I'm glad there's more competition showing up, but for my VR headset of choice I absolutely need positional tracking, not just gyros and accelerometers.
I'm glad there's more competition showing up, but for my VR headset of choice I absolutely need positional tracking, not just gyros and accelerometers.
Yeah, from what I hear a lack of true positional tracking is a one way street to Barfsville for a lot of people. I do really like the quick switch camera feeds on the front, I feel that's going to be pretty much standard after a few iterations of VR devices. Hell, maybe a pure optical setup could be created with the same outcome.
Is anyone else REALLY underwhelmed by the ~90 deg. FOV of all these sets? The narrow FOV is what bothered me most in all FPP games since the dawn of time, and here we only get a few degrees of improvement.
I haven't had the chance to try any set yet, so it might turn out no to be a problem, but I'm still somewhat disappointed.
We are True Player Gear, a five employee tech startup based in Montreal, Canada.
We are gamers, we are passionate and we have a vision that we’ve been developing for the past nine years. We created a virtual reality headset for the real gamers like us out there.
Up to now we operated in stealth mode, except for the past two weeks were we started gradually broadcasting our existence (eg: VR Mixer @ GDC) in preparation for a Kickstarter campaign.
We didn’t initially intend to make any announcement. But we feel that with the news of a corporation buying Oculus, who is focused on web applications and doesn’t understand the hardware business like others do, we really need to come out of the woods and let everyone know that there is an alternative that is coming soon. We are in the last stretch of developing a final 5th gen prototype and are aiming to present a finished dev. kit on Kickstarter in the next few months.
Specifications: 1080p low persistence OLED screen, 90 degrees FOV, head and body tracking, compatible with PC, PS3/4, Xbox One/360.
Features: hardware accelerated pre-lens distortion, hardware accelerated motion tracking, onboard cameras for positional tracking (WIP), expansion port for makers, surround sound via standard headphones, individual focus per eye for long and short sided peoples, oversized lenses for clearer text, and more!
We strongly stand by the developers and gamers community and as such we would like invite you all to participate in naming the fruit of our labor!
I'd prefer a wider field of view than 90 (Rift is 110 I believe, and I'd still prefer wider!), but positional tracking for head and body is neat, as is the camera and the hardware acceleration distortion, along with the focus per eye adjustments. Hopefully some of this is stuff Oculus plan to add too.
Other additions from Reddit, where they're posting:
The positional tracking is still a Work In Progress, we still have to find the most reliable way between markers, ir, leds or detecting the actual environment like the brain does.
Were are seen as a 3DTV (Input) for maximum compatibility. For best latency, we need 3D SbS format.
The trackers (Output) can be configure as mouse, xbox/ps joypad, maybe morpheus emulation or any other format that the community would want!
So they're aiming for combatibility for consoles too by emulating a wired controller and warping the output from a 2D/3D signal. Dubious on how well that'll work personally but I guess it's a nice addition.
The cynic in me seems someone taking advantage of the tide of anti-facebook sentiment. The rational person sees another competitor in the market driving competition, yay!
The FOV business that gets thrown about is confusing me. On a normal screen, high FOV allows you to have more of the world visible on said screen, with the caveat that at higher FOVs the display can look warped at the edges. Is this going to be exactly the same for VR headsets? This is of course bearing in mind I actually have no idea how the display is actually going to be... uhhh... displayed to the user within the headset.
The cynic in me seems someone taking advantage of the tide of anti-facebook sentiment. The rational person sees another competitor in the market driving competition, yay!
The FOV business that gets thrown about is confusing me. On a normal screen, high FOV allows you to have more of the world visible on said screen, with the caveat that at higher FOVs the display can look warped at the edges. Is this going to be exactly the same for VR headsets? This is of course bearing in mind I actually have no idea how the display is actually going to be... uhhh... displayed to the user within the headset.
Well, the higher the FOV, more of the natural peripheral vision is exposed. I am assuming that with the rift being at 110, you get a more natural "far edges" feel than you would on a device with only 90.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The cynic in me seems someone taking advantage of the tide of anti-facebook sentiment. The rational person sees another competitor in the market driving competition, yay!
The FOV business that gets thrown about is confusing me. On a normal screen, high FOV allows you to have more of the world visible on said screen, with the caveat that at higher FOVs the display can look warped at the edges. Is this going to be exactly the same for VR headsets? This is of course bearing in mind I actually have no idea how the display is actually going to be... uhhh... displayed to the user within the headset.
Well, the higher the FOV, more of the natural peripheral vision is exposed. I am assuming that with the rift being at 110, you get a more natural "far edges" feel than you would on a device with only 90.
I'm intrigued as to how the display will attempt to "wrap around" the vision of the user. I should probably just go and google this stuff .
The cynic in me seems someone taking advantage of the tide of anti-facebook sentiment. The rational person sees another competitor in the market driving competition, yay!
The FOV business that gets thrown about is confusing me. On a normal screen, high FOV allows you to have more of the world visible on said screen, with the caveat that at higher FOVs the display can look warped at the edges. Is this going to be exactly the same for VR headsets? This is of course bearing in mind I actually have no idea how the display is actually going to be... uhhh... displayed to the user within the headset.
Well, the higher the FOV, more of the natural peripheral vision is exposed. I am assuming that with the rift being at 110, you get a more natural "far edges" feel than you would on a device with only 90.
I'm intrigued as to how the display will attempt to "wrap around" the vision of the user. I should probably just go and google this stuff .
The lenses are what achieves the depth perception effect in the Rift and other similar devices. This isn't something that they "attempt". This is how the headsets work, and it works extremely well. You can see how much the lenses are doing when using a Rift if you look through the lenses at a scene, then take off the headset, remove the lenses, and look directly at what is just a normal flat screen through the eyeholes. Suddenly what appeared to be an immersive landscape is just a monitor that's really close to your face. The lenses are really what makes the tech work as well as it does.
When it comes to your questions about field of view
A normal monitor can only display what is within the bounds of the monitor. The field of view when talking about normal flat monitors is relative to the viewpoint of the camera or point of view of the character in the game.
When talking about field of view in a VR headset, you're talking about field of view relative to your own eyes. Human beings have almost 180 degrees of forward facing field of view without moving their eyeballs. If you include eye movement, humans have nearly 270 degrees field of view.
This is a key aspect of virtual reality headsets that is not something that's going to be able to be addressed anytime soon - even a massive field of view of 180 degrees is not as wide as natural human vision. What will need to be done eventually is a curved screen that encases your entire eyes and around the side of your head to provide a true recreation of human vision.
Dhalphir on
+2
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
The cynic in me seems someone taking advantage of the tide of anti-facebook sentiment. The rational person sees another competitor in the market driving competition, yay!
The FOV business that gets thrown about is confusing me. On a normal screen, high FOV allows you to have more of the world visible on said screen, with the caveat that at higher FOVs the display can look warped at the edges. Is this going to be exactly the same for VR headsets? This is of course bearing in mind I actually have no idea how the display is actually going to be... uhhh... displayed to the user within the headset.
Well, the higher the FOV, more of the natural peripheral vision is exposed. I am assuming that with the rift being at 110, you get a more natural "far edges" feel than you would on a device with only 90.
The Rift features 110 degrees of diagonal field of view, which translates to just over 90 degrees horizontal. So this competitor is very similar.
However, both are going to have to lift their game more for a consumer release - the Rift devkit feels very much like looking at the world through ski goggles, and while that's fine for proof of concept, early enthusiasts, and developers, it's going to have to be better to provide a really immersive experience from a consumer point of view.
I want to say that Oculus claimed somewhere that the newest prototype did increase the field of view over the first devkit, but I can't remember where I read it or if it's even something that Oculus genuinely said, so I can't say for sure.
What's worse, is that the hardware part of providing a curved screen around your eyes is not enough- it is also necessary to provide a curved frustum ("view cone") in the game- meaning that the image has to be rendered accordingly. The fact that this hasn't happened yet despite the rising popularity of 3-display gaming, suggests that it might be pretty problematic. I only know of one game that renders separately for each display and that's iRacing. I assume a curved display is going to either require completely different math or an approximation by rendering multiple images placed horizontally on the curved display.
What's worse, is that the hardware part of providing a curved screen around your eyes is not enough- it is also necessary to provide a curved frustum ("view cone") in the game- meaning that the image has to be rendered accordingly. The fact that this hasn't happened yet despite the rising popularity of 3-display gaming, suggests that it might be pretty problematic. I only know of one game that renders separately for each display and that's iRacing. I assume a curved display is going to either require completely different math or an approximation by rendering multiple images placed horizontally on the curved display.
It's been awhile since I've done 3D stuff, but wouldn't it just take a mathy linear algebraist coming up with an appropriate projection matrix to 'solve' that issue?
GT: Acidboogie PSNid: AcidLacedPenguiN
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
What's worse, is that the hardware part of providing a curved screen around your eyes is not enough- it is also necessary to provide a curved frustum ("view cone") in the game- meaning that the image has to be rendered accordingly. The fact that this hasn't happened yet despite the rising popularity of 3-display gaming, suggests that it might be pretty problematic. I only know of one game that renders separately for each display and that's iRacing. I assume a curved display is going to either require completely different math or an approximation by rendering multiple images placed horizontally on the curved display.
It's been awhile since I've done 3D stuff, but wouldn't it just take a mathy linear algebraist coming up with an appropriate projection matrix to 'solve' that issue?
Like putting to much air in a balloon!
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
What's worse, is that the hardware part of providing a curved screen around your eyes is not enough- it is also necessary to provide a curved frustum ("view cone") in the game- meaning that the image has to be rendered accordingly. The fact that this hasn't happened yet despite the rising popularity of 3-display gaming, suggests that it might be pretty problematic. I only know of one game that renders separately for each display and that's iRacing. I assume a curved display is going to either require completely different math or an approximation by rendering multiple images placed horizontally on the curved display.
It's been awhile since I've done 3D stuff, but wouldn't it just take a mathy linear algebraist coming up with an appropriate projection matrix to 'solve' that issue?
I want to say no, because you can only stretch / shear / skew a viewing space with a single matrix operation, you can't curve it.
On the other hand, this might be the killer app that makes realtime ray-tracing take off.
Sorry, in what way does Facebook mine user data? The only data they have is what is submitted by users themselves. Aggregating data that users submit themselves is not data mining, it's marketing analysis and every company in the world does it with every bit of information you give them.
I really think you're blaming the wrong people here. Facebook can and certainly should be held accountable for who has access to the data they gather, but providing it to advertisers so that they can make money as a business doesn't seem so wrong, in and of itself.
Aggregation of data was also one of the core elements of the SCOTUS ruling in Jones, forcing GPS tracking to require a warrant. The data as a whole corpus is greater than the sum of its parts.
(b) i am not sure why people think this is going to change the core product. WhatsApp and Instagram remain well-supported products true to their core mission, even though they stood a much greater risk of being subsumed into the greater mass of facebook.
The cynic in me seems someone taking advantage of the tide of anti-facebook sentiment. The rational person sees another competitor in the market driving competition, yay!
The FOV business that gets thrown about is confusing me. On a normal screen, high FOV allows you to have more of the world visible on said screen, with the caveat that at higher FOVs the display can look warped at the edges. Is this going to be exactly the same for VR headsets? This is of course bearing in mind I actually have no idea how the display is actually going to be... uhhh... displayed to the user within the headset.
Well, the higher the FOV, more of the natural peripheral vision is exposed. I am assuming that with the rift being at 110, you get a more natural "far edges" feel than you would on a device with only 90.
I'm intrigued as to how the display will attempt to "wrap around" the vision of the user. I should probably just go and google this stuff .
The lenses are what achieves the depth perception effect in the Rift and other similar devices. This isn't something that they "attempt". This is how the headsets work, and it works extremely well. You can see how much the lenses are doing when using a Rift if you look through the lenses at a scene, then take off the headset, remove the lenses, and look directly at what is just a normal flat screen through the eyeholes. Suddenly what appeared to be an immersive landscape is just a monitor that's really close to your face. The lenses are really what makes the tech work as well as it does.
When it comes to your questions about field of view
A normal monitor can only display what is within the bounds of the monitor. The field of view when talking about normal flat monitors is relative to the viewpoint of the camera or point of view of the character in the game.
When talking about field of view in a VR headset, you're talking about field of view relative to your own eyes. Human beings have almost 180 degrees of forward facing field of view without moving their eyeballs. If you include eye movement, humans have nearly 270 degrees field of view.
This is a key aspect of virtual reality headsets that is not something that's going to be able to be addressed anytime soon - even a massive field of view of 180 degrees is not as wide as natural human vision. What will need to be done eventually is a curved screen that encases your entire eyes and around the side of your head to provide a true recreation of human vision.
The ski goggle analogy works well for me, thanks! Obviously the best thing is for me to just go and try them, sadly I don't know anyone or anywhere that has one.
I'm still more than anything baffled by Facebooks buyout in of itself. Their other two large acquisitions made sense; those softwares being very much within their remit. But a hardware production house with no user communication, data acquisition or social network ties? Maybe they're simply just looking to expand their repertoire into an entirely new sector, but otherwise awuh?
The cynic in me seems someone taking advantage of the tide of anti-facebook sentiment. The rational person sees another competitor in the market driving competition, yay!
The FOV business that gets thrown about is confusing me. On a normal screen, high FOV allows you to have more of the world visible on said screen, with the caveat that at higher FOVs the display can look warped at the edges. Is this going to be exactly the same for VR headsets? This is of course bearing in mind I actually have no idea how the display is actually going to be... uhhh... displayed to the user within the headset.
Well, the higher the FOV, more of the natural peripheral vision is exposed. I am assuming that with the rift being at 110, you get a more natural "far edges" feel than you would on a device with only 90.
I'm intrigued as to how the display will attempt to "wrap around" the vision of the user. I should probably just go and google this stuff .
The lenses are what achieves the depth perception effect in the Rift and other similar devices. This isn't something that they "attempt". This is how the headsets work, and it works extremely well. You can see how much the lenses are doing when using a Rift if you look through the lenses at a scene, then take off the headset, remove the lenses, and look directly at what is just a normal flat screen through the eyeholes. Suddenly what appeared to be an immersive landscape is just a monitor that's really close to your face. The lenses are really what makes the tech work as well as it does.
When it comes to your questions about field of view
A normal monitor can only display what is within the bounds of the monitor. The field of view when talking about normal flat monitors is relative to the viewpoint of the camera or point of view of the character in the game.
When talking about field of view in a VR headset, you're talking about field of view relative to your own eyes. Human beings have almost 180 degrees of forward facing field of view without moving their eyeballs. If you include eye movement, humans have nearly 270 degrees field of view.
This is a key aspect of virtual reality headsets that is not something that's going to be able to be addressed anytime soon - even a massive field of view of 180 degrees is not as wide as natural human vision. What will need to be done eventually is a curved screen that encases your entire eyes and around the side of your head to provide a true recreation of human vision.
The ski goggle analogy works well for me, thanks! Obviously the best thing is for me to just go and try them, sadly I don't know anyone or anywhere that has one.
I'm still more than anything baffled by Facebooks buyout in of itself. Their other two large acquisitions made sense; those softwares being very much within their remit. But a hardware production house with no user communication, data acquisition or social network ties? Maybe they're simply just looking to expand their repertoire into an entirely new sector, but otherwise awuh?
They apparently believe that VR is going to be the next big thing and by aquiring Oculus, they can promote the crap out of it and help ensure it WILL be the next big thing. This is more of a long-term ploy by them. They haven't announced anything yet, but I'm sure they've either got a team assembled or are assembling one right now to begin work on conceiving and creating a Facebook VR metaverse type thing. This is basically them trying to steer the future in a direction that they can have a large presence in as a social hub.
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
hmmm, the whole field of view thing.....imagining - with facebook funds - a future oculus where no matter where my eyes look, there's screen.
exploring the ishimura with that?
oh hell yes.
I could imagine the second generation Rift tackling both FoV and front-facing cameras for AR, with possible wireless connectivity to PC and/or phone connectivity.
ShogunHair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get alongRegistered Userregular
Been watching videos of various games using the Rift. The Half life 2 VR mod with a razer hydra looks amazing. I have never played HL2 so I'm definitely saving the experience for that. Euro Truck Simulator 2, which I already adore, also looks incredibly cool with a Rift. I can only imagine with the consumer unit or even DK2 the game would be an amazing experience with a G27 driving setup.
II've been playing a bit of Dirt 3 with the dev kit 1 and my Logitech wheel (just a GT). It really is amazing, and that's not even native support.
The blur isn't nauseating to you in a game that fast?
It's not the blur that's nauseating - not really. In most games, it's unnatural movement that's most nauseauting. Most FPSes are brutal on the motion sickness for most people, as the movement is so unnatural. Even something as mundane as strafing or jumping is almost impossible for the brain to process properly inside the Rift, and it's an instant urrrghhh moment for me. The brain just doesn't like it when your eyes say you're moving in an impossible way.
In driving games, and flying games, you're in a cockpit, so you have a fixed reference frame for your brain to adjust to. It actually works just fine.
I wonder how difficult it would be to improve the shape-from-shading in games to where it might not pose a problem for women in VR, or anyone else for that matter. I know fuckall about graphical design and coding and stuff, but it would seem to me that it's mostly a matter of changing where someone using a Rift sees shadows and light on an object as they move their head. Also perhaps having a much wider field of view, allowing us to actually move our eyeballs around to look instead of having to keep them focused straight ahead (I assume that's how the Rift currently works, please correct me if I'm wrong). Although I don't know if it would be possible for the device to track what your eyeballs are looking at to adjust what you're seeing accordingly.
Now that has me thinking of her example of holding your finger up and you seeing it more on the "dominant eye" side. Would that still work in VR? If not, would prolonged use of VR get rid of my dominant eye and make both equal? Because I'm trained to shoot with my dominant eye, but if I were to somehow get rid of the dominant eye then it would be easier to learn to shoot with my non-dominant eye (there's still the hurdle of switching from my dominant hand to my other, but that's another story).
That's just me kicking ideas around, I don't know enough about anything to know if any of that's possible or what have you.
I've tried probably an equal split of guys and girls in my dev kit 1. Obviously this is anecdotal but girls have all been fine and suffered either no motion sickness or very minor motion sickness. Of the guys some were fine but those that suffered motion sickness lasted no longer than 30 seconds to a minute in the rift and it hit them really bad, one felt ill for the rest of the evening.
With all respect to the author, she's relying largely on incredibly limited data from her own undergrad thesis way back in 2000, and even those results don't indicate any sort of biological issues with visual processing. The most interesting and potentially illuminating part (questioning transitioning transgender folk undergoing hormone therapy) is admittedly anecdotal and largely unreported on, to say nothing of how incredibly difficult that sort of thing would be to standardize.
I'd like to see more research on the subject, but the more obvious answer (and the one her original paper touches on) is simply one of experience with the format. More men then women have spent years playing games from a first person perspective, and that transfers, to some degree, to VR. It's not a perfect facsimile, and on average men have spent longer 'training' in that environment.
Not being dismissive, as there's a lot of interesting information in there (and even her old study), I just think her framework and conclusions are off.
Edit: And that's all assuming that a sex difference exists within more advanced VR in the first place. She's discussing 14 year old tech alongside today's VR, and while I trust her knowledge on the technological advances in 3D rendering, nobody's done a study with modern equipment.
Posts
Twitter 3DS: 0860 - 3257 - 2516
Yeah, from what I hear a lack of true positional tracking is a one way street to Barfsville for a lot of people. I do really like the quick switch camera feeds on the front, I feel that's going to be pretty much standard after a few iterations of VR devices. Hell, maybe a pure optical setup could be created with the same outcome.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
I haven't had the chance to try any set yet, so it might turn out no to be a problem, but I'm still somewhat disappointed.
I'd prefer a wider field of view than 90 (Rift is 110 I believe, and I'd still prefer wider!), but positional tracking for head and body is neat, as is the camera and the hardware acceleration distortion, along with the focus per eye adjustments. Hopefully some of this is stuff Oculus plan to add too.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
So they're aiming for combatibility for consoles too by emulating a wired controller and warping the output from a 2D/3D signal. Dubious on how well that'll work personally but I guess it's a nice addition.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
The FOV business that gets thrown about is confusing me. On a normal screen, high FOV allows you to have more of the world visible on said screen, with the caveat that at higher FOVs the display can look warped at the edges. Is this going to be exactly the same for VR headsets? This is of course bearing in mind I actually have no idea how the display is actually going to be... uhhh... displayed to the user within the headset.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
Well, the higher the FOV, more of the natural peripheral vision is exposed. I am assuming that with the rift being at 110, you get a more natural "far edges" feel than you would on a device with only 90.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm intrigued as to how the display will attempt to "wrap around" the vision of the user. I should probably just go and google this stuff
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
The lenses are what achieves the depth perception effect in the Rift and other similar devices. This isn't something that they "attempt". This is how the headsets work, and it works extremely well. You can see how much the lenses are doing when using a Rift if you look through the lenses at a scene, then take off the headset, remove the lenses, and look directly at what is just a normal flat screen through the eyeholes. Suddenly what appeared to be an immersive landscape is just a monitor that's really close to your face. The lenses are really what makes the tech work as well as it does.
When it comes to your questions about field of view
A normal monitor can only display what is within the bounds of the monitor. The field of view when talking about normal flat monitors is relative to the viewpoint of the camera or point of view of the character in the game.
When talking about field of view in a VR headset, you're talking about field of view relative to your own eyes. Human beings have almost 180 degrees of forward facing field of view without moving their eyeballs. If you include eye movement, humans have nearly 270 degrees field of view.
This is a key aspect of virtual reality headsets that is not something that's going to be able to be addressed anytime soon - even a massive field of view of 180 degrees is not as wide as natural human vision. What will need to be done eventually is a curved screen that encases your entire eyes and around the side of your head to provide a true recreation of human vision.
The Rift features 110 degrees of diagonal field of view, which translates to just over 90 degrees horizontal. So this competitor is very similar.
However, both are going to have to lift their game more for a consumer release - the Rift devkit feels very much like looking at the world through ski goggles, and while that's fine for proof of concept, early enthusiasts, and developers, it's going to have to be better to provide a really immersive experience from a consumer point of view.
I want to say that Oculus claimed somewhere that the newest prototype did increase the field of view over the first devkit, but I can't remember where I read it or if it's even something that Oculus genuinely said, so I can't say for sure.
It's been awhile since I've done 3D stuff, but wouldn't it just take a mathy linear algebraist coming up with an appropriate projection matrix to 'solve' that issue?
Like putting to much air in a balloon!
I want to say no, because you can only stretch / shear / skew a viewing space with a single matrix operation, you can't curve it.
On the other hand, this might be the killer app that makes realtime ray-tracing take off.
(a) that was not the holding in jones http://www.volokh.com/2012/01/23/whats-the-status-of-the-mosaic-theory-after-jones/
(b) i am not sure why people think this is going to change the core product. WhatsApp and Instagram remain well-supported products true to their core mission, even though they stood a much greater risk of being subsumed into the greater mass of facebook.
Just sayin' dat cuz you no playah.
...or something.
The ski goggle analogy works well for me, thanks! Obviously the best thing is for me to just go and try them, sadly I don't know anyone or anywhere that has one.
I'm still more than anything baffled by Facebooks buyout in of itself. Their other two large acquisitions made sense; those softwares being very much within their remit. But a hardware production house with no user communication, data acquisition or social network ties? Maybe they're simply just looking to expand their repertoire into an entirely new sector, but otherwise awuh?
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
They apparently believe that VR is going to be the next big thing and by aquiring Oculus, they can promote the crap out of it and help ensure it WILL be the next big thing. This is more of a long-term ploy by them. They haven't announced anything yet, but I'm sure they've either got a team assembled or are assembling one right now to begin work on conceiving and creating a Facebook VR metaverse type thing. This is basically them trying to steer the future in a direction that they can have a large presence in as a social hub.
I think by law he's required to go to work in a lab coat, now
hahahahahaha
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
exploring the ishimura with that?
oh hell yes.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I could imagine the second generation Rift tackling both FoV and front-facing cameras for AR, with possible wireless connectivity to PC and/or phone connectivity.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Shogun Streams Vidya
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
God, I want a new Dirt game with native Rift support more than pretty much any other game.
The blur isn't nauseating to you in a game that fast?
Twitter 3DS: 0860 - 3257 - 2516
It's not the blur that's nauseating - not really. In most games, it's unnatural movement that's most nauseauting. Most FPSes are brutal on the motion sickness for most people, as the movement is so unnatural. Even something as mundane as strafing or jumping is almost impossible for the brain to process properly inside the Rift, and it's an instant urrrghhh moment for me. The brain just doesn't like it when your eyes say you're moving in an impossible way.
In driving games, and flying games, you're in a cockpit, so you have a fixed reference frame for your brain to adjust to. It actually works just fine.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
I wonder how difficult it would be to improve the shape-from-shading in games to where it might not pose a problem for women in VR, or anyone else for that matter. I know fuckall about graphical design and coding and stuff, but it would seem to me that it's mostly a matter of changing where someone using a Rift sees shadows and light on an object as they move their head. Also perhaps having a much wider field of view, allowing us to actually move our eyeballs around to look instead of having to keep them focused straight ahead (I assume that's how the Rift currently works, please correct me if I'm wrong). Although I don't know if it would be possible for the device to track what your eyeballs are looking at to adjust what you're seeing accordingly.
Now that has me thinking of her example of holding your finger up and you seeing it more on the "dominant eye" side. Would that still work in VR? If not, would prolonged use of VR get rid of my dominant eye and make both equal? Because I'm trained to shoot with my dominant eye, but if I were to somehow get rid of the dominant eye then it would be easier to learn to shoot with my non-dominant eye (there's still the hurdle of switching from my dominant hand to my other, but that's another story).
That's just me kicking ideas around, I don't know enough about anything to know if any of that's possible or what have you.
He's going to be my test case for dev kit 2...
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
interesting.... you can't build a VR future without 50% of humanity, so i look forward to more research being done to solve that problem
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
With all respect to the author, she's relying largely on incredibly limited data from her own undergrad thesis way back in 2000, and even those results don't indicate any sort of biological issues with visual processing. The most interesting and potentially illuminating part (questioning transitioning transgender folk undergoing hormone therapy) is admittedly anecdotal and largely unreported on, to say nothing of how incredibly difficult that sort of thing would be to standardize.
I'd like to see more research on the subject, but the more obvious answer (and the one her original paper touches on) is simply one of experience with the format. More men then women have spent years playing games from a first person perspective, and that transfers, to some degree, to VR. It's not a perfect facsimile, and on average men have spent longer 'training' in that environment.
Not being dismissive, as there's a lot of interesting information in there (and even her old study), I just think her framework and conclusions are off.
Edit: And that's all assuming that a sex difference exists within more advanced VR in the first place. She's discussing 14 year old tech alongside today's VR, and while I trust her knowledge on the technological advances in 3D rendering, nobody's done a study with modern equipment.