. [2] Clever domain…
I think a lot of people are missing what I think are 3 main points before moaning about everything else: 1. It's freaking open source 2. It's DIY fun 3. It's the bare VR without being an over-engineered device that reports your farts to the manufacturer. I can only respect and envy the guys for pulling this off.
I'll repeat a comment I made on Reddit: I was scanning the page trying to understand how you were doing positional tracking. Took me a while to realise that's what you mean by "Experimental room-scaling" I'd suggest that this isn't the best wording. Call it "positional tracking" or "6DOF" or something. The whole "room scale" thing was confusing at the start and isn't used much nowadays (Is seated 6DOF VR "room scale"…
I understood what they meant by "room-scaling" immediately and I've only ever used a VR headset one time about 4 years ago. On the other hand, I can surmise from my experience with robot arms that "DOF" likely stands for degrees of freedom , but I would have had no clue what "6DOF" meant in terms of VR.
That company sells a major legal document management platform, and has the standing, incentive, and capacity to drag Relativty into court for trademark infringement and easily win. The sheer number of people getting the word wrong on this HN thread is itself evidence of potential consumer confusion. Trademark infringement doesn't have to be wilful or malicious, and trademark holders are required to defend their marks or risk losing them through a legal doctrine called 'constructive abandonment' so it's probably only a matter of time before Relativity-the-legal-software-company sends a finger-wagging C&D letter to Relativty-the-bedroom-hackers.
tl;dr find a new name or get sued.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a screen that you're placing in front of each eye, giving the total resolution actually sounds pretty appropriate. Particularly since although this is technically 1440 lines it only has as many pixels as 1080p resolution, which won't be obvious to most. Given all the different aspect ratios if screens started being quoted as megapixels and a format ratio we'd actually be much better off than with the current mess…
Since head-mounted displays put the screen a mostly fixed distance from the eye, I wonder if resolution is best described in terms of solid angles[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle
Virtual image size of an immersive display system (video headsets) is the equivalent of the diagonal of a standard scren.
Virtual image size is typically quantified by the Field of View (FOV), and is typically expressed as an angle your eye closes with the diagonal edges of the virtual image. Pretty much what you describe.
Another way people express virtual image size is by saying e.g. "a screen with a diagonal of X cm (in) at a distance of Y m (ft)". This may seem more intuitive at first, but problem with that is you can use different combinations of X and Y to express the same virtual image size. This is why FOV is a far superior way to quantify virtual image size.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. Fair point about "DOF". But what do you understand "room scale" to mean"? Genuine question.
I imagined it to mean I could move around a constrained physical space while seeming to explore a larger virtual environment (thus "scaling" the dimensions of the room I was in). Admittedly the reference to a webcam that tracks your movements was an additional helpful context.
From a financial aspect, I think the soldering ion and a 3d printer would cost more than $200, plus $200 on parts. So with $400+, i would consider buying an Oculus? From bottom of my heart, hats off to those kids.
That sounds odd, a bit like saying a car and a smartphone holder together would cost more than X. A soldering iron is, what, 15 euros? And a cheap 3d printer like twenty times that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought QHD was almost unambiguously 1440x2560 (4xHD), and QHD+ was wider than that.
I think QHD+ is a little more ambiguous, as it could also reasonably be used to refer to taller displays (16:10 display at 2560x1600, for instance). Also, annoyingly enough, QHD itself can stand for "Quad HD" or "Quarter HD", the old smartphone standard of 960x540, which admittedly has pretty much entirely fallen out of use