[HN Gopher] Mixed Reality with Passthrough
___________________________________________________________________
Mixed Reality with Passthrough
Author : bemmu
Score : 134 points
Date : 2021-07-24 08:30 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (developer.oculus.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (developer.oculus.com)
| throwuxiytayq wrote:
| Zuck. We don't care.
| karmakaze wrote:
| I couldn't think of a good use for a low resolution, laggy
| grayscale mix-in video of my real environment.
|
| The page does show one use case that I'm very interested in--
| showing the rough position of my hands, keyboard and mouse. If
| there's to be advancements in VR development environments, it has
| to at least have an input mechanism that's as good as what we
| have in the real world. Having the same in VR is as good and can
| be improved upon.
| ExitPlatosCave wrote:
| This changes everything!
|
| I would find it interesting to see how a layer on top of reality
| would allow non-technical people to perform technical tasks.
|
| For example I don't know a lot about car engines. I can imagine
| being guided through minor repairs by utilizing these types of
| overlays.
|
| I can imagine this kind of overlay system also to provide a big
| boost in diagnosis for problems and systems such as car engines
| or even medical diagnosis.
| go_elmo wrote:
| I find it hard to imagine to use the current bw only and grainy
| cameras of e.g. the quest 2 for such tasks, it really doesnt
| feel natural. But might be easy to improve this in future
| generation hardware
| blensor wrote:
| It works if the "AR" is just using the real world as a kind
| of backdrop and not the main visual elememt.
|
| If you are using it the other way around as a kind of real
| world view with only a few AR elements on top it gets old
| pretty quicklY
| jonplackett wrote:
| Feels like a test. I think it's a solid bet Quest 3 will have
| better cameras!
| go_elmo wrote:
| I'm sure they chose the ones used for better CV tracking &
| properties, especially in low light etc, but could be easy
| to add a pair of true-color ones, especially for
| passthrough. Just checked again and the main issue IMO
| currently is the low framerate / blur when using it. The
| movement of the hands e.g. is quite uncomfortable this way.
| in3d wrote:
| It's hard to see why VR headsets with pass-through would win
| out over AR headsets (like the Hololens) in the long term for
| such uses. But I suppose if you need something right now, VR
| would be more available and cheaper.
| msk-lywenn wrote:
| AFAIK, AR headsets are still additive displays, ie. no way of
| displaying black. That's the only advantage I see in using VR
| headsets for AR
| dagmx wrote:
| Also waveguides have other limitations, like image
| fidelity, FoV, needing darker environments and significant
| display artifacts.
| jonplackett wrote:
| One reason is that with hololens / magic leap you can't
| create black. The display is like a 'screen' layer in
| photoshop and can only add additional light, so you can't get
| great contrast and anything you add to the scene has a ghost-
| like quality.
|
| All those demos you've seen of AR glasses making screens on a
| wall are faked. Magic leap paid a special effects house to
| make a lot of their 'real' demos.
|
| Also - field of view. Magic leap has an AWFUL field of view.
| ExitPlatosCave wrote:
| I think it's interesting to think about adding elements to
| what we experience in reality via AR.
|
| Versus importing elements from reality into a VR
| experience.
|
| Based on your comments I would say one of the big
| advantages of importing from reality into VR would be to be
| able to move around without colliding into physical objects
| in the real world.
| jonplackett wrote:
| That would be really cool. Like a game that had virtual
| objects but in the same places as the physical world, but
| hey don't need to be the same thing.
|
| Long term I think the idea of a computer almost
| permanently between us and our number one most trusted
| sensory organ is a fast recipe for Utopia / Dystopia.
| cheschire wrote:
| You basically described the Hololens concept from years ago.
| What changed? This feels like old territory and the excitement
| doesn't feel justified.
|
| Edited.
| plutonorm wrote:
| It a practice platform for when the tech catches up with the
| dream. Anyone who isn't excited by augmented reality tech is
| just.... I dunno... bored of life?
| shock-value wrote:
| I'm not excited for AR at all. Conversely, I'm extremely
| excited for VR and have only become more so after getting
| my first headset (Quest 2 primarily used with SteamVR).
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| Its also a great chance, to virtualize large swathes of the
| "non-touch" economy - and thus be another step stone to a
| carbon reduced world. No need for a plastic gnome on the
| front lawn, just place it. No need for birthday deco, just
| place it in virt, no need for other deco, just place it in
| virt. No need for a fancy car display, just use virt-hud,
| with a basic-backup.
| malka wrote:
| I am waiting for AR lenses.
| f6v wrote:
| > Anyone who isn't excited by augmented reality tech is
| just.... I dunno... bored of life?
|
| I want invisible technology, the one that does everything
| and I don't have to interact with it.
| anon_tor_12345 wrote:
| >Anyone who isn't excited by augmented reality tech is
| just.... I dunno... bored of life?
|
| lol isn't this just the most ironic claim? i'm not excited
| by augmented reality exactly because i'm not bored with
| life (i.e. unaugmented reality).
| ExitPlatosCave wrote:
| Possibly this is not a great analogy but if there was just
| one car company in the world for example Ford, I don't think
| cars would be as versatile or as commonly adopted.
|
| Therefore I'm seeing any progress on the part of multiple
| companies signaling that this is more than just a one-off.
|
| Another example would be the very early handheld iPad
| predecessors (Palm Pilot). Look like nothing was going to
| happen there. But after several failures it started to take
| hold.
| dagmx wrote:
| Fundamentally different devices.
|
| The Hololens is a waveguide display with a very small FOV.
| It's also 10x the price.
| ahiknsr wrote:
| > What changed?
|
| Hololens price is $3,500 where as Quest 2 price is 300$.
| Quest 2 has the potential to become a mainstream device with
| that price.
| cheschire wrote:
| Okay that's a perspective I can understand a little better.
| Making AR more accessible by using cheaper VR technology to
| implement it seems like a good reason to be interested.
|
| I'm still not seeing the excitement as a consumer because
| the apps aren't there yet. From a development perspective
| it also just feels... iterative.
| xoa wrote:
| > _I 'm still not seeing the excitement as a consumer
| because the apps aren't there yet._
|
| Why would the apps ever be there if the hardware isn't?
| Wouldn't that statement be like complaining "the apps
| aren't there yet" for the iPhone 1 or Android launch? We
| know how that movie plays out.
|
| > _From a development perspective it also just feels...
| iterative._
|
| But "iterative" is generally by far the most important
| part of technical success where mainstream adoption is
| required to get the most out of it. Nobody builds Rome in
| a day, it takes years reaching a critical mass of
| iterative improvements.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Incrementalism is the name of the game.
|
| Cheaper, better devices... about an order of magnitude
| here. A larger user base, by more than that. A better
| understanding of UX paradigms. ETC.
|
| The majority of successful products of the last
| generation were conceptualized and attempted during the
| dotcom, circa 95-00. Smartphones, social media, online
| dating, ecommerce, travel, cloud computing.... The user
| base, infrastructure, technology, culture and such just
| weren't there yet.
|
| If you wrote off everything that was attempted but failed
| to catch fire in the 90s, you would have written off
| almost every tech product created since.
| Cybotron5000 wrote:
| I'm a fan of the potential of these technologies, but I'm
| guessing that sadly FB's subsidised/closed VR/AR systems
| will have a 'hidden' (& frankly creepy) cost that is
| unfortunately characteristic of their business model:
| https://itif.org/publications/2021/03/04/balancing-user-
| priv... https://carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu/publications/rei
| magining-... https://www.reedsmith.com/-/media/files/perspe
| ctives/2017/06... [pdf]
| jayd16 wrote:
| Hololens (and most other AR headsets) is an additive display
| on a transparent waveguide. The Quest2 is passthrough video
| on a full face LCD.
|
| The display technologies are fundamentally different. HL is
| additive so you can't show blacks. You have to make due with
| tricking the eye with grays. Its a lot harder to get
| realistic lighting on objects. The FOV on the Quest2 is much
| better.
|
| The Quest2 is a couple SOC generations ahead of the HL2.
|
| The Quest2 has a much bigger install base.
|
| The Quest2 is 1/10th the price.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| It's a HN guideline not to accuse others of shilling without
| evidence. (It's such a common pattern that it makes for
| boring reading, among other reasons.)
| Iv wrote:
| Oh, a tech from a decade ago adapted on the closed SDK of a
| closed device!
|
| The fact that they have to write a paragraph promising that
| everything is local and that videos don't get sent online,
| curiously, makes me even more suspicious.
| dagmx wrote:
| What tech from a decade ago are you talking about? This is one
| of the first devices,at least the first in the consumer price
| point, to have this functionality at this high fidelity.
| potatolicious wrote:
| Yeah... I don't remember any kind of low-latency high-res VR
| video-passthrough from 2011 (or anything even close to that
| year)... not to mention anything at a consumer price point.
|
| I suppose FB now falls under the usual umbrella of Apple
| criticism: they implemented something well, for which the
| _possibility_ has been known in the industry for some time,
| and so we gotta slag on them for not inventing it?
|
| I continue to have strong reservations about an ad company
| (especially that has such a dodgy history with user privacy)
| running this platform, but the technical achievements from
| FBRL are quite (pun intended) real.
| LambdaComplex wrote:
| And if they didn't write that paragraph? It's Facebook, so
| you'd be suspicious anyways (and rightfully so).
| neither_color wrote:
| As a Quest 2 owner I'd love some competition but nothing comes
| close to its feature set at its price point. Valve index or HP
| Reverb may have marginally higher resolutions, but Quest 2 is
| both standalone AND does PCVR/Steam completely wirelessly. For
| what its worth it's easier to sideload apps on a quest than an
| iphone, and I've gotten random android utilities to run on
| mine, most importantly Mullvad VPN. You can install a custom
| app launcher and a utility that lets you instantly access it by
| double clicking the side button, letting you skip all of
| facebook's stuff. You can browse the open app catalog here:
|
| https://sidequestvr.com/
|
| Between the oculus store, sidequest, Steam, and dropping in
| android APKs the device is a lot less closed than you think.
| Would I prefer if it was facebook account free? Yes but I dont
| know who else has the cash to compete with facebook on this
| one.
| MikusR wrote:
| Quest 2 has higher resolution than Index. And if you look at
| pixels per degree then Quest 2 has almost twice the
| resolution of Index.
| MikusR wrote:
| It's using https://www.khronos.org/openxr/
| smoldesu wrote:
| I own a Quest 1, and I've got every bone to pick with Facebook
| imaginable.
|
| However, the Oculus Passthrough implementation (and their
| 'guardian' feature, for that matter) is unparalleled. It's many
| times more dependable than the SteamVR safety features, and
| surprisingly low-latency. I'm not at all surprised that it's
| local.
| spdebbarma wrote:
| I am so glad I invested in an Oculus Quest 2 recently. So far,
| I've been having so much fun just exploring the various things to
| do in VR.
|
| I initially bought this to explore UI/UX for VR, but with AR, it
| opens up the technology and my personal research to a whole slew
| of challenges.
| billconan wrote:
| How long can you use it before feeling dizzy?
| psyc wrote:
| I've only used 2 headsets. The first PSVR made me queasy
| quickly. I've used the Quest 2 a ton without feeling dizzy or
| sick for even one moment.
| chaostheory wrote:
| I can use it for 2 hours or more. The only games where I get
| dizzy within 15 minutes are the roller coaster and driving
| games that spin you upside down where it feels like you have
| no control over movement.
| cmiles74 wrote:
| I don't really get dizzy or disoriented unless it's a game
| where you move with the joystick control or something. Games
| where you move around a table or teleport from place to place
| haven't bothered me at all.
| fruityrudy wrote:
| Same. Best purchase in a long time. Can't believe I was
| wondering if it would be worth it.
|
| The VR UI paradigms are really nice.
| laumars wrote:
| AR has been in the consumer space a lot longer than VR. In fact
| I'm more surprised that AR had never taken off in a big way
| than I was about VR. Sure we've seen some games like Pokemon Go
| take advantage of it. But AR should have been a game changer.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Well, it doesn't help that nobody actively releasing apps
| seems to understand that AR is a lot more than just drawing
| things on top of a camera feed.
|
| Almost every social video platform has some firm of AR
| filters. Snap probably has the most pervasive use of AR, with
| tools available to develop new filters (Lens Studio).
|
| As of right now, these are the only examples of apps that do
| something with the tech that can't be done without the tech,
| and probably done better.
|
| You can see why in the games market and Pokemon Go is a good
| example of why. The AR camera feature distracts, not adds, to
| the gameplay. Everyone I knew playing the game turned the
| camera feature off because it drained battery fast and
| limited play time.
|
| Now, I would still call Pokemon Go an AR game, even without
| the camera feed, because I count the map overlay tracking
| your real work location a form of AR. It is a feature that
| _augments_ your _reality_. And that feature adds to the
| gameplay. People enjoy traveling to play the game.
|
| I think AR games will never be a big thing because AR design
| is fundamentally at odds with game design. With AR, you have
| to design an app the works in a context that the user brings
| in. In contrast, with VR, you're designing an app that
| provides a context to the user. Game design--especially as
| done by most game studios--is usually focused on providing a
| wholly contained experience for the user.
|
| And that AR design challenge is just fundamentally more
| challenging. First of all, we can't get a lot of the
| interesting information about a user's personal context. The
| most we can get right now is geographic location, rough
| estimations of surfaces in their area, and maybe some very
| rough object classification. We don't know things like
| whether or not the user has a TV, or where that TV is
| located. Even if we did, we'll probably never be able to know
| what brand of TV they have, so now you have a problem of none
| of the stakeholders caring to ever fund a "TV classifying"
| project, because they'd never be able to sell the branding
| tie-in.
|
| And I think that's the real problem with both the AR and VR
| industries. There's little incentive to create a product that
| users will care about, outside of games, which work better in
| VR. Any funding your going to find for any use case outside
| of games will want it 100% married to their brand, but brands
| have all gotten so indistinguishable from one another that
| there's nothing to really _do_.
| Closi wrote:
| > But AR should have been a game changer.
|
| VR turned out to be the easier of the two to turn into a
| viable consumer product - mainly because you can get away
| with a big bulky headset for gaming around the house, but you
| can't wear it outside for a walk.
|
| The hardware that you could wear outside for a walk (e.g.
| google glass) hasn't actually been AR, and has just been like
| a tiny heads-up display in the corner of your eye.
| [deleted]
| Mandelmus wrote:
| AR will become a game changer once the hardware is there,
| i.e. glasses than can be worn comfortably and anywhere.
| Everything before that is just practice for the software and
| UI.
| cwe wrote:
| AR has been a game changer, via face filters. More stuff is
| possible with it everyday, but it's already getting a lot of
| usage
| tluyben2 wrote:
| I haven't been following Oculus since I bought the first one on
| Kickstarter (which I had a lot of fun with); the Quest 2 has
| cameras to support AR or is that an add on? It looks like it on
| pictures, but there is little mention of it on most pages about
| it (at least at a quick look).
| Duralias wrote:
| The first oculus headsets used camera base stations to track
| the headset and controllers, all of the recent ones have used
| cameras on the headsets itself to track everything, these can
| be used to see the real world, however since they are
| infrared cameras meant for tracking there is no colour and
| the resolution isn't as high as it should be for AR to be
| useful.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I had the first oculus, and it didn't have any base
| stations. It didn't track anything at all, in fact... it
| only detected rotational motion of your head, it didn't
| detect any other motion at all. There also were not any
| controllers.
| baby wrote:
| It sounds like you're talking about Oculus Go, which
| isn't the first oculus.
| taneq wrote:
| Once upon a time the original Rift only had 3DOF
| tracking. This was back in the "Palmer Luckey just met
| John Carmack" days.
| Zetaphor wrote:
| The original DK1 was 3DoF, and the CV1 launched with a
| single sensor and an Xbox controller. The CV1 didn't get
| proper 6DoF until after launch.
| baby wrote:
| The first oculus is the rift though
| cortesoft wrote:
| They released a dev kit that was called the oculus rift
| that came out before the one you are thinking of.
| mintplant wrote:
| DK2 had a separate camera for outside-in tracking. I have
| one in a box in my closet.
| cortesoft wrote:
| No, I had the Dev Kit 1. It was called Oculus Rift.
| baby wrote:
| The Oculus Rift definitely had more than what you're
| talking about, and it was the first oculus
| cortesoft wrote:
| I have one sitting next to me. It doesn't have positional
| tracking... you can read about it here: https://en.wikipe
| dia.org/wiki/Oculus_Rift#Development_Kit_1
| rubicon33 wrote:
| I believe he is referring to the first commercially
| available headset, which is indeed, the CV1 "Oculus Rift"
| andybak wrote:
| Yes but those were developer kits not retail devices.
| tluyben2 wrote:
| Even that I forgot: mine was the dev kit indeed.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Sure, but they were still called an Oculus Rift.
| timdorr wrote:
| Yes, the Quest 1/2 and Rift S do "inside out" tracking. They
| have 4 cameras (5 on the Rift S) on each corner of the front
| face plate that tracks the headset and controller positions
| in 3D space (in addition to internal accelerometers and
| gyroscopes).
|
| This is, for the most part, what enables the Quest to be
| fully wireless. Because there is no base station or fixed
| position camera, you're not limited to where you can use it,
| nor how big your play area can be. If you're in a new space,
| you just draw a guardian border around your play area and
| you're good to go.
|
| The "passthru" feature mentioned above lets you see the
| camera feeds composited together in the headset display. It's
| very helpful for things like moving a chair out of the way or
| finding your controllers if you put on the headset without
| grabbing them. This new API allows developers access to this
| camera feed and to interact with its display for AR
| applications.
| efnx wrote:
| If you dig the idea of using VR for productivity then you should
| check out the SimulaVR project, which brings wayland/X support to
| Linux VR.
|
| https://simulavr.com/
| devwastaken wrote:
| I lie awake at night and wonder, what if valve made competitive
| VR hardware, instead of the steamdeck?
|
| It's clear the r&d is heavily in oculus's favor, and nobody is
| showing up to play. Even valves new headset is marketing fluff-
| "reading brain waves" doesn't work how they advertise it.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Valve has the advantage of not being a feeding tube for a
| bloated, predatory social network.
| chaostheory wrote:
| The other major advantage is that they're not publicly traded
| which forces you to do unsavory things to chase analyst
| quarterly forecasts
| MikusR wrote:
| Because it already is one.
| andyfilms1 wrote:
| Oculus sells their hardware at a loss, and make up for it by
| selling your data.
|
| Valve doesn't care about being competitive. They're not market
| driven. They hire the best engineers possible, and let them
| work on what they want.
|
| Sometimes that comes together in something beautiful (Alyx,
| Index) sometimes it results in something out of touch (steam
| machines) and sometimes it results in unending development
| hell.
| baby wrote:
| > Oculus sells their hardware at a loss, and make up for it
| by selling your data.
|
| Source?
| gfodor wrote:
| What facebook does is worse than selling your data, but they
| rely upon people saying they sell your data, which they can
| deny, to hide what they actually do, which is analyze your
| data to sell behavior modification products.
| Irishsteve wrote:
| Do you still need a fb login to use oculus ?
| bbarnett wrote:
| Was about to buy one to play with, especially as they have new
| hardware (to me, I wasn't paying attention).
|
| Then I noticed this on the terms of service when clicking
| 'buy':
|
| _Requires wireless internet access and a Facebook account._
|
| And, uh, heh... no. Just no. I don't even need a Sony/PS
| account to use a playstation, and at least a PS account has to
| do with, you know, the playstation.
|
| Meanwhile, Facebook has to do with a bazillion other things,
| has all this baggage, I've never had and ever ever want an
| account, and... what? I'm going to get an account for a barely
| usable piece of expensive hardware?
|
| No.
| theptip wrote:
| Yup. Seems like they walked back the forced migration for
| existing users, but new Oculus users must sign up with FB it
| seems.
|
| https://www.oculus.com/blog/facebook-accounts-on-oculus/?loc...
| amelius wrote:
| How do you lend the device to your friends? Do you log out
| and let your friends log in?
|
| Can you sell the device without your personal ID on it?
| potatolicious wrote:
| I have an Oculus Quest 2 - it's _really_ not intended to be
| multi-user (even within a single household), which seems
| like a big miss.
|
| The answer to both of those questions is: "hit the factory
| reset button in the Settings menu" which blows away any and
| all state. That's realistic for selling the device but not
| really for lending it.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Facebook has allowed multiple account logins on a single
| headset for a few months now.
| kungito wrote:
| Yes, you can make a fake account just for oculus. So?
| blensor wrote:
| Oculus does sell a version without the login restriction for
| around $700
| Bigpet wrote:
| those are locked out of any apps on the Occulus store
| though, right?
| moron4hire wrote:
| They are enterprise licensed headsets. You're not just
| going to walk up to Facebook and say "here's $800, give
| me a headset with no pre-installed apps".
|
| You have to get approval to get access to Oculus for
| Business, then you purchase the headsets through a
| partner company (CDW, in my case).
|
| But when you eventually get everyone to wake up long
| enough, concurrently, to do their jobs, yes, you
| essentially get A Quest 2 with no apps other than the
| browser installed.
|
| Is pretty cool. The browser is built on Chromium, so it
| has the full WebXR API. I have a WebXR/WebRTC app that
| I've built for my company. We have a fleet of 15 headsets
| right now. We send them to our students taking our
| foreign language classes and they use them to practice
| with their instructor in 360 photo environments of
| popular tourist places in their target country.
| WhatIsDukkha wrote:
| Do sidequest and wireless virtual desktop function?
|
| Any blog posts you recommend from the hacking/developer
| perspective?
| moron4hire wrote:
| I don't use Sidequest myself, but you can install any APK
| you acquire yourself, so it should work. All of the
| system features are the same, so hand tracking, Link, etc
| should all work.
|
| No, I don't have any links. Everything that is out there
| is almost universally written for Unity and I don't do
| Unity anymore.
| blensor wrote:
| You could dip into GodotEngine they have pretty decent VR
| support. Our hand Tracking ng based fitness game
| VRWorkout is made with godot
| neither_color wrote:
| >We send them to our students taking our foreign language
| classes and they use them to practice with their
| instructor in 360 photo environments of popular tourist
| places in their target country.
|
| Man this is actually my number one idea for a VR app: VR
| language learning for more powerful immersion. Looks like
| I'm not the first to think of this I'd better hurry.
|
| Imagine you're learning French and when you get to the
| word "voiture" a car materalizes in front of you, when
| you get to the word "cheval" you're suddenly riding a
| horse, etc. Now apply some SRS soup and you're learning
| vocab in an unforgettable way. I have no idea where to
| start but I want this.
| moron4hire wrote:
| There are apps on the market that kind of do that. They
| are in various stages of development, but most of them
| aren't really going anywhere. I believe the approach is
| fundamentally wrong, as it focuses on the low-hanging
| fruit of the problem of teaching people language.
|
| We're the only company that makes the VR a part of an
| existing program of instruction, with instructors. All
| the other apps are self-driven, which doesn't really work
| for the vast majority of people. We are also the only app
| not leaning on speech-recognition, which also doesn't
| really work for language training (too many false-
| positives and false-negatives).
| MikusR wrote:
| Iirc those still need a Facebook for work account.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Only to manage the fleet of devices. The users of the
| devices do not need a Facebook account. In fact, there
| isn't even anywhere to enter one.
| mnd999 wrote:
| Do you not risk being banned for being a fake account if the
| Facebook AI doesn't think you're social mediaing enough?
| SirHound wrote:
| Yeah you do.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| No you don't (officially), I also use a throwaway account
| and had no issues. There were a few unrelated isolated
| incidents in the beginning that were heavily publicized
| by the media but in the end you're at the mercy of the
| same AI ban bots just like with YouTube, Google or any
| other big platform so you have the same chance of finding
| yourself locked out if your behavior trips up the
| algorithm.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| I recently created a throwaway FB account for "work
| stuff", and the amount of spam mail I'm getting now each
| day from Facebook to "engage" is shocking. Also: I didn't
| register the account with my real name and a different
| email address, yet Facebook magically featured out who I
| am and is sending out invites to the friends on my (long
| dead) real Facebook account. It's all creepy AF.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| I've been using a "fake" account.
|
| I don't do anything dodgy with it, and my name is mostly
| the same as the credit card.
|
| They are much more reluctant to kill a dormant account if
| you attach it to hardware.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Since that's a violation of the TOS, you're taking a bit of a
| risk with that approach
| dukoid wrote:
| Can I now get a Spaceship "lounge" overlay for my flat in "AR"?
| blensor wrote:
| Check out Custom Home Mapper on SideQuest. He was experimenting
| with an "AR" mode back when it still required the menu glitch
| to activate passthrough
| ericflo wrote:
| It would have been better if we could've started experimenting
| with this stuff more than two years ago, but Facebook kept access
| locked up for their use only. I'm glad they're slowly doling out
| more access, but the industry is now set back by over two years,
| and any experimentation will now happen on Facebook's terms. Of
| course that's all for your protection. Of course it is.
| michaelnik wrote:
| I hope competitors will deliver similar hardware but with more
| open ecosystem, check out https://lynx-r.com/!
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Jittery, I can already feel RSI making a come back.
|
| Still, I'd love to have a bunch of documents open, just like
| paper
| istorical wrote:
| I have experimented with cross-fading different 3D scenes /
| stereo 180 videos into each other and it's truly something that
| cannot be explained without experiencing it. Closest thing I've
| experienced to like, magic, since the first time I saw an
| automatic door at a grocery store as a child or my first time in
| an airplane.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I am interested by the technical aspect. Pass-through is not as
| obvious than sending the camera feed to the screen.
|
| If the field of view, eye position, focus and latency are not
| right, the world will feel wrong. If it is way off, you are as
| good as blind. Close range focus is already a lost cause on
| current gen headsets. I don't know how tolerable the other
| factors are and how Oculus dealt with the problem.
| drcode wrote:
| I find wearing a VR helmet for a significant period of time to be
| mood-depressing. I think with AR the problem would go away, but I
| find it unlikely that passthrough AR will be much better than VR.
| I will try these new demos when I have a chance.
| dalbasal wrote:
| The social aspects are pretty interesting. I game occasionally
| with my brother, who lives on a different continent... Chatting
| about life while shooting zombies or whatnot.
|
| One of the best parts is hanging out, post game. Basic avatars
| and directional sound make the whole thing feel very different to
| video chat. A real world setting would give this a different
| dimension.
|
| VR is in an interesting place. This initial hype has died down a
| little. Users no longer haul their headsets around for show and
| tell. Meanwhile, a bonafide juvenile market for hardware and
| content exists and incrementalism gets to do its thing.
|
| Honestly, I'm kind of surprised there aren't more entrants into
| the hardware space.
| forgingahead wrote:
| Very cool innovations coming out from the Oculus team. I just
| wish the headset was more comfortable! I get immense pain on my
| face after using it for a few minutes, it seems to be a trade-off
| between fitting it snugly or having it slosh around my head.
|
| The tech is great but the comfort is poor. Surprising because the
| Rift is decently wearable. Maybe Oculus 3 will have some strong
| improvements with the comfort level.
| shock-value wrote:
| I got a third party halo strap for my Quest 2 and it vastly
| increased comfort and ability to wear it for extended periods
| without fatigue. Might want to look into that.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| The strap upgrade is totally worth it. Much easier to find a
| comfortable, good fit.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| I can second all these criticisms, as well as the advice below
| to upgrade the strap. I use the elite strap with the VRCover
| face pad and strap pad and it's a massive improvement. I also
| find the VRWave strap pad makes it easy for me to run my link
| cable through the strap and behind my head which is also a
| comfort improvement in some games.
| barcoder wrote:
| All my friends with the quest upgraded the strap. Oculus doing
| a crappy upsale, just a cost you need to swallow
| skinkestek wrote:
| this page was definitely not GDPR compliant.
|
| I just gave up.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| What did they do that wasn't compliant?
| skinkestek wrote:
| Opt out instead of opt in.
|
| Opt out next to impossible.
| yellowfish wrote:
| Neat, but I still wouldn't touch oculus with a 10 foot pole
| especially when cameras in my home are invovled
| baby wrote:
| Ah, that comment again
| yellowfish wrote:
| I don't see how it's a weird opinion, I'm also speaking for
| myself others are free to enjoy the platform if they want I
| don't care
| DashAnimal wrote:
| No your opinion isn't weird. I agree with you in fact. But
| we also dont need to share every opinion always (see:
| "Inside" by Bo Burnham).
|
| Obviously some people like this technology and are happy to
| trade the choice of using their FB account, nor does your
| comment contribute any discussion to this cool feature or
| tie it back to the privacy discussion in any meaningful
| way. It might be worth letting people just enjoy that news.
| amelius wrote:
| Remember the wars between VHS and BetaMax, and VHS won because
| (supposedly) it allowed porn?
|
| Well, now we could see the same thing happening. Oculus doesn't
| allow porn (because who in their right minds would watch it
| with their own personal Facebook ID tied to it, with cameras
| running and connected to the internet?). But a competitor that
| can dethrone Oculus isn't yet on the horizon. Where is our
| "VHS"?
|
| This isn't a complaint. Just an observation :)
| felipemnoa wrote:
| >>because who in their right minds would watch it with their
| own personal Facebook ID tied to it, with cameras running and
| connected to the internet?
|
| I'm willing to bet that a sizable portion of the population
| would watch porn on this device even after you explain this
| to them.
| moron4hire wrote:
| I sizable portion already do
| psyc wrote:
| You must mean interactive porn on the official store? Because
| there are several players on the official store, plus the
| browser, that play porn fine.
| amelius wrote:
| I think you didn't read the entire comment.
| psyc wrote:
| I did. Still don't know what you mean.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-24 23:00 UTC)