Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

As a medium, I doubt it will really catch on until something better than eye-goggles comes out for the visual aspect of the experience, simply because of the plethora of problems that the short focal ranges have.

There's a reason why the 3DS handheld was short lived-- The short distances involved caused nausea and other psycho-visual problems. The same will be true of VR based on headgear.

[wierd]

The 3DS is still on the market, but games are basically required to have 2D mode only functionality, due to Nintendo's decision to make a non-3D version of the handset, the 2DS.  This is because of relentless complaints of eyestrain and headaches caused by the 3D feature, and the potential for eye related development problems in young children under 6.

https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/3ds/en_la/health_safety.jsp

[LordBucket]

The short distances involved caused nausea and other psycho-visual problems. The same will be true of VR based on headgear.

It may be an issue for some people, but I think the simulator sickness issue is not a huge problem at this point.

I've gone to Gear VR demos three times now. the first time I went I had someone with me to test it out too. Second time i went solo. The last time I went, I took two people with me. Neither I, nor any of the people I've gone to demos with have had any problems with nausea at all. Headaches from eyestrain, yes. Discomfort from the strap being too tight, yes. No nausea. Additionally I've spent, on one particular occasion, roughly an hour straight in google cardboard. After that hour, yes disorientation and eyestrain were issues. But not nausea. I didn't feel sick.

Now, my experiences might not be sufficient, because as I understand it, everything I've demod so far is considered "not real vr" by the people with development kits for the high end headsets that will be coming out in the next few months. As for other devices, from what I've read, some people do experience nausea with oculus rift. From what I've read, nausea and motion sickness seems to be considered a largely "solved" problem for vive.

[cochramd]

Nor have I noticed anyone in this thread claiming that it will. I still know people who ride horses, for example. But it's preeeeeetty reasonable to suggest that cars had a major impact on the phenomenon of horseback riding.

Are you kidding me? Horseback riding was effected way more by the coach than it was the automobile.

* Porn. Interactive, immersive, first person point of view porn.

Good luck getting past the uncanny valley.

* Seeing a foreign place. Want to walk the great all of China? You can walk the great wall of China. Seeing pictures or movies of somebody else walking the great wall is not the same as seeing it from a personal point of view. Want to see the inside of ISS? Want to go to Mars?

Oh, right, like China would let you scan the Great Wall just so that you could reduce their rates of tourism.

* What about training? Medical/piloting/etc. For example, which do you think would be better training for heart surgery: watching a video of a surgery, or engaging in a first person VR experience where you personally perform the surgery?

We have this already; in piloting/driving there isn't any point in bringing the screen right up to your eyeballs and in surgery, well, we have cadavers and training dummies.

* Design. For example, architecture. Sure, you can create a computer drawing of that buildings, but is looking at it on a monitor going to be the same as rendering it in personal, immersive 3d and walking through the building personally?

That's wonderful for showing off your design to customers, but offers very little use from a design perspective.

[mainiac]

Nor have I noticed anyone in this thread claiming that it will. I still know people who ride horses, for example. But it's preeeeeetty reasonable to suggest that cars had a major impact on the phenomenon of horseback riding.

Are you kidding me? Horseback riding was effected way more by the coach than it was the automobile.

Bazinga.

[Flying Dice]

* What about training? Medical/piloting/etc. For example, which do you think would be better training for heart surgery: watching a video of a surgery, or engaging in a first person VR experience where you personally perform the surgery?

We have this already; in piloting/driving there isn't any point in bringing the screen right up to your eyeballs and in surgery, well, we have cadavers and training dummies.

With total immersion and perfectly mapped sensory responses to action which simulate exactly how things would actually occur, sans consequences for failure?

Oh, and what's the point of these clothing factories; hand-weaving works just fine!

[mainiac]

Training dummies are actually getting more sophisticated to try and replicate the experience as closely as possible for doctors.  But which do you think will be the more useful technology, a $200k dummy or a $1k VR simulator, both of which do the same thing?

[Frumple]

Good luck getting past the uncanny valley.

... we already have entirely photo-realistic, completely computer generated, material, that most people literally cannot tell the difference from a straight up photo/video. Not much (in a relative sense, anyway), 'cause it's fairly time consuming and/or expensive, but there's no "luck" involved in getting past the uncanny valley. We've been doing that to varying degrees, effectively, for a couple of decades now. We know how to do it, it's just a matter of improving tools and developing/disseminating skillsets as demand increases.

[penguinofhonor]

I really don't think China or anyone else could stop VR tourism from becoming a big thing. If a country banned VR scanning monuments, how would they enforce it? These are places where they explicitly want to allow tons of people to wander around with cameras. Not to mention that there are tons of monuments in places where you couldn't pass a law restricting free speech like this - America, for example.

And even if all countries banned VR scanning monuments and found a great way to enforce it, we'd still have all of nature to explore. I'm excited by the idea of exploring Mammoth Cave in VR and I live in the same state as it!

[mainiac]

I dont know about caves.  I think you can only appreciate a natural park if you can feel the air with your skin.  But I would love to be able to walk around the ISS or the Apollo 11 landing site.  Also looking forward to sportscasts.

[penguinofhonor]

It wouldn't replace actually being there (another reason countries wouldn't rush to ban this to protect tourism) but I think it'll be way more popular than looking at pictures of nature online. Which isn't exactly unpopular. Maybe VR tourism won't be an industry but I think it'll be a significant use of VR once people start recording real places.

[LordBucket]

Incidentally, anyone with a phone can already kind-of-sort-of do the international touring thing that we're talking about. No vr headset required, just a regular android phone.

Go to the google play store and install cardboard on your phone. Start up cardboard. Go to 'my library' and tap "street view." Then navigate to wherever in the world you want to experience.

 * If you have a cardboard viewer, click the cardboard icon in the upper right
 * If you don't have a cardboard viewer, click the icon that looks like a little circle with a diagonally angled diamond with a hole in the middle.

Viola! Hold the camera in front of your face and you can rotate fully around just like a 360 degree youtube video. If the area you selected is part of google streetview, you can tap the screen to move around.

Incidentally the great wall of china already has a 360 degree view available, though it appears to be stationary only.

Seriously, everyone go do this right now if you haven't already.

[cochramd]

Training dummies are actually getting more sophisticated to try and replicate the experience as closely as possible for doctors.  But which do you think will be the more useful technology, a $200k dummy or a $1k VR simulator, both of which do the same thing?

It's a $30k dummy and you're not factoring in the cost of software, which is thousands or even tens of thousands every year. Training dummy technology would need to hit a plateau before VR stands a chance at replacing it.

I really don't think China or anyone else could stop VR tourism from becoming a big thing. If a country banned VR scanning monuments, how would they enforce it? These are places where they explicitly want to allow tons of people to wander around with cameras. Not to mention that there are tons of monuments in places where you couldn't pass a law restricting free speech like this - America, for example.

And even if all countries banned VR scanning monuments and found a great way to enforce it, we'd still have all of nature to explore. I'm excited by the idea of exploring Mammoth Cave in VR and I live in the same state as it!

Last time I checked you need more than cameras for proper VR. It's been a while since I checked, though.

[mainiac]

It's a $30k dummy

It doesn't do what they want yet.  I expect better, more expensive dummies in the future.

[LordBucket]

Last time I checked you need more than cameras for proper VR. It's been a while since I checked, though.

Project Tango development tablet demo video. Walk around and point it at stuff and it will 3d map the space. You can buy them for $512

Alternately, if all you need is a panoramic 360 degree stationary view, there's a free app that allows you to twirl in circles with your phone to create them.

There are also these that allow you to capture 360 degree video like the ones you see on the youtube 360 channel.