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

161–170 of 216 posts

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#161

Post by lovehashbrowns »

crooked-v wrote: post #59
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…

> and I felt quite sea sick during and after gameplay Part of the problem here is that you tried to push through it. Basically the only way for someone who immediately experiences VR sickness to acclimate is to stop after 5 to 15 minutes, give it a while to go away, return to it, and repeat the cycle a couple of times until it stops completely. If you just try to push through it, that actually makes it worse by aggra…

There’s also Phasmophobia, a ghost-hunting game that supports VR. You can play with people without them needing a VR headset.

It’s also one of those types of games that’s completely different in VR than regular desktop. Without VR, it’s a fairly fun game with a really good learning curve to it. On VR, it’s a completely different game; the atmosphere is amped up by like 1,000 and it becomes the scary game it was meant to be. I wasn’t even able to complete the tutorial on VR.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#162

Post by disqard »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #124
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…

> We had a 1 hour session with the goggles and I felt quite sea sick during and after gameplay. The headset was also uncomfortable after 30 minutes or so. Playing games while sea sick is about as much fun as it sounds. It’s pretty awful. This reduces significantly wit time. Also on the first time you don't know which setting works for you, having correct IPD, straps etc. When I used my quest 2 for the first time, I c…

I'm curious about whether that 1 hour can keep scaling.

Would you personally consider using it to "work in a virtual office" for several multi-hour stretches every day?

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#163

Post by bmalicoat »

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…

I feel the same way. I worked at Microsoft on HoloLens and most the folks I knew there felt like Mixed Reality was modern marketing spin on AR. It makes sense from a marketing perspective since HoloLens was a very different beast than something like Google Glass, but I find the distinction needlessly confusing nowadays. To me, AR is just augmenting reality on a spectrum from 2D fixed overlay to depth-aware and beyond. I find naming arbitrary detents on the spectrum unproductive. The general public has enough confusion around VR vs AR, especially when pass-through enters the picture. To throw MR in the mix furthers the confusion.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#164

Post by andybak »

geokon wrote: post #146
Zee2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just so I understand correctly - the fact that the cameras are places a couple of inches in front of where you're actual eyeballs are causes a lot of discomfort? And so you need to warp the camera feed to look like it should from your eyeball's perspective?

I'm not sure if it's entirely due to the camera position or if there are other factors (e.g. differences between the camera optics and your eye's) but I can confirm that using a device without reprojection results in quite extreme distortion for objects closer than an arm's length.

Which unfortunately includes your hands.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#165

Post by andybak »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #118
sdiupIGPWEfh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're mixing up the term "AR" with specific implementations of it.

People are now using "MR" to mean something distinct from AR but GP and myself are arguing that the term AR was broad enough to encompass passthrough, overlay and any future developments.

If someone built a VR headset that used small projectors rather than flat panel displays, we wouldn't need to invent a new term for it. The AR VR spectrum was all we needed and MR is just muddle on top of that.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#166

Post by andybak »

makeitdouble wrote: post #139
zmmmmm wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 si…

Not working in the field, I’m also having a hard time to grasp the difference. Is one MR because it’s 3D and the other AR because of 2D ? And is the collaboration part a defining feature ? Where would you set Pokemon Go’s “AR view” [0] kind of implementations for instance ? (First link I found was for a headset, but I’m also actually curious how you qualify the phone only version of it) Or what would it change if in…

I work in the field and I find the AR/MR distinction confusing and pointless.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#167

Post by andybak »

kakali wrote: post #75
charcircuit wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This blog post is written by Karl Guttag who is someone who is interested in AR, but not very interested in VR. The reason he is coming at it from an AR angle is that is what kind of device he is looking for. If you look at the rest of his blog you can see many articles related to AR.

That’s fine, but it’s okay to call out the author’s bias. They contributed wonderful tests of the limitations of the headset. But the headset is only a failure for the authors use case. (AR)

Having used Hololens vs several passthrough-AR devices (Quest 2 etc) I'd take "poor image quality" over "limited FOV and the need to use it in a darkened room" any day.

Until AR display tech gets significantly better I think AR based on passthrough cameras is the only sensible approach.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#168

Post by esskay »

diziet wrote: post #156
esskay wrote: post #145

I really, really hope that whatever Apple ends up releasing completely wipes the floor with Meta's headsets. They need some real competition to force them to really push the limits. It's going to be interesting to see what happens if the rumors about Apple's being extremely lightweight are true - it wouldn't be surprising if it is given their tiny but efficient SOC design. This is what will kill Meta if they arent ca…

Not having the battery be on the device but plugged in the phone or on a waist strap, and using more expensive, but smaller pancake vs fresnel lenses can make the effected perceived weight a lot.

From the sounds of it it'll be built in. I'd assume it'll be on the rear though to balance the weight out.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#169

Post by macrolime »

zmmmmm wrote: post #98
mb7733 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 si…

The first time I saw the term AR, several decades ago, it with the definition that you use for the term MR.

Re: Meta Quest Pro – Bad AR Passthrough

#170

Post by throwawaybbq1 »

ryoshu wrote: post #117
sdiupIGPWEfh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tangent: Is occlusion culling on HoloLens different from that done in games? Btw .. the site in your profile does not work.
Post reply on HN