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

Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

kguttag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 216 posts

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#91

Post by wahnfrieden »

jupp0r wrote: post #55

In spite of all the negativity, I'm super excited about the future of AR. - being able to see in extremely wide spectrum bands compared to human eyesight - being able to see in higher dynamic ranges than the human eye - being able to magnify little details and thus see with a higher spatial resolution than the human eye - all of this while enhancing your field of view with lots of other interesting information

aren't these all reliant on scientific breakthroughs? they're scifi features that we're unsure we'll achieve. promising direction to pursue though

edit: minus IR/thermal

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#92

Post by wahnfrieden »

likeabbas wrote: post #84
semireg wrote: post #79

I’m not a AR/VR bull but I think Apple’s position is extremely underestimated. It’s almost like every Apple product has been developed and refined for the future AR/VR moment. Custom silicon. Fast camera HDR. LiDAR. People/scene/room/boundary detection. AirPod Max fit and finish. Spatial audio. 50 other things… All in the service of AR/VR.

Dedicated Neural Processors on iPhones. Constant focus on improving battery life with awesome performance. Wearables that work best when using the iPhone as the main hub. Apple is absolutely gearing up to dominate AR by having a sleek set of glasses that use your iPhone for the graphics rendering. And they'll succeed.

the iphone rendering idea was dropped years ago

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#93

Post by joewhatkins »

zmmmmm wrote: post #67
amelius wrote: post #26

How good is the resolution? Can you already use the device as a monitor-replacement? (I.e., coding behind a virtual monitor on an exotic location, while you're just at home behind the desk)

It's just usable as a monitor replacement, but it would be a big stretch to say it's "better". If you have even a cheap a monitor available you'd nearly always be better off actually using it. The scenario where it's better are going to be specific use cases like: - it's helpful to have it be gigantic - bigger than a real monitor could ever be - you have a real need for more monitors than would be practical to buy or…

Just adding my two cents here - I bought a quest pro hoping to use it as a monitor replacement while traveling for a couple of months. I found it pretty much unworkable after trying to make it work across multiple different virtual desktop apps.

You can get something up and running - but it feels akin to staring at a 1080p screen with a weird delay. I felt way more productive just looking at my tiny laptop screen.

Your mileage may vary, obviously. I really liked the idea of working in a distraction free virtual environment, but I feel like the tech isn’t there yet unless you’re an enthusiast whose willing to put up with all of the strangeness.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#94

Post by [deleted] »

zmmmmm wrote: post #49
edgefield wrote: post #21

A new VR arcade opened up in my area and I visited with my son. They were using HTC Vive headsets, which retail for $1,000+. It’s the first time I really used VR, especially in a couch coop mode setup. The following struck me: (1) There is no killer, must have game for VR. Beat Saber seems to be the most popular and mainstream game but not nearly engaging enough to convince the mass market to buy one or more VR heads…

I had to laugh because you typify so much the average commenter about VR ... "I tried it once for an hour and here is my essay writing off the whole field".

[deleted]

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#95

Post by Baeocystin »

zmmmmm wrote: post #45

The author persistently conflates AR and MR throughout the posting, evaluating the Quest Pro as an AR device but the concluding at the end it's a terrible "MR" device because it failed at their AR tests. It seems to suggest they really think these terms are synonymous but they aren't. While AR aims to enable display and interaction with the real world but with augmentations, MR aims to bring virtual objects into the…

I can't help but view the (myriad) odd choices in the Quest Pro in the light of Carmack's resignation letter. It really does have the camel feeling of a horse designed by committee, instead of anything filled with 'give a damn'.

I hope the folks there can figure out the operational difficulties, and find a way past whatever org chart drama is the source of the dysfunction. The Quest 2 has been a delight, but enough time has passed that the limitations are starting to chafe. I would love to see a true Quest 3 made my people who actually like the things.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#96

Post by randallsquared »

zmmmmm wrote: post #52
judge2020 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right under the price on this page https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro/ the first feature is AR / passthrough. In fact, most of the page is dedicated to things other than gaming. > With breakthrough high resolution mixed reality you can engage effortlessly with the virtual world while maintaining presence in your physical space in hi-def color.

It literally never says AR. It says "mixed reality". In mixed reality, the pass through (real world) quality is secondary to the virtual objects that are rendered within it. These virtual are rendered at high resolution, hence we have "high resolution" mixed reality. People seem to just not understand that mixed reality is different to augmented reality?

I promise you that "Well, technically..." is a losing marketing proposition. MR just comes off as "AR, but not very good at it".

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#97

Post by LordDragonfang »

Mizza wrote: post #25

I've heard that some of the AR stuff got nerfed because of the ability of IR cameras to see through some fabrics and Facebook not wanting to have those headlines in the newspapers. I just heard it as a rumour though, perhaps an insider with a throwaway account can "shed some light".

That was the projected-IR depth sensors that got removed. It's unclear how those would affect the image quality here.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#98

Post by zmmmmm »

mb7733 wrote: post #82
zmmmmm wrote: post #45

The author persistently conflates AR and MR throughout the posting, evaluating the Quest Pro as an AR device but the concluding at the end it's a terrible "MR" device because it failed at their AR tests. It seems to suggest they really think these terms are synonymous but they aren't. While AR aims to enable display and interaction with the real world but with augmentations, MR aims to bring virtual objects into the…

> While AR aims to enable display and interaction with the real world but with augmentations, MR aims to bring virtual objects into the real world and allow you to interact with those. Would you mind giving user-facing examples to illustrate the difference? As in something you consider AR but not MR and vice-versa. I've googled a bit but I don't understand the distinction between "enable display and interaction with…

Consider something like Gravity Sketch [0] as MR. You are designing a virtual object and it is useful to bring it into the real world to (a) collaborate on it with others in a shared workspace and (b) envision it within its real context. For example, you can design a chair and actually place it in a living room while you are working on it to see how it looks.

An AR example would be the classic overlay of text on a sign you are looking at with a version that is translated into your language.

[0] https://www.oculus.com/deeplink/?action=view&path=app/158709...

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#99

Post by LordDragonfang »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #91
jupp0r wrote: post #55

In spite of all the negativity, I'm super excited about the future of AR. - being able to see in extremely wide spectrum bands compared to human eyesight - being able to see in higher dynamic ranges than the human eye - being able to magnify little details and thus see with a higher spatial resolution than the human eye - all of this while enhancing your field of view with lots of other interesting information

aren't these all reliant on scientific breakthroughs? they're scifi features that we're unsure we'll achieve. promising direction to pursue though edit: minus IR/thermal

All of these are possible, individually, with current technology (e.g. "being able to see in extremely wide spectrum bands compared to human eyesight" means IR/nightvision cameras), but it's currently cost-prohibitive to combine them all into one device

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#100

Post by zmmmmm »

joewhatkins wrote: post #93
zmmmmm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just usable as a monitor replacement, but it would be a big stretch to say it's "better". If you have even a cheap a monitor available you'd nearly always be better off actually using it. The scenario where it's better are going to be specific use cases like: - it's helpful to have it be gigantic - bigger than a real monitor could ever be - you have a real need for more monitors than would be practical to buy or…

Just adding my two cents here - I bought a quest pro hoping to use it as a monitor replacement while traveling for a couple of months. I found it pretty much unworkable after trying to make it work across multiple different virtual desktop apps. You can get something up and running - but it feels akin to staring at a 1080p screen with a weird delay. I felt way more productive just looking at my tiny laptop screen. Yo…

Yes in some settings you experience enough latency to be a problem, it's a good point. I was able to eliminate that but I have fairly optimal setup. It's definitely one of the holes in the "take monitors everywhere you go" that you will end up also needing good wifi everywhere you go that is shared b/w laptop and headset.
Post reply on HN