Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: We need more VR threads

  1. #1
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,708

    We need more VR threads

    So I decided to make one. Got an Occulus Rift Touch this week and just now had a moment to set it up and play with it. Ok, more like an hour or so, but once I got it working, it was all so worth it. I haven't even played any games with it yet. I just played a tech demo thingy where a robot handed me discs and I put them in a 3d printer to make little toys. I also started a educational video that was more or less "Fantastic Voyage". Being on a floating platform in the bloodstream left me a little wobbly so I went to Google Earth and felt like a god.

    Google Earth in VR is a whole new experience. Because of the gnarly melted appearance their algorithms develop when you get down close to the surface, you get to fly around a wasteland version of your home town. It's pretty sweet.

    I experienced only moderate VR sickness, in that I now have a headache--which might mean I'm a millimeter or two off of optimal spacing.

    It's also interesting how the resolution is both good and bad at the same time. It depends a lot on what is being displayed. Text in particular is where you're going to notice pixels the most, but most things, just look like they are there. The space you perceive yourself in is the space you feel like you are in. It works.

    However, I need to work on my sensor setup a bit more. I have a working setup but if I'm turned most of the way around, sometimes it "corrects" itself and the world moves in a way that is... unsettling.

    Anyone else take advantage of the price plummet this summer?
    Some days you're the bug; some days you're the feature.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  2. #2
    Senior Member Tetris Champion notdavidlynch's Avatar
    Type
    INXP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,309
    I'm always baffled when people say that their VR experiences are things like "so worth it".

    Maybe I just have shitty headsets. I have the PS4 VR headset as well as a Google Daydream View. Neither is particularly bad, but I've just been disappointed by the resolutions of VR devices in general. It's hard to stare at a 5K iMac at work all day and have a 4K TV at home and then feel happy slapping on a headset to see the current state of VR in all of it's low-res, pixelated glory.

  3. #3
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,708
    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    I'm always baffled when people say that their VR experiences are things like "so worth it".

    Maybe I just have shitty headsets. I have the PS4 VR headset as well as a Google Daydream View. Neither is particularly bad, but I've just been disappointed by the resolutions of VR devices in general. It's hard to stare at a 5K iMac at work all day and have a 4K TV at home and then feel happy slapping on a headset to see the current state of VR in all of it's low-res, pixelated glory.
    Some of it might be the headsets you're using--the cell-phone based headset being particularly conspicuous. There's a handful more pixels in the OR/Vive than the PS4, which will account for some of it too, in that you have a larger dot pitch and are going to see more screen door. But I think you'd still be dissatisfied with both the Rift and the Vive if you are irritated by pixels. They're there if you look for them. They don't bother me. I'm not looking for photo-realism. I'm not even looking for "current gen" graphics, though I certainly wouldn't object to being able to play some current games in a VR setting--and I don't mean on a simulated screen.
    Some days you're the bug; some days you're the feature.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  4. #4
    New Member
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by notdavidlynch View Post
    I'm always baffled when people say that their VR experiences are things like "so worth it".

    Maybe I just have shitty headsets. I have the PS4 VR headset as well as a Google Daydream View. Neither is particularly bad, but I've just been disappointed by the resolutions of VR devices in general. It's hard to stare at a 5K iMac at work all day and have a 4K TV at home and then feel happy slapping on a headset to see the current state of VR in all of it's low-res, pixelated glory.
    There's no way to make a PS4 VR to perform normally without an upgraded hard. After the upgrade VR works flawlessly. Check the guide here PS4 HDD .

  5. #5
    Check this out though... this could be a significant improvement.

    https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/10/h...ted-rendering/
    Insults are effective only where emotion is present. -- Spock, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" Stardate 3468.1.

    I'm not avoiding socializing I'm helping socializing avoid me! --MoneyJungle

  6. #6
    Cooler than Jesus
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,083
    I’ve never had much of an inclination to try these, but the Google Earth thing has given me the sudden urge to buy one just so I can use it on hallucinogenics.

  7. #7
    Now we know... Asteroids Champion ACow's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,601
    I've said it before and i'll say it again: i've only tried VR at some public demos and events.

    For me, the deal breaker is the lack of eyeball/biological depth-of-field integration in current technology. Maybe its the photographer in me or something, but while it was fun for about 5 minutes, it was a total immersion killer. My brain (and my concsious self) don't want to put on glasses that require giving up active eye focus.

    Intellectually, i can see someone trying to fake that effect with simple eyeball tracking, but intuitively I think there would be problems, since biological depth of field isn't just about tracking iris movements (as is my understanding) but about the dynamic shape of the lenses.

    I've got a darker thought, but haven't looked into it: maybe its literally not possible and that's the end of it for simple single display head mounted VR tech. When I say not possible, i mean I view it as an open question whether one can, with a single distance flat pixel based display, properly simulate close-far display to an eyeball while its physically trying to focus close-far out of line with the actual distance of the display. It might literally be a limit of light/lenses/resolution. Of course, I haven't looked into this, but there's nothing which says to me that it MUST be possible.

    Edit: when i say end, i don't mean in terms of adoption. Humans will adopt all sorts of non-optimal physical practices, especially for social reasons. I mean just as in whether there's a natural limit for biological mimicry of vision through a fixed resolution, fixed distance, flat panel.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ACow View Post
    I've said it before and i'll say it again: i've only tried VR at some public demos and events.

    For me, the deal breaker is the lack of eyeball/biological depth-of-field integration in current technology. Maybe its the photographer in me or something, but while it was fun for about 5 minutes, it was a total immersion killer. My brain (and my concsious self) don't want to put on glasses that require giving up active eye focus.

    Intellectually, i can see someone trying to fake that effect with simple eyeball tracking, but intuitively I think there would be problems, since biological depth of field isn't just about tracking iris movements (as is my understanding) but about the dynamic shape of the lenses.

    I've got a darker thought, but haven't looked into it: maybe its literally not possible and that's the end of it for simple single display head mounted VR tech. When I say not possible, i mean I view it as an open question whether one can, with a single distance flat pixel based display, properly simulate close-far display to an eyeball while its physically trying to focus close-far out of line with the actual distance of the display. It might literally be a limit of light/lenses/resolution. Of course, I haven't looked into this, but there's nothing which says to me that it MUST be possible.

    Edit: when i say end, i don't mean in terms of adoption. Humans will adopt all sorts of non-optimal physical practices, especially for social reasons. I mean just as in whether there's a natural limit for biological mimicry of vision through a fixed resolution, fixed distance, flat panel.
    interesting aside...if one is nearsighted in real life, they are also nearsighted in VR, despite the fact that they are looking at something immediately next to their eyeball.

    Conversely, if one is farsighted, they are farsighted in the virtual world as well, and must move virtual objects a proper distance away before they can see them, but have no problem focusing on far away things despite the fact that they are looking at something less than an inch away from their eyeball.
    Insults are effective only where emotion is present. -- Spock, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" Stardate 3468.1.

    I'm not avoiding socializing I'm helping socializing avoid me! --MoneyJungle

Similar Threads

  1. Rating Threads
    By Perdix in forum The Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-20-2014, 09:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •