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

Oculus Quest 2

oculus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 591 posts

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#541

Post by chaostheory »

nshepperd wrote: post #453
chaostheory wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably the same type of person who also doesn't understand why it's such a pain for anyone else to build their own PC rather than just buying it outright. I had that pain with base station 1.0 with the Vive Pro. Why? 1. As I've already mentioned, not everyone wants to drill into their walls. Some people who live in certain types of apartments can't even if they wanted to. Now you need to figure out how to be…

I screwed the base stations into a piece of wooden 2x4, and stuck the latter to the wall with two bits of Command hanging tape. Super easy. The kit ought to come with these pieces imo.

That's a lot of work for many people, and let's be honest many wouldn't even know how to do that let alone have have random pieces of wood in their house. Not to mention you've ignored all of the points I've brought up. I also really love external base stations. Nothing compares in terms of accuracy. Still I feel it's useful to not be so enamored with something that you're no longer able to look at them objectively. You've also forgotten the part about base stations being expensive and it's a hassle to go to the hardware store just for setting up VR.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#542

Post by chaostheory »

mmastrac wrote: post #374
dummydata wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Valve Index as well, but I don't understand how it is a pain to setup. It's basically like putting two picture frames on the wall. It's good to see that more consumers will come onboard with this insanely good price. I don't know if it is needed to propel VR forward, but at least more people can experience it.

I just put my base stations high up on shelves. It's super easy.

Not everyone has empty high bookshelves in their play area. Difficulty depends on your current room configuration. Not everyone lives in the same house nor do they have the same exact furniture.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#543

Post by cubano »

jyrkesh wrote: post #483
na85 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is anyone interested? Honestly, I feel like you could position such a project as "Deconstructing Facebook's business models one step at a time: The corporation" and hire a lot of anarcho-hacker types while positioning the company as a social-good venture. I personally would love to get paid to gradually undercut and destroy facebook. I worry that 2 things would happen: 1. The company would become what it set out to…

Whenever you talk about startups with people outside the HN-like crowd, they always ask you about "your ideas", particularly if you assume you have all the funding lined up no problem. My go-to response is always "put Facebook out of business". I've been thinking about it for probably 10 years, I still have no idea what that means, but your post here got me a little stoked it could be possible

It's unclear how creating a what-sounds-like a rather expensive open source VR system could possibly put Facebook "out of business", considering probably 99 out of 100 people have no idea FB even owns Oculus.

Also, FB's core business is ads sold to businesses trying to reach users doing social networking stuff...how does this even touch that revenue?

At this point, I don't think FB will ever be put out of business given how old their core user base is, knowing that older people loath tech changes.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#544

Post by cubano »

moron4hire wrote: post #479
someperson wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point it's clear that Facebook have "won" VR. At least for the current generation that's mostly focused on gaming. The original Oculus Quest is already really good, and was constantly sold out for almost its entire lifetime, and now Facebook are selling a near-4K resolution headset with a top-of-the-line Snapdragon XR2 for $299. I have been considering starting an open firmware project for the Oculus Quest 2…

Putting aside the software for a second... I've thought a little on this as well, from time to time. Hardware-wise, I don't see how the Quest 1/Lenovo Mirage Solo/Vive Focus were anything much more than Qualcomm's reference design headset ( https://developer.qualcomm.com/hardware/snapdragon-835-vr-de... ). Different strap designs, minor variations on display modules, removing ancillary stuff like the cellular radio a…

I would tend to agree with you, but is's John Carmack leading the software group for it and I just cannot believe that he hasn't done a bunch of optimizations and other work.

It would just negate a reputation that he has worked his ass off his entire life to build if he hasn't done valuable targeted work on the visuals of the device.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#545

Post by [deleted] »

someperson wrote: post #442
ghostpepper wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the bulk of the Oculus innovation is deep in the stack? Is there much custom hardware in the Quest 2 or is it similar to a phone in a different form factor? How much of the accuracy of the sensor fusion algorithm comes from the inherent accuracy/calibration of the underlying sensors? Has anyone tried bringing up a stock android distribution on the Quest 2?

John Carmack does several hour-long sessions at every annual Oculus Connect event (now called Facebook Connect). [1] [2] He has often spoken about deeply optimizing virtual reality by peeling back all the software layers. From his annoyance at the Android's process scheduling on the GearVR to writing custom microcode for the Qualcomm chip's Digital Signal Processor to try and optimize playing PC games (over Oculus Li…

[deleted]

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#546

Post by ghostpepper »

numpad0 wrote: post #454
ghostpepper wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the bulk of the Oculus innovation is deep in the stack? Is there much custom hardware in the Quest 2 or is it similar to a phone in a different form factor? How much of the accuracy of the sensor fusion algorithm comes from the inherent accuracy/calibration of the underlying sensors? Has anyone tried bringing up a stock android distribution on the Quest 2?

Google and HTC both independently failed to match Oculus. I don’t think an open source implementation at this stage would work at all.

How hard did google really try, though?

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#547

Post by moron4hire »

cubano wrote: post #544
moron4hire wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting aside the software for a second... I've thought a little on this as well, from time to time. Hardware-wise, I don't see how the Quest 1/Lenovo Mirage Solo/Vive Focus were anything much more than Qualcomm's reference design headset ( https://developer.qualcomm.com/hardware/snapdragon-835-vr-de... ). Different strap designs, minor variations on display modules, removing ancillary stuff like the cellular radio a…

I would tend to agree with you, but is's John Carmack leading the software group for it and I just cannot believe that he hasn't done a bunch of optimizations and other work. It would just negate a reputation that he has worked his ass off his entire life to build if he hasn't done valuable targeted work on the visuals of the device.

But he did most of that work on Gear VR (Snapdragon 805 when it first came out for the Galaxy Note 4) and Go (Snapdragon 821), long before Qualcomm started sinking so much stuff into the SOC (Snapdragon 835). My understanding with his involvement on Quest 1 was that he was primarily concerned with the PC streaming. His role since November is "Consulting CTO", which I basically take to mean "on call for questions as needed". Was he even invovled with Quest 2 beyond stuff ported from Quest 1?

All I'm saying is that there is a path through which everything Carmack said could be true, and also the latest hardware doesn't really use what he built.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#548

Post by SahAssar »

rewq4321 wrote: post #516
fuzxi wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because businesses buy in bulk. Regular users have to make up the difference by trading in personal data.

Couldn't someone set up a "business" that proxy-buys for a large number of people? There's obviously a decent market for non-facebook-login version of the Quest 2.

I'm guessing that will be against the TOS and those devices would be remotely bricked (but that's just conjecture)

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#549

Post by mouldysammich »

mrfusion wrote: post #538
worldsayshi wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using Virtual Desktop and it works flawlessly with Alyx. It's so puzzling that you need to enable developer mode and sideload stuff to enable wireless while they allow you to connect with a cable out of the box.

Is there a tutorial on how to get alyx running like you describe?

I used ALVR and found it quite easy to get setup with + its FOSS which I prefer

https://github.com/JackD83/ALVR is the fork to use, its instructions arent super indepth but I got there its not too hard. And then steam views it like a regular steam vr headset. Its pretty cool.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#550

Post by dangoor »

chaostheory wrote: post #540
dangoor wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. Mobile GPUs just don't cut it when you're running VR and displaying on 2-3 screens at once The Oculus Quest has been doing VR acceptably on mobile _phone_ GPUs for 15 months. A recent Mac laptop's GPU should be able to handle at least as good an experience as the Quest.

The Oculus Quest has games that directly target it on its on platform. Most Steam VR games expect a PC with a reasonably, powerful GPU. Macs don't even run Nvidia GPUs Most of Apple leadership just doesn't care enough about games. Sure they care a lot more now, but imo still not enough at the detriment of the Mac line. imo Jony Ive placed too much of an emphasis on form instead of function for AR / VR. If Mike Rockwe…

I see what you mean. Good point. Thanks!
Post reply on HN