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

111–120 of 216 posts

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#111

Post by wvenable »

Zee2 wrote: post #68
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…

As someone close to this in the industry, I definitely agree. I also really don't know why he decided to deemphasize the perspective and depth correctness so much. He mentions it here: > In this case, they were willing to sacrifice image quality to try to make the position of things in the real world agree with where virtual objects appear. To some degree, they have accomplished this goal. But the image quality and l…

In a regular Quest 2 (not the pro as discussed here) you can use pass-through and actually reach out and grab a glass of water and drink it. It's super impressive and actually makes the pass-through useful for the things that you use pass-through for.

Would it be nice to be able to actually read text and not have distortion when objects get too close? Yes, of course. But it's not necessary.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#112

Post by nl »

I've been a complete cynic of VR/AR since in started. I just didn't see any point to it ourside games (which don't interest me).

But someone in our office had a Quest Pro and I was blown away. It's the first time I've ever felt like I wanted to use or build thing in or for VR, and it was the Mixed Reality mode that make it like that.

Unlike this review, I found mixed review very impressive. I suspect it was because I was viewing it primarily as a VR device with just some limited capability for real world interaction as opposed to an AR device. I think when viewed through a VR-first lens it's very impressive.

I still don't know what I'd actually want to use it for, but it was the first time I felt like Meta might be actually onto something.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#113

Post by genghisjahn »

germinalphrase wrote: post #61
genghisjahn wrote: post #5

My Quest 2 is 99% used to play 5 on 5 Onward VR. To all you Onward PC users, my apologies. I thought I was done with video games but it's fantastic. The experience reminds of showing up to public basketball courts during the summer. You get on a team with some random people. Sometimes you're the best on the court, sometimes you're the worst. By I love the Quest 2 and would replace it if my got broken simply to keep p…

How accommodating is the community to new players? Seems like the type of game that would attract a…serious player base.

There is a learning curve. If you jump straight into the 5 on 5 matches without some basics down it’s not much fun. Do some single player against bots. Then play coop against bots. Then do multiplayer gun game. Once you can win a round of gun game, IMO, you are ready for assault, uplink and escort.

The main thing is knowing maps and the radio. A team that uses the radio well and can call out locations will destroy a team of sharp shooting lone wolfs.

There are people who take it serious and those that are trying to figure things out. It’s all good. People will teach you things. Also the competitive lobbies are marked as such, so just avoid those.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#114

Post by choppaface »

Super compelling screenshots, but isn’t the thesis of “Meta Quest Pro (not?) viable for work” best proven out by somebody actually doing a shiny project using one? And if nobody does then maybe it really is for sure snake oil?

For example the the pix comparing the headset to high-end Canon VR180 .. that suggests maybe the viz should just be bigger?

Great write-up about the faults, but there’s gotta be a work task that can work? Beyond beat saber?

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#115

Post by sdiupIGPWEfh »

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…

Personally, I actively reject this distinction between AR & MR. For as long as I've been aware of the concept, the term "Augmented Reality" covered both use cases, including virtual objects embedded into the real world. The distinction never struck me as interesting or useful; virtual objects embedded into the real world being the most useful way to interact with augmentations to the real world.

Moreover, "Mixed Reality" strikes me as marketing-speak. Compare the search trends for AR [1] vs MR [2]. While both terms have been in use for a long time, AR was always more prevalent, with a notable rise in interest around 2009. My first encounter with the term MR was in marketing materials for Microsoft's HoloLens circa 2015. Now compare the search trends for MR [2] with HoloLens [3]. Searches for MR don't begin to trend upward until after the introduction of HoloLens, where Microsoft's marketing materials tried to make a big deal of said distinction and the rest of the world started to run with it. As a supporting argument for the original broader usage of the term AR, I'll cite discussions of a 2007 anime series, Dennō Coil [4], which explored various examples of fantastical AR usage. Probably just a coincidence, but the search trends for Dennō Coil [4] do precede the search trends for AR [1] rather closely.

Naturally, all the usual caveats about word meanings changing over time apply, but this one is a pet peeve of mine.

[1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...

[2] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...

[3] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=H...

[4] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#117

Post by ryoshu »

sdiupIGPWEfh wrote: post #115
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…

Personally, I actively reject this distinction between AR & MR. For as long as I've been aware of the concept, the term "Augmented Reality" covered both use cases, including virtual objects embedded into the real world. The distinction never struck me as interesting or useful; virtual objects embedded into the real world being the most useful way to interact with augmentations to the real world. Moreover, "Mixed Real…

Mixed reality as a term dates at least back to 1994 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality%E2%80%93virtuality_con.... Microsoft adopted it because they were doing surface mapping and occlusion culling, something that early AR (circa 2008-2012ish) really couldn't do.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#118

Post by mensetmanusman »

sdiupIGPWEfh wrote: post #115
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…

Personally, I actively reject this distinction between AR & MR. For as long as I've been aware of the concept, the term "Augmented Reality" covered both use cases, including virtual objects embedded into the real world. The distinction never struck me as interesting or useful; virtual objects embedded into the real world being the most useful way to interact with augmentations to the real world. Moreover, "Mixed Real…

AR will never be able to mix depth to objects with the real world due to the physics of image planes. MR could do that, so it might be one key difference.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#119

Post by yonixw »

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…

I think for example: AR is a graph/dashboard overlay on real world objects, processing them and commenting on them but not forgetting the result is on a 2d screen. While MR is like a cube that falls on the table you see through the screen and will act if you punch it with you hand (all as seen by the camera) and doesn't care your experience of the MR world is bound to a 2D screen, it is virtually exist in any space around you.

This image show an example of it: https://www.appliedart.com/assets/images/blog/_newsFeatured/...

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#120

Post by bostonbot »

I agree with most of the points here. I think Meta is missing the point with their uncanny valley avatars and focus on business applications. Personal connection like events and fitness training is key. These applications don’t rely on high definition. MR fitness is going to skyrocket this year and next year with color pass through. Checkout Liteboxer and how they are using chroma keyed trainers to make it feel like they are in your home. The quest pro is better balanced and touches your face less too.
Post reply on HN