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

Meta Quest 3

meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 342 posts

Re: Meta Quest 3

#71

Post by Waterluvian »

Counter-intuitively, I think I'd be able to manage a headset better if it wasn't this box strapped to the front of my face, but rather an evenly balanced hockey helmet with a flip-up mask.

I can do hours wearing a hockey helmet, but these things are uncomfortable after a little while, and I think it's because it's just a more balanced thing that my neck muscles aren't constantly counteracting.

Not to suggest that that's the only thing that makes these a non-start for me, but I feel like that's one of the core issues.

Re: Meta Quest 3

#72

Post by accrual »

synergy20 wrote: post #64

I have a Quest2 that only used for about 1 hour, is there any resale value or trade-in somewhere? it's collecting dust these two years, supposed to be a Christmas gift, did not work out at all.

eBay filtering by sold listings?

Re: Meta Quest 3

#73

Post by [deleted] »

synergy20 wrote: post #64

I have a Quest2 that only used for about 1 hour, is there any resale value or trade-in somewhere? it's collecting dust these two years, supposed to be a Christmas gift, did not work out at all.

[deleted]

Re: Meta Quest 3

#74

Post by seanmcdirmid »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #69

Any word on what "tactile feedback" or "experiences you can feel" for the controllers means here? Did they just add vibration and punch it up with marketing bullshit, or is something fancier being described?

The quest controllers have always had some vibration, which is key to many experiences (and why I'm not taking Apple's offering seriously). Maybe they upped what the controllers can express?

Re: Meta Quest 3

#75

Post by stingrae »

dougmwne wrote: post #31

This seems like on paper it is quite close to the Apple Vision Pro. The performance per watt of the chips is probably not far off and both devices deal with the same basic design constraints of needing to fit comfortably on your head. The main difference seems to be the micro OLED and eye tracking on the Vision Pro vs. the Quest’s inclusion of controllers. I’ll be curious how these two devices stack up to each other…

they don't seem super similar to me:

Snapdragon vs M2 Vision Pro's resolution seems about 80% higher than the quest 3. To me, this is the most important factor to me in making augmented reality work.

Re: Meta Quest 3

#76

Post by MPSimmons »

TobyTheDog123 wrote: post #44
dougmwne wrote: post #31

This seems like on paper it is quite close to the Apple Vision Pro. The performance per watt of the chips is probably not far off and both devices deal with the same basic design constraints of needing to fit comfortably on your head. The main difference seems to be the micro OLED and eye tracking on the Vision Pro vs. the Quest’s inclusion of controllers. I’ll be curious how these two devices stack up to each other…

>The main difference seems to be the micro OLED and eye tracking on the Vision Pro vs. the Quest’s inclusion of controllers. Both of which are complete dealbreakers. AR/VR/Spatial is defined completely by immersion and lack-of-nausea, where less resolution and the inclusion of controllers demolish. You're right, both probably won't reach mass-market appeal, but the two certainly aren't comparable in any metric other…

Interesting. You see the inclusion of controllers as a bad thing?

Re: Meta Quest 3

#77

Post by bane »

cuu508 wrote: post #25

I'm clueless -- how do these things work? Are they standalone, or do you also need a gaming PC? Do you need internet connection, or is there stuff that works offline? Do you need Facebook account? Are they hackable, e.g., are there custom firmware options?

Quest 2 works standalone with games made for it, or connected to PC and can use the Oculus store library as well as the Steam VR library. This makes it the most flexible VR headset on the market atm.

Don't know about Quest 3, but probably the same.

Re: Meta Quest 3

#79

Post by make3 »

dougmwne wrote: post #31

This seems like on paper it is quite close to the Apple Vision Pro. The performance per watt of the chips is probably not far off and both devices deal with the same basic design constraints of needing to fit comfortably on your head. The main difference seems to be the micro OLED and eye tracking on the Vision Pro vs. the Quest’s inclusion of controllers. I’ll be curious how these two devices stack up to each other…

It's also not premium looking / really ugly compared to the vision Pro, looks like a really nerdy toy that isolates you from reality even more than usual tech, which is something us tech people maybe don't value enough, but which Apple knows is very important for mass appeal (see, phones, computers), & is an obstacle for adoption.

There's a reason why Apple put a screen with eyes and the associated cameras inside, it's to make it look less stupid. That's really important for mass adoption.

Re: Meta Quest 3

#80

Post by jsnell »

tetris11 wrote: post #36
d--b wrote: post #2

The only information I need: horizontal angle:110, vertical angle 90. Garbage. I don’t know how anyone finds these experience immersive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virtual_reality_headse... If you sort by release date, the Vive XR (2023) beats it on FOV+Rez+Hz, and weights 3x as less. If you sort by FOV, the HTC Vive (2016) easily wins on FOV+Rez+Hz

What's "it"? Quest 3 isn't on that list.

But comparing the Vive XR to the specs in the announcement, the Quest 3 has a higher resolution, same FOV, same refresh rate (experimental sorry for higher refresh rate) at half the price but double the weight.

Post reply on HN