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

VR

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 568 posts

Re: VR

#491

Post by andybak »

746F7475 wrote: post #259

> Because VR games are so physical, gaming will no longer be perceived as an unhealthy activity. I could have used this growing up. What kind of VR games are you playing? I haven't seen a single physically demanding VR game (unless you count standing "physical"). Unless everyone is going to have a dedicated room for their games or we come up with some kind of rental halls there won't be any physical activity in VR ga…

Climbey is absolutely exhausting. Finally some hope I'll get some upper body exercise!

Archery games are physically demanding. I've lost on the QuiVR demo simply because I ran out of strength pull the bow string any more.

Any game with ducking or evading will begin to burn the calories - SPT and Zombie Training both have had me break a sweat.

Most room scale games involve a fair amount of crouching and moving. Even in my 2m x 1.9m space I'll notice the exertion after a while.

Re: VR

#492

Post by jakobegger »

AgentME wrote: post #450
superplussed wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please consider moon physics! I haven't heard anyone talk about this but I've thought this was the answer to locomotion in VR. It strikes a balance between realistic movement and not being too tiring, and moon jumping would be hella fun, especially in a FPS.

Jumping in real life and then going back down and landing while your character is still moving up seems like a really efficient way to get nauseated. 1:1 motion is very immersive and very good for avoiding nausea, so it's not something to give up lightly.

Yes, that sounds bad. But you could move further while staying in the air for the same time in reality, right? At least for running it should work?

Re: VR

#493

Post by andybak »

DoodleBuggy wrote: post #257

So, how do you overcome the motion sickness / nausea problem?

1. Headsets have got a lot better - high persistence displays and refresh rates no lower than 90Hz

2. Game designers have learnt to avoid many of the things that exacerbate the problem. Avoiding acceleration and lateral motion, giving visual clues such as cages, use of vignetting.

Having said that - it stopped being a problem within the first few weeks. I'm now happily strafing around in Doom 3 BFG right after dinner without a care in the world!

Re: VR

#495

Post by rimantas »

freehunter wrote: post #270
iplaw wrote: post #10

Blown away? Hyperbole of the century. At CES this year, I tried all the VR/AR tech I could get my hands on. Microsoft HoloLens, HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, Sony VR, Galaxy Gear, and everything in between. I wasn't expecting much and yet I was still underwhelmed. There is zero immersion, primarily due to the poor resolution, the screen door effect, and the crippled field of view. It felt like watching a scene through a pai…

Imagine people saying this about Doom when it was released. The graphics don't look photo-realistic, you can see the individual pixels, you can't look up and down, man I don't think this 3D gaming thing is going to catch on. Everything you mention are very (very) simple technical limitations on what are basically proof-of-concept devices. If you think we don't have the technical capability to put higher-resolution sc…

Being able to focus sight on far or on nearby object at will is also a simple problem and already solved in VR? (I honestly have no idea). Until it is solved there is no R in VR.

Re: VR

#496

Post by aninhumer »

cbhl wrote: post #396
fooey wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the real world, you look with your eyes much more than you look with your head. As you're playing games or working, the only time you ever turn your head is when something external distracts you, and you can resolve it in a split second. If you're using VR and something external distracts you, you have to abandon whatever your doing and dismount the device.

> In the real world, you look with your eyes much more than you look with your head. Unless you wear glasses.

It's perfectly possible to buy glasses that only minimal obstruct your field of view, and let you look at things out of the corner of your eye.

Re: VR

#497

Post by kalleboo »

mozumder wrote: post #381
c0nfused wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the same thing until I tried it. Seriously, try it out the level of immersion is insane, a more classic game feel can be amazing. But something where you move around is incredibly compelling. I watched a friend try to lean on a counter while cooking in Job simulator. I have hit basically every wall in my living room with a controller at this point as well as all the lights. On the exercise front, Not every…

When I tried all I noticed was the pixelation and had to take it off. It was such a terrible user experience. It reminded me of some student science project, instead of a marketable product. VR isn't going to be popular until we have 8K or 16K headsets doing 120fps, and then we have to deal with the fact that it removes you from your environment. The first generation of VR died off because they couldn't figure out ho…

I let my wife, who has zero interest in games outside of Candy Crush, try on Google Cardboard (minimal immersion) on an iPhone (horrible display for VR) with the demo apps (can't even call them games really) and she was so engaged she ended up walking into one of our shoji/paper doors tearing a hole in it.

Once Vive-level VR comes down to wireless/portable size and down in cost to the $300 range it's going to be MASSIVE. Maybe the first generation ("until we get 16K 120fps headsets") will not appeal to productivity or hardcore gaming buffs, but 100 million Wiis were sold, and there was nothing technically impressive about that thing.

Re: VR

#498

Post by kalleboo »

davebryand wrote: post #267
rictic wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the Vive is a little like the release iPhone. It has all of the pieces, but it's also clunky and extravagant. You had to have a pretty good imagination to look at any 2004 phone and envision the iPhone, but once you had the 1st gen iPhone it's pretty easy to imagine a modern smartphone. It's pretty much just the same thing only more so.

I don't know, that first iPhone was pretty special. Just having a fantastic web browser (mobile Safari) was a game changer. The gap feels bigger with VR, to me.

The first iPhone cost $600 after subsidy, you had to wait for pages to load forever over EDGE, and it had literally no software. Seems like a decent analogy of current VR.

Before the iPhone, nobody had any idea what improvement on the smartphone would be required to get them in the hands of everyone. All anyone could say was "a smartphone isn't for everyone". With VR, just in this thread half the people are saying "I just hated the resolution, lack of portability and software", similarly specific objections like people had with the initial iPhone.

I actually had the opposite experience to you. The first iPhone wasn't very special to me. "So what, it accomplishes everything my current phone does, only with pinch zoom". My first Oculus dev kit experience, terrible 720p display and all was captivating.

Re: VR

#499

Post by specialist »

pera wrote: post #102
iplaw wrote: post #10

Blown away? Hyperbole of the century. At CES this year, I tried all the VR/AR tech I could get my hands on. Microsoft HoloLens, HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, Sony VR, Galaxy Gear, and everything in between. I wasn't expecting much and yet I was still underwhelmed. There is zero immersion, primarily due to the poor resolution, the screen door effect, and the crippled field of view. It felt like watching a scene through a pai…

This is so different from my experience with the HTC Vive: while I obviously perceived the poor resolution, screen door effect, etc., after the first minute I started feeling more and more immersed, and then something in my brain clicked, pretty much like when you are falling asleep. That's when everything started feeling almost like a lucid dream. My heartbeat was noticeable faster and I felt strangely happy/exited,…

"...after the first minute I started feeling more and more immersed..."

VR = immersion.

The gear, resolution, tech is all details.

Given my loose definition, we've had VR for years. Dr Dan Bricklin once asked me (rhetorically): where are you during a (deep) phone conversation? Here? There? Both?

AR is when the gear matters as much as than the story.

Source: Gadfly during the first VR hype cycle.

Re: VR

#500

Post by specialist »

freehunter wrote: post #270
iplaw wrote: post #10

Blown away? Hyperbole of the century. At CES this year, I tried all the VR/AR tech I could get my hands on. Microsoft HoloLens, HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, Sony VR, Galaxy Gear, and everything in between. I wasn't expecting much and yet I was still underwhelmed. There is zero immersion, primarily due to the poor resolution, the screen door effect, and the crippled field of view. It felt like watching a scene through a pai…

Imagine people saying this about Doom when it was released. The graphics don't look photo-realistic, you can see the individual pixels, you can't look up and down, man I don't think this 3D gaming thing is going to catch on. Everything you mention are very (very) simple technical limitations on what are basically proof-of-concept devices. If you think we don't have the technical capability to put higher-resolution sc…

"Imagine people saying this about Doom when it was released."

Nope. We were blown away.

Even knowing full well we'd eventually have real-time photorealistically rendered worlds to explore, surgery to perform, molecules to inspect... The early advances were exciting.

"Everything you mention are very (very) simple technical limitations on what are basically proof-of-concept devices."

VR has some thorny non-gear problems to solve. Human physiology ain't simple.

Post reply on HN