1990s called and wants its VR back

Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Peoria, ILMember RarePosts: 2,100
The future is augmented reality. Think Google Glass. Think the HUDs in Iron Man's helmet. Virtual reality is a cheap gimmick, a tired toy for GenX nostalgia.

Listen to Mr. Kaku. He knew this 4 years ago. He describes contact lenses, but so far heat issues have delayed research.


A great AR setup could run VR like your PC runs Tetris. Come on, admit it. You want this.

«134

Comments

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,095
    edited December 2015
    you are comparing a theoretical technology to one that is about to go into mass production retail?

    and comparing VR to technology from 1995 but said limitations dont exist in this theorical world of AR?
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAMember EpicPosts: 6,046
    edited December 2015
    Well, to start out with, in AR you aren't forced to render the entire image, "The Real World" takes care of that part for you, and you just need to generate an overlay. And that overlay can be in nearly any resolution you desire, since "The Real World" already comes in as high a resolution as humans can perceive it (except those of you who use 120Hz monitors, of course you can perceive more).

    So yeah, I think AR would take a whole lot less hardware than full-blown VR would. I mnean, the fact that Google has full wireless AR in Glass, in that form factor, shows it's a lot less intensive than VR.

    Now practicality and function are entirely different discussions - just because it's easier on hardware to implement doesn't necessarily make it better or worse, just easier.
    Post edited by Ridelynn on
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Peoria, ILMember RarePosts: 2,100
    SEANMCAD said:
    you are comparing a theoretical technology to one that is about to go into mass production retail?

    and comparing VR to technology from 1995 but said limitations dont exist in this theorical world of AR?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass

    This is not theoretical technology. The question now is making the device more powerful, adding applications and integrating it to societal norm.

    I think VR mass production retail will end up like Atari "E.T." cartridges.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,095
    Ridelynn said:
    Well, to start out with, in AR you aren't forced to render the entire image, "The Real World" takes care of that part for you, and you just need to generate an overlay. And that overlay can be in nearly any resolution you desire, since "The Real World" already comes in as high a resolution as humans can perceive it (except those of you who use 120Hz monitors, of course you can perceive more).
    so the question is this.

    given both technologies when into 'development production' why hasnt AR moved further along than VR?

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Peoria, ILMember RarePosts: 2,100
    SEANMCAD said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Well, to start out with, in AR you aren't forced to render the entire image, "The Real World" takes care of that part for you, and you just need to generate an overlay. And that overlay can be in nearly any resolution you desire, since "The Real World" already comes in as high a resolution as humans can perceive it (except those of you who use 120Hz monitors, of course you can perceive more).
    so the question is this.

    given both technologies when into 'development production' why hasnt AR moved further along than VR?
    Because it costs 1400USD currently and people get beat up in bars for wearing it.



  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,095
    Pepeq said:
    EXCATLTY!

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Peoria, ILMember RarePosts: 2,100
    SEANMCAD said:
    Pepeq said:
    EXCATLTY!
    This is "VR". For "AR", you see everything normally, with heads-up display overlays. This assembly would limit field of vision to the screen, i.e. virtual reality.
  • GruntyGrunty TexasMember RarePosts: 8,156
    Adjuvant1 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Well, to start out with, in AR you aren't forced to render the entire image, "The Real World" takes care of that part for you, and you just need to generate an overlay. And that overlay can be in nearly any resolution you desire, since "The Real World" already comes in as high a resolution as humans can perceive it (except those of you who use 120Hz monitors, of course you can perceive more).
    so the question is this.

    given both technologies when into 'development production' why hasnt AR moved further along than VR?
    Because it costs 1400USD currently and people get beat up in bars for wearing it.



    People also get beat up in bars more often for just being in bars.
    She was grimacing. "That does sound like what America's has been trying to do for the last century or two--get rich faster than the parasites could steal it."   The Free Lunch by Spider Robinson
  • PepeqPepeq Member UncommonPosts: 1,977
    Grunty said:

    People also get beat up in bars more often for just being in bars.
    Quoted for truth... mhmm
  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAMember EpicPosts: 6,046
    SEANMCAD said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Well, to start out with, in AR you aren't forced to render the entire image, "The Real World" takes care of that part for you, and you just need to generate an overlay. And that overlay can be in nearly any resolution you desire, since "The Real World" already comes in as high a resolution as humans can perceive it (except those of you who use 120Hz monitors, of course you can perceive more).
    so the question is this.

    given both technologies when into 'development production' why hasnt AR moved further along than VR?
    Because it's about more than just beating the technical limitations in hardware.

    You need application and purpose. Right now, both AR and VR are extremely niche.

    I think both ~could~ be developed into very exciting products, and I seem to recall a lot of interesting AR ideas that have come and gone. Apart from Glass, which has been mentioned, I can think of Cadillac's Infrared HUD about 10 years ago, for instance. I can't really think of many VR applications, except maybe those simulator rides at the theme parks where you sit in an enclosed hydraulic-driven cart and a video screen of a roller coaster plays (instead of building an entire roller coaster - the effect is pretty intense I admit)

    The issue is that none of them have proven convenient or practical enough to break into mainstream. They are neat, but not neat enough to pay extra for. And they aren't essential for anything yet either.

    The right application would break either/or/both of them wide open, but that hasn't appeared yet.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,095
    edited December 2015
    Ridelynn said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Well, to start out with, in AR you aren't forced to render the entire image, "The Real World" takes care of that part for you, and you just need to generate an overlay. And that overlay can be in nearly any resolution you desire, since "The Real World" already comes in as high a resolution as humans can perceive it (except those of you who use 120Hz monitors, of course you can perceive more).
    so the question is this.

    given both technologies when into 'development production' why hasnt AR moved further along than VR?
    Because it's about more than just beating the technical limitations in hardware.

    You need application and purpose. Right now, both AR and VR are extremely niche.


    To quote John Carmack 'there is more content for VR then there was 3d content after I made doom'

    at least with VR there is a TON of games coming out. I see a new game being development pretty much weekly

    the vr game list
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support

    Post edited by SEANMCAD on

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Xeno.phonXeno.phon Vancouver, BCMember UncommonPosts: 350
  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAMember EpicPosts: 6,046
    All that list boils down to one thing though: Games.

    A lot of people will buy VR for games, sure. I know I would if they had the right game on there.

    But, let's face it, gaming is still just a niche purpose. Particularly those with rigs that will be powerful enough to drive a Carmack-type game. 

    If gaming is the only thing VR will do, it will stay very small and very niche.
  • AcidonAcidon behind you..Member UncommonPosts: 795
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,095
    edited January 2016
    Ridelynn said:
    All that list boils down to one thing though: Games.

    A lot of people will buy VR for games, sure. I know I would if they had the right game on there.

    But, let's face it, gaming is still just a niche purpose. Particularly those with rigs that will be powerful enough to drive a Carmack-type game. 

    If gaming is the only thing VR will do, it will stay very small and very niche.
    like gaming video cards!....a gimmick for a neiche market
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Shoko_LiedShoko_Lied -, WAMember UncommonPosts: 2,175
    edited January 2016
    The advancement goes like this

    Virtual reality gimmicks 1970's - 1990's

    Viable virtual reality - 2016+

    Augmented reality gimmicks - 2012-2019

    Viable Augmented reality - ~2020+  (Better than google glass, but still external hardware based)

    Retina Augmented reality - 2030+   (Like the contacts Mr. Kaku mentions)

    Neural Augmented reality - ~2100+ (Think Deus Ex Neural implants) ; Can bring just about anything you can dream up into reality: HUD's, Diameters of your coffee mug, fall rates, temperature analysis, height analysis, stop watch, test cheats, pong, you can paste details over objects and people; remember the saying "think of them as a talking fish? There's an app for that! Want to give your Christmas tree to your friends? Scan it with your brain and copy/past it into their room. Just beware of DRM. Last but not least, augmented objects that simulate tangible gravitational effects such as baseballs that you can throw (Augmented sports?!). --- Of course, you can jump into your favorite virtual world on the fly as well = No more boredom at the DMV. Why be bored at the DMV when you can take a seat at the 2116 International Virtual Boxing competition for only 500 creds? Sure you could do much of this with previous generations of augmented reality minus jumping into VR, but now you can simply use your mind to access any of it. Want to play the 9th spiritual successor to Star Citizen while sitting on the toilet? Go for it! It's Virtual using a real augmented overlay within the virtual space, allowing the game to mimic real world visuals. It's like reverse rape, but pertaining to augmented reality and VR. Don't kid yourself into thinking you ever actually go out and talk to people though;; Psh, that's what the internet is for. That and porn.

    ------------------- 3000+ Humans extinct?
    Post edited by Shoko_Lied on
  • observerobserver Member RarePosts: 3,675
    edited January 2016
    Both are different in concept.  Both can exist.  There doesn't need to be either / or.

    VR = Virtual Reality.  Artificial worlds such as games or virtual worlds.  Pre-recorded scenarios (movies, porn, etc).  Live performances (concerts, exhibits, etc).  Or a mix of both.
     
    AR = Augmented Reality.  The real world with a UI, which can augment visual effects, avatars, etc.

    AR will be extremely limited though, since the real world will restrict software developers more than a VR software product.
    Post edited by observer on
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Peoria, ILMember RarePosts: 2,100
    But an AR device can be a VR device. Just sit in a darker room with enough radiant light you're not burning your retinae. Launch your ap and go go go.

    What in the world makes you think AR devices would be limited?
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,680
    Adjuvant1 said:
    The future is augmented reality. Think Google Glass. Think the HUDs in Iron Man's helmet. Virtual reality is a cheap gimmick, a tired toy for GenX nostalgia.

    Listen to Mr. Kaku. He knew this 4 years ago. He describes contact lenses, but so far heat issues have delayed research.


    A great AR setup could run VR like your PC runs Tetris. Come on, admit it. You want this.


    Why do we need another VR thread?  We have a hot thread on that already?
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • AlumicardAlumicard wea, ALMember UncommonPosts: 374
    edited January 2016
    The advancement goes like this

    Neural Augmented reality - ~2100+ (Think Deus Ex Neural implants)
    Can someone please build a working stasis pod in the next few years? Or nano 3d printing to create something to put between nerves like a T switch so you can change i.e. in the eye from real to virtual view or add info.  The current stuff just isn't good enough with about 50-100 nerve cells per pin.
    Post edited by Alumicard on
  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaMember EpicPosts: 13,112
    VR is miles away from doing anything amazing in our games.I expect to see really cheap applications for several more years.

    I also never want to be wearing any kind of headset either,so they are going to need a different idea to entice my interest.I could go for a glove idea though and have a realistic extension of our players arms.

    More importantly,i do not feel game developers have warranted going in a direction of VR when they have yet to put together a complete game as is.So what is going to happen with VR,cut even more corners  in game design to make up for the dded production cost?No thanks.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Peoria, ILMember RarePosts: 2,100
    waynejr2 said:

    Why do we need another VR thread?  We have a hot thread on that already?
    Because it's not a VR thread. It's an AR education thread and how it makes VR a "hen of Leeds fad".
  • Xeno.phonXeno.phon Vancouver, BCMember UncommonPosts: 350
    Adjuvant1 said:
    waynejr2 said:

    Why do we need another VR thread?  We have a hot thread on that already?
    Because it's not a VR thread. It's an AR education thread and how it makes VR a "hen of Leeds fad".
    So an inflammatory thread that makes statements that cannot be proven or disproven for years to come then?
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Peoria, ILMember RarePosts: 2,100
    Xeno.phon said:
    Adjuvant1 said:
    waynejr2 said:

    Why do we need another VR thread?  We have a hot thread on that already?
    Because it's not a VR thread. It's an AR education thread and how it makes VR a "hen of Leeds fad".
    So an inflammatory thread that makes statements that cannot be proven or disproven for years to come then?
    I guess, if by "cannot be proven" you really mean "is in the process of being proven, but not to me because I don't understand", then sure.
Sign In or Register to comment.