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

Google Open-Sources Cardboard

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 182 posts

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#71

Post by moron4hire »

jimmaswell wrote: post #58
kayoone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

I don't get why everyone jumped on this idea of VR where you're standing up and moving so much. I'd rather have games just like normal but with a VR headset and KB/M or controller controls.

And I don't get why people watch the NFL or play MOBAs, but there's no accounting for personal preference.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#72

Post by moron4hire »

rosybox wrote: post #56
Ajedi32 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure. Lack of outside visibility seems more like a feature to me than a problem with the medium; the whole point of VR is to remove you from the real world and place you in a virtual one. As for motion sickness; with modern headsets that's generally only a problem for games which move the "camera" in ways which don't match your movement in the real world. (Such as racing games.) There's plenty of content a…

> the whole point of VR is to remove you from the real world Who does this work for? It doesn't for people with spouses and children. I can't be removed from the real world when my child wants my attention. How many hours of game play do you think the average family person might have available to them where they can just remove themselves from the real world? Given all of VR's problems, the people who will play VR ga…

I can't even take a long poop without my kids getting in the way, so this isn't a problem of VR.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#73

Post by moron4hire »

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #68
moron4hire wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

flat-screen AR on phones and tablets, absolutely. It's just about impossible to design a good experience that takes advantage of the technology without too much compromise. Headsets, I think the current devices are just a preview. I'm skeptical that transparent displays are strictly necessary for AR headsets, and I have seen some industry speculation that the HoloLens 2 is probably at the limit of what can be done wi…

This is focused entirely on the technology though. What are the applications that make it useful? I already feel like my phone is giving me sensory overload - I really don't want anything remotely resembling a HUD while I walk around. I'm not convinced it would make for better videogames or regular day-to-day computing, either. I am guessing there are uses for it in industry, although I'm not sure where it would find…

I did an experiment where I tried to use the HoloLens as a "general purpose computer", replacing my desktop for a few days.

Obviously, the processing power wasn't up to the task. It was a bit like trying to go back to an 800x600 CRT for work. But the HoloLens is a 3.5 year old AR headset by now. What I did get out of it was a glimpse into what "could" be, for some value of "AR headset".

First of all, I wasn't tied to a table. These days I don't have a desktop anymore, but even my laptop is basically unusable without a table, especially for the work I do, where I basically require the use of a mouse.

Second, I wasn't limited to my one display. I could put windows anywhere. If you take the virtual desktop concept, and throw it away, scoffing at is as a child's toy, you might get the idea. I kept Twitter hanging out on the front of my refrigerator. I only checked it when I got up to take a drink. I kept my email sitting over to the right of me. It was never directly in my field of view, close enough to be convenient to check, and never hidden behind other windows or minimized away to require hunting for it in an ALT+Tab view.

Third, the system remembered the location of all of my apps between sessions. They became more like appliances in my mind than windows on a screen. The physicality of it, and the recall of it, surprisingly made it more enjoyable to use.

Fourth, the voice assistant was significantly easier to use, now that it was running from a microphone sitting right next to my face, rather than one sitting right next to my GPU fans. I found I started voice commands for basic tasks like opening and closing different applications.

Finally, when I was done, I could just take it off. There is no omnipresent display to wake up and show you a notification icon. There's no need to keep a dedicated space for it. I started viewing my desktop like a garden plow: a big piece of equipment that needed space (which was certainly at a premium for me at that time) and required a lot of manhandling to use well.

Application-wise, I think it's hard to really describe what is "good" about AR. Either you talk about existing apps, in which case people say "yeah, but I can do that on my computer now". Or you talk about potential apps, which is too abstract for people. Try going back to the early 80s and explain to an MS-DOS power user that they'll be using exclusively GUI systems in less than 20 years.

Because of the way it blends into life, I think AR has the potential to improve the overall computing experience for anyone who already uses computers. The potential is to replace your laptop AND your smartphone, not to be a device in addition to them.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#74

Post by ehsankia »

ipsum2 wrote: post #25
EduardoBautista wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like Apple and Microsoft really nailed with focusing on AR instead of VR.

Google was actually the first company to release an AR-capable phone, with depth sensing capabilities, back in 2014[0]. Due to their inability to properly market the device (or maybe the market wasn't ready at the time), they cut back on that division. One of Google's big tactical mistakes, imo. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tango_(platform)#Devices

The big mistake was trying to make AR specific hardware/cameras, which means that people wanting to use whatever made on that platform will have to buy phones with Tango support.

Apple on the other hand focused on AR that works with normal phone cameras, allowing all their devices to get ARKit support, which is what Google ended up doing too. They dropped Tango for ARCore, which runs on any device with a normal camera on it.

Specialized hardware will always lose, because it's stuck in the content -> hardware -> content vicious cycle. No one buys it because there's no content, and no one makes content because no one has the device.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#75

Post by unlinked_dll »

rosybox wrote: post #53
kayoone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

>It is anti-social

that's why location based experiences (LBE) is the solution. Different monetization route, it's basically a theme park model (invest in cutting edge tech/high value content) and maximize throughput like a VR "ride."

Having gone through a number of the experiences I'd highly recommend them. Better than anything you can get at home, it's a fun outing with your friends, and the content is pretty awesome.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#76

Post by topmonk »

moron4hire wrote: post #50
dre54673 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar experience. I bought an Odyssey+ but returned it because I felt motion sick every time I tried it. I've read you're supposed to just power through and eventually you get used to it, but that seems like an easy way to guarantee your product will fail. I had friends try it and they also felt the same way. AR may be a different beast. I don't usually hear people describe it as uncomfortable, mostly just…

> I've read you're supposed to just power through and eventually you get used to it Wheeeeere did you read that?! I've been in the VR industry for the last 6 years and everyone I know vehemently recommends against doing that.

It's called, “getting your VR legs”, akin to sea legs. It worked for me, at least. As an extreme example, I can now play as a character in a space suit, twirling and spinning around for hours, without getting motion sickness. I also regularly play rally racing games where I'm constantly subjected to bumps and jumps, and don't notice it at all. This was after around 100 hours of VR, I think.

Actually I've found the experience somewhat magical, in that I get the same stress relief from being couped up all day by leaving the house to go do something outside as just playing a game for an hour or two. It feels like I'm actually going to another place, nowadays.

This really only started when I got the high end, Valve Index, which has a 90hz+ refresh rate, so maybe that has something to do with it.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#77

Post by topmonk »

rosybox wrote: post #56
Ajedi32 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure. Lack of outside visibility seems more like a feature to me than a problem with the medium; the whole point of VR is to remove you from the real world and place you in a virtual one. As for motion sickness; with modern headsets that's generally only a problem for games which move the "camera" in ways which don't match your movement in the real world. (Such as racing games.) There's plenty of content a…

> the whole point of VR is to remove you from the real world Who does this work for? It doesn't for people with spouses and children. I can't be removed from the real world when my child wants my attention. How many hours of game play do you think the average family person might have available to them where they can just remove themselves from the real world? Given all of VR's problems, the people who will play VR ga…

> Who does this work for? It doesn't for people with spouses and children. I can't be removed from the real world when my child wants my attention. How many hours of game play do you think the average family person might have available to them where they can just remove themselves from the real world?

You could also ascribe the same issues for a parent who wanted to leave the house. In fact more so, since if I left the house with a small child, I can't instantly return if I become aware of some urgent situation. Yet, bars, pool halls, bowling alleys, movie theatres, restaurants, etc., etc., still seem to have survived this seemingly momenumental issue you are harping on about.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#78

Post by unlinked_dll »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #52
kayoone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

I'm not so sure. Lack of outside visibility seems more like a feature to me than a problem with the medium; the whole point of VR is to remove you from the real world and place you in a virtual one. As for motion sickness; with modern headsets that's generally only a problem for games which move the "camera" in ways which don't match your movement in the real world. (Such as racing games.) There's plenty of content a…

re space restrictions/gaming, this is what I mean behind a "content" problem. With the restrictions we have, the limiting factor isn't the tech insofar as that creators don't know (yet) how to use the tech to create content. (incoming rant)

I mentioned it in another comment, but this is what LBE (location based experiences) is all about. You're not just looking at a "game" you play, but a confined piece of content that you experience, like a game, like a film, like a TV episode, but none of the above all the same. It's a completely different medium for telling a story, creating

There's a lot of really cool, niche things out there right now - creators are exploring new ways to create art that maximizes XR's ability to remove a person from their environment (wholly or in part) and uses that combined with audio and video technology to create an interactive, immersive experience as a piece of art and/or storytelling.

But the issue to me is this: if you look at the history of technology and art or multimedia, tech has almost always chased the artists' vision. And this is the problem I see with all of Google's plays into XR. They're not saying to artists: "imagine you had a medium that allowed to remove a person from their environment, construct a new one around them, immerse them in it, and interact with your vision. What would you make? What do you need?"

If you want examples of this: Walt Disney's animation studio pioneered many animation techniques and technologies. That didn't come from engineers experimenting; it came from animators wanting to create something they couldn't, and engineers figured out what to build to realize their vision. Game engines have never added features for the sake of features, they are demanded by game designers to add something new to present a new experience to the player. Same goes for paint brushes, instruments, etc etc.

And that's why I feel a lot of VR plays struggle. They're engineers putting the cart before the horse. Throw money at creators, and figure out what they need to create.

It's also why some of the best VR I've experienced has come from LBE. It's content first, figure out the platform second. Monetization third (which is interesting, since it's a theme park ride model).

If there are two things that are absolutely certain in media: if the content is compelling, the technical side is secondary. And if the content is compelling, it can be monetized. All these VR plays are screwing up by focusing on tech and money over content, which is what actually drives people to spend their money and use the tech.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#79

Post by tus88 »

rosybox wrote: post #53
kayoone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

The people bullish on VR are the same crowd who were bullish on 3D tv. If people don't want to wear a bit of flimsy cardboard they sure as hell don't want to wear a plastic sarcophagus on their head.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#80

Post by [deleted] »

rosybox wrote: post #53
kayoone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Oculus Rift devkit and later the full version and loved it, but I actually have doubts about it only being a content problem. VR has some inherent problems (lack of any outside visibility, motion sickness, space restrictions) that are hard to solve and keep many people away from it. For me it only really worked in racing games where i was not moving at all and even then it is quite exhausting.

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN