The Road To VR 61
An anonymous reader writes "Stack Overflow co-founder Jeff Atwood has posted about how much progress we've made toward commercially viable virtual reality gaming — and how far we have to go. The Oculus Rift headset is technologically brilliant compared to anything we'd have before, but Atwood says there are still a number of problems to solve. Quoting: 'It's a big commitment to strap a giant, heavy device on your face with 3+ cables to your PC. You don't just casually fire up a VR experience. ... Demos are great, but there aren't many games in the Steam Store that support VR today, and the ones that do support VR can feel like artificially tacked on novelty experiences. I did try Surgeon Simulator 2013 which was satisfyingly hilarious. ... VR is a surprisingly anti-social hobby, even by gamer standards, which are, uh low. Let me tell you, nothing is quite as boring as watching another person sit down, strap on a headset, and have an extended VR "experience". I'm stifling a yawn just thinking about it. ... Wearing a good VR headset makes you suddenly realize how many other systems you need to add to the mix to get a truly great VR experience: headphones and awesome positional audio, some way of tracking your hand positions, perhaps an omnidirectional treadmill, and as we see with the Crystal Cove prototype, an external Kinect style camera to track your head position at absolute minimum.' Atwood also links to Michael Abrash's VR blog, which is satisfyingly technical for those interested in the hardware and software problems of VR."
Define virtual reality (Score:5, Insightful)
What would you consider virtual reality? A direct neural interface that simulates all senses like in the Matrix, or just putting some headset that shows a high-res screen before each eye, plus headphones?
Re:Define virtual reality (Score:5, Informative)
Don't be intentionally obtuse. In the middle. Real enough to be called reality but virtual enough that it is not direct nerve stimulation. The stuff like lawnmower man that has been promised for 20 years. Everyone knows the definition.
I would be quite happy with 3d video and audio, and head tracking, and all the other crap superfluous. Quite happy without the social side, as I don't expect people to watch me. Treadmill would get very tiring unless you really want to run towards and away from zombies or machine gunners for hours. Wii sports is tiring enough and you don't actually go anywhere, so extrapolate.
Vr is basically here when 1080 hits, but it's not the vr everyone is looking for. I would bet the full, true vr will make a big splash like laser tag and die quickly, with a long tail.
If the 1080 oculus hits, it will be just good enough to capture marketshare, if they just stop promising the next generation for a while. Few will buy into an obsolete technology, so announce it is mature and has developer backing, or it will not arrive until it is overly mature.
I remember mall demos with 30 people in headsets throwing dodgeball or something, and it was decent then. Put it on today's internet and today's processors, and you just need a compelling environment. Call of duty VR is just laser tag without walking, and flight sim VR is just what every sim player ever wanted. And it will be good enough.
Skyrim in true VR would be awesome, but tiring with all the walking and fighting. Nearly unplayable. Any FPS would be too taxing. Sneakers might work. Any unrealistic game like super monkey ball is unfit for true VR. You need entire New genres for true VR, like maybe travelogues. Controlling sim city or DotA might be super awesome in true VR, with swipe gestures. But I don't see the market in the current core gamer population.
The half VR available in 2 years will be good enough for a generation, or they are making a risky bet.
Re: (Score:2)
What we define as VR determines how close we are to it. The lower you set the bar for what you'll accept to be VR, the more achievable it becomes, and the closer we are to it.
In fact, if you showed an ordinary PC with a high-res monitor and a mouse to someone from the 50s, they might have declared it VR already.
Re: (Score:2)
hell take an xbox one, and a 60" led flat screen, back to 1995.
they would declare it VR, Just the resolution alone would astound us back then. forget about motion tracking and voice controls, it would be star trek.
in 1998 I donned a VR headset of the time and walked on a tread mill. it was fun though a bit disorienting since the screens weren't lined up for my prescription properly.
Re: (Score:2)
in 1998 I donned a VR headset of the time and walked on a tread mill. it was fun though a bit disorienting since the screens weren't lined up for my prescription properly.
Dactyl Nightmare? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows the definition.
I disagree. Everyone has their own version of the definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Skyrim in true VR would be awesome, but tiring with all the walking and fighting.
I could see it working, if the gesture for moving forward is to lean forward slightly, and for moving backwards is to lean backwards slightly. Much less effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Skyrim in true VR would be awesome
Yeah... and I am anxious and terrified at the same time to discover what playing Left 4 Dead in VR will do to my psyche...
Re: (Score:3)
If you listen to Michael Abrash, you will hear him talk a lot about presence, a sense of being there that works even on a subconcious level. If you can't bring yourself to step over a virtual ledge, you have working VR.
What VR Could, Should, and Almost Certainly Will Be within Two Years [youtube.com]
In the early 90s we all read the hype (Score:3, Interesting)
The articles were filled with very optimistic visions of a VR future that was "coming soon"
I worked for Disney Imagineering R&D at the time, so money was available to buy some stuff and play with it
We bought the "state of the art" system, and hooked it up..it was not super impressive
When we showed it to the President of WDI, he said "don't show this to anybody else, it makes us look bad"
Years, and many millions of dollars later, we managed to create our own VR headmount display and opened "Imagineering VR Lab" at Epcot
It was better, but still nowhere near lived up to the hype
Re:In the early 90s we all read the hype (Score:5, Insightful)
And your point is? Are you saying that because it didn't become a success in the 90's it is a failed concept?
The card I have in my computer now, is many times more powerful than an $250k Silicon Graphics Onyx that you had back then. The displays you had back then were crap and had very low resolution. The latency you had in tracking was nauseating and full of errors. Not to mention the huge weight of the "helmet".
Compare that to:
- 1920x1080 resolution OLED with low persistency
- Low latency 1:1 positional tracking
- ~20ms motion to photon latency
- High end PC GPU's capable of rendering realistic graphics at real time >60fps
- ~200 grams of weight and comfortable as the average ski goggles
- $300 price tag
It is so tiresome hearing people who never tried the Rift say it's hype and a gimmick based on 20 year old attempts at the technology.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
It is so tiresome hearing people who never tried the Rift say it's hype and a gimmick based on 20 year old attempts at the technology.
You know what's tiresome? Waiting for the Rift to freaking release. It was demoed nearly two years ago and most people still can't get one (a dev version doesn't count). Years of news and demos and no sign of a release date... that's recognized by most as "hype" and "gimmick".
Re: (Score:3)
I know, it's incredibly frustrating that a company is actually taking their time to develop something properly* so it doesn't flop on release! It makes me angry! ANGRRYYYY!!
*You know, like most people on Slashdot say they wish every company would? VR is something you have to do carefully or it'll end up being declared "another Virtual Boy", and that would kill it fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the 90's, I had single digit internet quake pings, with an ISDN, hooked up to a CRT (so actual single digit pings). Now I have about 3 times that latency just between me and my monitor.
Perhaps we should start looking into using CRT technology for VR glasses to reduce the pings further ;)
Re: (Score:2)
They just need to stop treating LCD displays as if they were CRT displays. See NVidia G-Sync
http://www.geforce.com/hardwar... [geforce.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No... that doesn't help latency. All current _monitors_ have latency, some of up to 100ms. Mine is ok, but not great, about 30ms. Old CRTs are basically 0. It doesn't matter what the video card does, it can't get rid of that latency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The articles were filled with very optimistic visions of a VR future that was "coming soon"
I worked for Disney Imagineering R&D at the time, so money was available to buy some stuff and play with it
We bought the "state of the art" system, and hooked it up..it was not super impressive
When we showed it to the President of WDI, he said "don't show this to anybody else, it makes us look bad"
Years, and many millions of dollars later, we managed to create our own VR headmount display and opened "Imagineering VR Lab" at Epcot
It was better, but still nowhere near lived up to the hype
The obvious course of action is to liquidate and disband Occulus. Remember folks, VR didnt work in the 1990's. We are wasting precious time, money and resources trying to make it work in the 21st century, with all of the advances in display tech, miniature MEMS sensors and all the advances in computing hardware and software that we have had since then, it obviously can never ever work. It failed in the 90's guys, lets close up shop and forget about the dream of immersive VR.
amiright?
Re: (Score:3)
They have accelerators in the headset. It doesn't do much good when at times the head can move at constant velocity. For sensing gravity and rotational movement, it works well, but translation movement is impossible to do reliably with accelerators lacking any sort of frame of reference.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly, I believe Oculus's crystal cove prototype from this year's CES used a combination of accelerometers and the tracking camera to keep the accelerometers synchronized with their true position. In the final version they said the camera probably won't even be necessary anymore, but just this prototype version still requires it.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it did need to have something like IR cameras to observe IR leds in the headset (or vice-versa, as the Wii did), I don't think it would be too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
They have gyroscopic in there already. That's how they can do yaw and such. Still does nothing to help you with linear movement.
Re: (Score:2)
They have accelerators in the headset. It doesn't do much good when at times the head can move at constant velocity. For sensing gravity and rotational movement, it works well, but translation movement is impossible to do reliably with accelerators lacking any sort of frame of reference.
I agree... Also, the system should track eye movement as well. And what about body suits? Animation companies have been using body suits to track human movement for a while now. Why use an external camera when you can just slip into clothing with sensors in it.
Re:Why do you need an external camera to track hea (Score:4, Informative)
Relying entirely on accelerometers and gyroscopes works for a very brief amount of time, before suffering from massive drift.
What Oculus is doing is relying on the onboard tracker for low-latency real-time data, and using the external camera to correct for drift.
Perhaps not so far off... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a big commitment to strap a giant, heavy device on your face with 3+ cables to your PC
Granted, but then again, a lot of particular prominent, even more special purpose successes require a pretty big commitment. Rock band did well and no one is going to claim it's trivial to whip out the guitars and drumset. Granted their success did not endure, but primarily because the experience lacked sufficient variety, it did show people were committed to go through some hoops. Similarly, *really* sitting down to enjoy a feature length movie requires some commitment (doing so without commitment is possible, but much less enjoyable.
there aren't many games in the Steam Store that support VR today
And there weren't many games that supported accelerated 3D graphics when 3dfx voodoo came out. Being too discouraged by that leads to a chicken and egg situation. It's probably also off putting that the set of available titles are at best adaptations of existing games or very basic things. The reason being that the quality games take longer and as such are still in progress (Star Citizen is one I'm really looking forward to). Crystal Cove demonstrates they will have capabilities the dev kits aren't even equipped to help publishers prepare for yet. Oculus is doing the only thing that might have a chance, building up a lot of excitement and coming in at an approachable price point to try to break the chicken and egg situation.
Having your eyes so close to the screens means the display is effectively very low resolution.
This is one area that has me pretty worried and waiting (that and the availability of good positional sensing). I'm really hoping they will be able to use at least a 2560x1440 OLED display (thanks to the mobile resolution pissing contest, Samsung looks ready to announce a shipping product with 2560x1440 at 5.2", 560 ppi seems very promising to construct a display out of, even if magnified).
VR is a surprisingly anti-social hobby, even by gamer standards
Very, very rarely is gaming remotely entertaining to mere observers. A lot of very popular things are *always* equally anti-social (texting, reading books, listening to music on headphones, pretty much doing *anything* on a smartphone or even tablet, laptop, or computer).
Notice how quickly we get into geez-this-is-a-lot-of-equipment territory.
The same can be true of racing or flying games, but that doesn't stop the vast majority of people making do with simpler controls. Just because you *can* take things very far at a very high price, doesn't mean you have to. The external tracking of the head is going to be baked into the headset cost (and not that expensive, as Kinect has shown) Headphones are straightforward as is positional audio in the headphone situation. Beyond eyewear and headphones, things get optional pretty fast. Wiimote-grade tracking for hands I certainly see as a big value add, but things start falling off real fast beyond that (the treadmill I'm skeptical would do anything to pull me that much more in as I think it would still feel very very off, but would wear me out greatly).
Re: (Score:2)
Not as rare as you think. Game tournaments can attract a good number of spectators.
Plus, gaming is not necessarily that anti-social. Makes me wonder if the author has any experience with multiplayer games. Surely when VR becomes mainstram, it will have a multiplayer capability.
Yes, it could be argued that most multiplayer gamers aren't very social, or act anti-social. Griefing is an issue. Makes me wonder what they'll do in the context
Jumpstart VR with VR Cafes... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that your idea sounds like one of the more practical and potentially successful ones I have heard.
It can even be added to places already existing, so the concept of a dedicated 'VR cafe' would not be the only route, thus lowering risks that come from an experimental/new business idea.
Of course there's VR movies as well. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My rift experience (Score:3)
How does rift compare to a good novel? (Score:3)
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03... [nytimes.com]
"The brain, it seems, does not make much of a distinction between reading about an experience and encountering it in real life; in each case, the same neurological regions are stimulated. Keith Oatley, an emeritus professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Toronto (and a published novelist), has proposed that reading produces a vivid simulation of reality, one that âoeruns on minds of readers just as computer simulations run on computers.â Fiction
Re: (Score:1)
The brain, it seems, does not make much of a distinction between reading about an experience and encountering it in real life;
ORLY? I don't know about you but for me there is a significant difference between reading about masturbating and actually doing it. That emeritus professor of cognitive wanking should do a bit more actual wanking, he might learn something about the real world.
The VR has got to the stage where people actually get nervous about stepping off virtual ledges. Reading about it ain't the same.
the difference (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great distinction; thank you. I'll need to think about that.
The devices make it obvious this isn't VR (Score:2)
The summary talks about all the devices that you need to complete virtual reality. The fact that you need all those devices should make it clear: this isn't virtual reality, nor even a step toward it. It is immersive gaming, but until you are directly raising/lowering voltage on neurons, you aren't creating a virtual reality. You're just shaping this reality to create an optical illusion. Virtual reality means truly constructing a brand new reality for the mind to perceive, from the direction of gravity to
Re: (Score:2)
What about games where the player is stationary? Like sitting in a base shooting down aliens come at you from all directions. I admit that it's a much more limited subset of gaming than most people are looking for, but I am curious to know if such a game would alleviate the nausea problem.
I am one of those people who can't read while riding in a car, I get nauseous, so I am very pessimistic about my ability to enjoy a VR headset.
Re: (Score:2)
The Crystal Cove prototype as well as Valves prototype have solved motion sickness for most part, as they have lower latency then the DevKit and track position, instead of just head rotation. If you play something ultra fast like Quake3 in them, you might still get motion sick, as the motion in that game and many others is far from realistic, but if you have a slower game that is build for VR you shouldn't have much of an issue.
VR (Score:2)
I have set my lower threshold for VR:
When I can go to a paintball place and play "CS". Take a fake gun, run over a real terrain that I can see in the virtual world, and my "shots" register as if they were real and take players out of the game once they are "dead" in-game.
Once we get to that level of head-tracking, arm-tracking, freedom-of-movement (i.e. running around in an arena / studio / forest and having the VR know exactly where we are and overlay the virtual world accordingly, thus allowing me to onl
Re: (Score:2)
a flat 2D surface in front of your eyes is *not* like a 3D world when your eye tracks (no matter how close it gets). It does not "curve" the same way. So now you need a tiny, bright, hi-res, portable, low-power FLEXIBLE display too which doesn't distort the image too much. Oh, two of them.
Or you could just use lenses combined with a shader that corrects for the lens distortion.
Exciting, but long way to go... (Score:2)
I think Rift is in the right direction -- I've played with a few HMDs and many VR systems, and although the resolution of the Rift is extremely poor, the comfort is better than almost any HMD that I've tried.
The State of the Art in VR is not HMDs but systems like the CAVE [wikipedia.org] (check out the C6 [iastate.edu] at Iowa State) where the user is in a room with head tracking and a 3D input device, and each wall (including the floor, ceiling, and the wall you entered through in the case of the C6) is a 16 megapixel rear-projected 3D