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

I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

blog.codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 139 posts

Re: I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

#61

Post by exelius »

silverlight wrote: post #39

I'm most excited for VR headsets to replace my desktop monitors. Infinitely sized displays in 360 degrees around me...I think that's where the real future is for these things. And doing that won't require nearly the hardware power that a 3D game does. The main thing holding it back is that the displays in the Oculus are still a little too low-resolution to make text 100% crisp and clear. I fully expect that a couple…

More likely you'll end up with something like the Hololens. It won't replace your monitor, rather augment it. AR is the stop-gap between what we have now and true VR. Truly immersive VR is going to require some sort of neural control interface, and we're at least 20 years off from that being a productized mass-market device.

VR headsets are hella disorienting. I can't imagine any manufacturer recommending more than an hour of continuous usage. I just don't see any benefit to trying to work on a VR headset: I continuously have to refer to items in the physical world (my cell phone, written notes, etc) while working. Being immersed in VR would simply be too disorienting.

Now, I don't doubt that it'll happen eventually. But the time horizon is closer to 15-20 years IMO; VR is still very much in its infancy. Things like this are an art and a science; we're doing pretty well with the science part but we need to figure out the art, and that takes iteration and above all, time.

Re: I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

#62

Post by theschwa »

austenallred wrote: post #48

It says something that we're writing blog posts about, "This early version of tech didn't absolutely blow my mind" I mean, this is still early-iPod-days of this tech. You could look at it, especially after hearing hype about the iPod, and say something like, "No wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame." http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip... Anecdotally, I've found that looking at anything fr…

Not only is this based on "early versions of the tech", but no one has even released a consumer product yet. These are are all developer prototypes. Even the Samsung Gear VR is still an "innovator edition".

Re: I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

#63

Post by exelius »

codinghorror wrote: post #50
mkeblx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree completely but underlying the growing excitement was for the past 18 months (since Abrash, etc. started talking about VR and presence as something incredible, game-changing and deliverable in around 2 years) was in large part based on the pace things were advancing and what was in store for a consumer release. Plus many of his specific points are just so temporary in nature, like resolution complaint…

I think it is very unlikely any of that will be solved in a few years. For example resolution, arguably the easiest one to attack, when we are talking 4k res at 120fps, that is barely possible on the highest end PC rigs today with 2 or even 3 video cards in SLI.

Honestly, the consumer GPU market has been in a state of stagnation for the last 3 or 4 years because there's not a ton of demand for anything higher than 60fps/1080p. Hopefully VR will drive consumer demand for higher resolutions to bring prices down.

Re: I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

#64

Post by twoodfin »

codinghorror wrote: post #50
mkeblx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree completely but underlying the growing excitement was for the past 18 months (since Abrash, etc. started talking about VR and presence as something incredible, game-changing and deliverable in around 2 years) was in large part based on the pace things were advancing and what was in store for a consumer release. Plus many of his specific points are just so temporary in nature, like resolution complaint…

I think it is very unlikely any of that will be solved in a few years. For example resolution, arguably the easiest one to attack, when we are talking 4k res at 120fps, that is barely possible on the highest end PC rigs today with 2 or even 3 video cards in SLI.

Isn't this only true if what you want is the equivalent of AAA FP games blasted directly at your retinas?

If you could solve all the problems of lag, resolution and artifacting, but only give me Nintendo 64-levels of polygons and shading, I bet I could still have some pretty compelling experiences.

Re: I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

#65

Post by ghaff »

sireat wrote: post #30

Counterpoint: My friend's architecture office has Occulus, and everyone, clients and architects love it. I asked her if anyone experienced any headaches or seasickness but since there is no action happening just a visual walk through buildings it seems side effects are minimized. So for architecture Occulus fills a nice niche.

This strikes me as a really good use of the technology. As you suggest, it doesn't need to be high frame rate or truly immersive. It just needs to be better than looking at blueprints (which is really hard for untrained people) or, best case, doing a VR walkthrough on a monitor.

I wonder if this and AR (e.g. Google Glass) are on a similar trajectory. Lots of hype that near to mid-term--call it over the next 10 years or so--ends up mostly as a relatively niche technology for specific commercial use cases.

Re: I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

#66

Post by sayangel »

i'd be interested to hear what Jeff thinks about the GearVR. Most people brush it off as just another phone holder with lenses, but I'd say it's the most compelling VR headset available on the market.

It has a lot of what he requests from a VR headset: wireless, better display than DK2, and doesnt require a gaming rig. It's virtually plug and play and I think that's why people love it.

MobileVR is what will and should be people's first taste. I've spoken with a lot of architects who love cardboard because it sets such low expectations but blows people away when they put it on. The DK2 is a bit underwhelming as you're strapped into some gaming rig so you're expecting some cutting edge graphics and end up with what something that looks like N64 VR.

One thing that was neglected in this post is the emotional response that VR, even in it's current state, can evoke. I was sold on the Rift after trying some of the early horror titles. They were graphically very basic, but every corner had me sweating and the jump scares had me looking away. You could argue a 2D monitor has the same effect but when you're in VR and try to look away only to find you don't see your living room or anything familiar everything changes. And the social experiences like Convrge or Altspace are also something to be excited about. I was at first quite skeptical of things like this, but the subtle head movements that are incorporated into the avatars are enough to give one a sense of "meatspace" social cues. I once found myself talking to someone in Convrge and was awkwardly nodding and avoiding eye contact when I realized this was just an avatar. It's simple but powerful.

Re: I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

#67

Post by mkeblx »

codinghorror wrote: post #50
mkeblx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree completely but underlying the growing excitement was for the past 18 months (since Abrash, etc. started talking about VR and presence as something incredible, game-changing and deliverable in around 2 years) was in large part based on the pace things were advancing and what was in store for a consumer release. Plus many of his specific points are just so temporary in nature, like resolution complaint…

I think it is very unlikely any of that will be solved in a few years. For example resolution, arguably the easiest one to attack, when we are talking 4k res at 120fps, that is barely possible on the highest end PC rigs today with 2 or even 3 video cards in SLI.

On the Gear VR (dev kit, 2014) there was a 2.5k screen at a smooth 60fps. The consumer Gear VR coming out this fall will likely have a 2.5k screen but we'll likely see 4k screens on mobile headsets in 2016. 120fps will be a nice improvement but not required, with the Rift CV1 at 90fps and sufficient for presence. So we're talking a 2-4x difference.

The graphics card issue is not that relevant, Gear VR with a mobile GPU is showing that it's not really about some arbitrary graphical fidelity bar. Yes, some of the highest fidelity cool stuff will be on PC but multiple cards won't be required. Both the Vive and CV1 will run great on one high end card, and by the time they upgrade to ~4k/120Hz... they'll still require just 1 card.

Re: I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

#68

Post by beeboop »

rrss1122 wrote: post #51

Seems contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. Even the cheap google cardboard, which ticks all his requirements except 4K (and probably will have that in the next year), is mindblowing, both to me and friends and family I've shown it to. I didn't even show them games running on cardboard, just videos shot using Google's special 360 cameras. The technical challenges around VR are not that deep, hard, and fas…

Even with a 4k phone screen there would be a lot of room for improvement as the Oculus user sees it.

Re: I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

#69

Post by coldtea »

austenallred wrote: post #48

It says something that we're writing blog posts about, "This early version of tech didn't absolutely blow my mind" I mean, this is still early-iPod-days of this tech. You could look at it, especially after hearing hype about the iPod, and say something like, "No wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame." http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip... Anecdotally, I've found that looking at anything fr…

>I mean, this is still early-iPod-days of this tech.

Well, people have been touting VR since the early nineties. When is this "late version" gonna come out?

Re: I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

#70

Post by coldtea »

rrss1122 wrote: post #51

Seems contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. Even the cheap google cardboard, which ticks all his requirements except 4K (and probably will have that in the next year), is mindblowing, both to me and friends and family I've shown it to. I didn't even show them games running on cardboard, just videos shot using Google's special 360 cameras. The technical challenges around VR are not that deep, hard, and fas…

>Seems contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian.

Seems he gave about 2000 words of the concrete reasons he doesn't like it.

Heck, he event gave CONCRETE suggestions of things that need improvement.

So, no, this is the very opposite of "contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian".

>is mindblowing, both to me and friends and family I've shown it to

Gimmicks can be mindblowing too. Have you used it for extented periods of time? Would you? And, since there are always outliers, would others bother?

Some people were also totally in love with their Google Glass BS, and we know how that turned out in the market.

Post reply on HN