From my 20 mins of research the Carl Zeiss tech isn't ready yet. It also seems like this is something they believe in and are very dedicated to.
If I could get a pair of normal (good looking) frames with a self contained HuD (lenses?), camera, and all the other bells and whistles, I'd buy. Who wouldn't?
I'm not convinced about VR. You will never realy be able to move around in your virtual reality, so that puts limits on it, and for the games i play, not having mouse and keyboard would suck.
Maybe a flight sim where i got to keep my keyboard but still have the VR head screen thingy. I've never been much of a flight sim fan though, a racecar sim would make sense too. Basicly a sim where you dont move out of your chair. A shooter with lots of movements i'm just not sure it would work as well.
Maybe if you made a huge ball with a door in it so you could get inside the ball. Then place the ball on rollers like a mouseball and you would be able to move about in all directions with no obstacles in the way. Not sure how else to make it work with us beeing able to move about in VR. That would be a different pricerange though and take up alot of space.
The current VR as i see it needs a very limited gamespace for it not to break the illusion. Like i suggested inside a car, or a plane, or maybe a tank. Most people wont have more than maybe 2x2 meter to work with before they will bump into furniture, so that limits the largeness of the VR.
What Microsoft is doing right now with augmented reality will most likely be used in the gaming space to enhance games. But it is also a much bulkier solution. Similarly, you can use AMDs surround view to surround yourself with images, but it takes space, money, and changing settings
How can you compare this to VR at this point in time is beyond my understanding. I imagine all those glasses can proly show now is a calendar a clock and stuff like that....many moons till its something like VR
I'm not convinced about VR. You will never realy be able to move around in your virtual reality, so that puts limits on it, and for the games i play, not having mouse and keyboard would suck.
Maybe a flight sim where i got to keep my keyboard but still have the VR head screen thingy. I've never been much of a flight sim fan though, a racecar sim would make sense too. Basicly a sim where you dont move out of your chair. A shooter with lots of movements i'm just not sure it would work as well.
Maybe if you made a huge ball with a door in it so you could get inside the ball. Then place the ball on rollers like a mouseball and you would be able to move about in all directions with no obstacles in the way. Not sure how else to make it work with us beeing able to move about in VR. That would be a different pricerange though and take up alot of space.
The current VR as i see it needs a very limited gamespace for it not to break the illusion. Like i suggested inside a car, or a plane, or maybe a tank. Most people wont have more than maybe 2x2 meter to work with before they will bump into furniture, so that limits the largeness of the VR.
I'm not convinced about VR. You will never realy be able to move around in your virtual reality
what makes you think that?
1. at min you can 'move around' just as much as in a conventional game however in reality you can actually 'move around' MORE than a conventional game because you can move your head and pick up things with your hands.
2. you just need to try it is all
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
OP doesn't seem to understand the difference between VR and AR.
With VR, the whole point is to shut yourself off from the real world,so you can immerse yourself in that virtual reality (games, architecture, other kinds of environment planning etc). While with AR the point is use it in addition to what you see in the real world, to give you additional information about the things you look at in the real world.
There is no competition between AR and VR, because they both have very different purposes.
What do you mean 3D televisions didn't take off :pleased:
I think the problem here is that 3D TVs marketing tried acting like it was VR. Where current VR is the first legitimate step into actually accomplishing that goal.
If you're looking for immersive ground breaking tech that we haven't seen before in the mass market, you may be interested in what's coming around the corner.
Not sure what this so called immersive tech people are talking about?
As to those glasses nothing but yet another gimmick,as stated by the designer, "people want a nice looking frame",all about being cool and fashion.
Nintendo Power Glove carried a 4. /5 review by users, so how intelligent are the users in reality?How much weight does a review carry?
FAIL?i doubt that,lots of easy targets to cash in on for businesses.I thought i heard they already sold out the first batch?Where they might be considered a fail is to the consumer and gaming applications,i do not expect even one good application to come from these.
Even funnier is HOW do we plan on creating immersion from games that all they do is have yo u run around chasing yellow markers over NPC heads?What are they going to do have the yellow markers more immersive,more colors,maybe yellow and green?
Developers either don't have a clue about immersion or they simply cannot afford to put it in their games,so how are these VR headsets going to improve what developers can't do?Are these VR sets going to develop the games for these shallow developers?Are these VR sets going to magically make housing appear in Wow?Will they make your whole body appear inside the cockpit of a Star Citizen ship?No nothing is going to come of these because develoepers have yet to make solid games without these adding to their workload.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If you're looking for immersive ground breaking tech that we haven't seen before in the mass market, you may be interested in what's coming around the corner.
Not sure what this so called immersive tech people are talking about?
Have you experienced Vive or Oculus? No? Then that might be why you don't understand what people are talking about.
Actually you have it backwards. This is why smart glasses will fail and the current vr headset will win. Watch and see. You are looking at an evolving technology and claiming the current state needs to be the finished product in order to succeed. U realize the glasses didn't sell out like the OR did?
Well I think it is more about marketing at this point. It is blatantly obvious that current "VR" tech is not VR at all, but just some screens close to your eyes to play some games and such on.
I see the term "VR" these days like the term "Hoverboard" or "3d", just a word gimmick to sell units backed up by a trick being played on your eyes. I am sure they are kind of fun and have a lot of potential to enhance immersion in gaming and movies. But VR it is not, at least until they work on their games to actually be able to make virtual realities instead of just games.
Rusque said it will fail BECAUSE there are no AAA games.
My response is does that then mean the entire indie market has failed?
I am not even talking about VR at the moment
The indie market couldn't carry the Ouya. It hasn't exactly propelled the nVidia Shield. Sure, there are a lot of indie games sold - but mostly on well established platforms that got well established by a line of strong AAA or first-party support.
I don't think XBox would be where it is today without Halo. I don't think Nintendo would be where it is today without Mario and Zelda. The original Playstation was extremely successful with Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy. Steam has Half-Life, among other titles, to drive people to it's storefront.
So far, the only devices that have really carved out new markets has been the mobile market - the big players were either late to the game or couldn't adapt, and now we see publishers like Rovio and Supercell, that have a completely different business model for a completely different type of game.
Maybe VR is the next Mobile success story. That would be the parallel I would try to narrate if I were to make a case for VR's survival - not PC or console gaming.
I'm more interested in Toybox than I am anything else right now, that isn't exactly a fully developed product yet, but if we see more things like that, which leverage VR's uniqueness and bring people together, I could see that going somewhere - Toybox does things that you can't do on a PC right now, and the reason I think it's exciting isn't because it's a game, it's because it allows deeper and more meaningful interaction between people. Just taking an online space game and making it surround-vision... that isn't pushing anything, and if all we really see are titles that could be played on a PC or console made to have head tracking, then I could care less about it.
Rusque said it will fail BECAUSE there are no AAA games.
My response is does that then mean the entire indie market has failed?
I am not even talking about VR at the moment
The indie market couldn't carry the Ouya. It hasn't exactly propelled the nVidia Shield. Sure, there are a lot of indie games sold - but mostly on well established platforms that got well established by a line of strong AAA or first-party support.
I don't think XBox would be where it is today without Halo. I don't think Nintendo would be where it is today without Mario and Zelda. The original Playstation was extremely successful with Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy. Steam has Half-Life, among other titles, to drive people to it's storefront.
So far, the only devices that have really carved out new markets has been the mobile market - the big players were either late to the game or couldn't adapt, and now we see publishers like Rovio and Supercell, that have a completely different business model for a completely different type of game.
Maybe VR is the next Mobile success story. That would be the parallel I would try to narrate if I were to make a case for VR's survival - not PC or console gaming.
I'm more interested in Toybox than I am anything else right now, that isn't exactly a fully developed product yet, but if we see more things like that, which leverage VR's uniqueness and bring people together, I could see that going somewhere - Toybox does things that you can't do on a PC right now, and the reason I think it's exciting isn't because it's a game, it's because it allows deeper and more meaningful interaction between people. Just taking an online space game and making it surround-vision... that isn't pushing anything, and if all we really see are titles that could be played on a PC or console made to have head tracking, then I could care less about it.
we shall see
thus far over the past 2 years pretty much every single news article about VR has been very positive, from multiple sell outs to billion dolllar companies jumping on board like its the second coming. I guess they all just dont understand the AAA forumla in all this
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Also people act like home gaming is the end all be all of VR.
We don't need Oculus for those other use cases. So...
I respect your opinion but you are simply wrong. Or well.. i guess the OR per se is not needed... VR otoh as tech in it self... Your mind will be blown.
But that is also the beauty of it. You do not need to be ea early adopter (or a adopter at all). There are enough people who are to keep the momentum.
AR is the more interesting to me of the two technologies long term for sure but I don't know if that means VR will fail. VR in it's current and probably foreseeable future form is a isolated experience that cuts you off from the real world. Great for people who want to dive into a virtual world for a few hours to play but not so much for people who would prefer a interactive experience with those around them. AR promises (that's all it can do at this point) to give people the ability to interact with both the virtual and real world at the same time and do things as physical groups that VR just doesn't support.
Both have their place and it will interesting to see how these two technologies move forward.
I think AR is awesome and has far more uses than VR.
However...when it comes to gaming the problem AR presents itself is that you do see part of the real world. That is a problem and an advantage at the same time.
For example, Imagine playing a COD map in AR that is overlaced with real buildings...AWESOME! however, what about map number 2, 3,4, 5,6, 7 are you going to go driving all over town for all those maps? well in VR you dont have to go anywhere
Why couldn't you use AR in combination with something like IllumiRoom, or a set of projectors against the walls of a room?
That's closer to a holodeck than VR gets. And more than one person can be in the same room, and see and interact with each other, and physical objects could be integrated easily into the system.
I'm not saying it's cheaper or better or anything, just that it's possible. The projector system throws up the landscape, AR fills in the gaps, and hey, you have map numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
The biggest thing AR has going for it, is that you can use it with the real world - you can go to other places and meet with other people while still using AR. VR, you are pretty well stuck in a virtual world, and if you want to use it with anyone, they have to come into your virtuality. Reality around you gets cut off with VR, whereas it's incorporated with AR.
AR is the more interesting to me of the two technologies long term for sure but I don't know if that means VR will fail. VR in it's current and probably foreseeable future form is a isolated experience that cuts you off from the real world. Great for people who want to dive into a virtual world for a few hours to play but not so much for people who would prefer a interactive experience with those around them. AR promises (that's all it can do at this point) to give people the ability to interact with both the virtual and real world at the same time and do things as physical groups that VR just doesn't support.
Both have their place and it will interesting to see how these two technologies move forward.
I think AR is awesome and has far more uses than VR.
However...when it comes to gaming the problem AR presents itself is that you do see part of the real world. That is a problem and an advantage at the same time.
For example, Imagine playing a COD map in AR that is overlaced with real buildings...AWESOME! however, what about map number 2, 3,4, 5,6, 7 are you going to go driving all over town for all those maps? well in VR you dont have to go anywhere
Why couldn't you use AR in combination with something like IllumiRoom, or a set of projectors against the walls of a room?
well to answer that question, because VR can give you 90% of the same experience for a LOT less gear and cost.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
If I could get a pair of normal (good looking) frames with a self contained HuD (lenses?), camera, and all the other bells and whistles, I'd buy. Who wouldn't?
Maybe a flight sim where i got to keep my keyboard but still have the VR head screen thingy. I've never been much of a flight sim fan though, a racecar sim would make sense too. Basicly a sim where you dont move out of your chair. A shooter with lots of movements i'm just not sure it would work as well.
Maybe if you made a huge ball with a door in it so you could get inside the ball. Then place the ball on rollers like a mouseball and you would be able to move about in all directions with no obstacles in the way. Not sure how else to make it work with us beeing able to move about in VR. That would be a different pricerange though and take up alot of space.
The current VR as i see it needs a very limited gamespace for it not to break the illusion. Like i suggested inside a car, or a plane, or maybe a tank. Most people wont have more than maybe 2x2 meter to work with before they will bump into furniture, so that limits the largeness of the VR.
Similarly, you can use AMDs surround view to surround yourself with images, but it takes space, money, and changing settings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QpLUKGDFVM
1. at min you can 'move around' just as much as in a conventional game however in reality you can actually 'move around' MORE than a conventional game because you can move your head and pick up things with your hands.
2. you just need to try it is all
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
With VR, the whole point is to shut yourself off from the real world,so you can immerse yourself in that virtual reality (games, architecture, other kinds of environment planning etc).
While with AR the point is use it in addition to what you see in the real world, to give you additional information about the things you look at in the real world.
There is no competition between AR and VR, because they both have very different purposes.
Not sure what this so called immersive tech people are talking about?
As to those glasses nothing but yet another gimmick,as stated by the designer, "people want a nice looking frame",all about being cool and fashion.
Nintendo Power Glove carried a 4. /5 review by users, so how intelligent are the users in reality?How much weight does a review carry?
FAIL?i doubt that,lots of easy targets to cash in on for businesses.I thought i heard they already sold out the first batch?Where they might be considered a fail is to the consumer and gaming applications,i do not expect even one good application to come from these.
Even funnier is HOW do we plan on creating immersion from games that all they do is have yo u run around chasing yellow markers over NPC heads?What are they going to do have the yellow markers more immersive,more colors,maybe yellow and green?
Developers either don't have a clue about immersion or they simply cannot afford to put it in their games,so how are these VR headsets going to improve what developers can't do?Are these VR sets going to develop the games for these shallow developers?Are these VR sets going to magically make housing appear in Wow?Will they make your whole body appear inside the cockpit of a Star Citizen ship?No nothing is going to come of these because develoepers have yet to make solid games without these adding to their workload.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
the second I see the word 'gimmick' is usually the point I stop reading
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It is not, in fact most work on VR will be outside the home or for other applications than gaming inside the home.
This have been a good conversation
I see the term "VR" these days like the term "Hoverboard" or "3d", just a word gimmick to sell units backed up by a trick being played on your eyes. I am sure they are kind of fun and have a lot of potential to enhance immersion in gaming and movies. But VR it is not, at least until they work on their games to actually be able to make virtual realities instead of just games.
The porn industry will not support VR.
I don't think XBox would be where it is today without Halo. I don't think Nintendo would be where it is today without Mario and Zelda. The original Playstation was extremely successful with Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy. Steam has Half-Life, among other titles, to drive people to it's storefront.
So far, the only devices that have really carved out new markets has been the mobile market - the big players were either late to the game or couldn't adapt, and now we see publishers like Rovio and Supercell, that have a completely different business model for a completely different type of game.
Maybe VR is the next Mobile success story. That would be the parallel I would try to narrate if I were to make a case for VR's survival - not PC or console gaming.
I'm more interested in Toybox than I am anything else right now, that isn't exactly a fully developed product yet, but if we see more things like that, which leverage VR's uniqueness and bring people together, I could see that going somewhere - Toybox does things that you can't do on a PC right now, and the reason I think it's exciting isn't because it's a game, it's because it allows deeper and more meaningful interaction between people. Just taking an online space game and making it surround-vision... that isn't pushing anything, and if all we really see are titles that could be played on a PC or console made to have head tracking, then I could care less about it.
lol
thus far over the past 2 years pretty much every single news article about VR has been very positive, from multiple sell outs to billion dolllar companies jumping on board like its the second coming. I guess they all just dont understand the AAA forumla in all this
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I respect your opinion but you are simply wrong. Or well.. i guess the OR per se is not needed... VR otoh as tech in it self... Your mind will be blown.
But that is also the beauty of it. You do not need to be ea early adopter (or a adopter at all). There are enough people who are to keep the momentum.
This have been a good conversation
Why couldn't you use AR in combination with something like IllumiRoom, or a set of projectors against the walls of a room?
That's closer to a holodeck than VR gets. And more than one person can be in the same room, and see and interact with each other, and physical objects could be integrated easily into the system.
I'm not saying it's cheaper or better or anything, just that it's possible. The projector system throws up the landscape, AR fills in the gaps, and hey, you have map numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
The biggest thing AR has going for it, is that you can use it with the real world - you can go to other places and meet with other people while still using AR. VR, you are pretty well stuck in a virtual world, and if you want to use it with anyone, they have to come into your virtuality. Reality around you gets cut off with VR, whereas it's incorporated with AR.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me