[HN Gopher] Why is the Simula One so expensive?
___________________________________________________________________
Why is the Simula One so expensive?
Author : gurjeet
Score : 65 points
Date : 2022-01-13 17:00 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (simulavr.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (simulavr.com)
| Mockapapella wrote:
| OK so question: How generalizable is this? Does it come with
| controllers? Can I hook in controllers from another system (vive,
| index, oculus, etc.)? Can I play video games with this (I know
| that's not the main point of it, but still it would be nice)? Can
| I stream a video feed from a real world camera (like with a
| raspberry pi) to the interior displays?
|
| Either way, glad to see you guys still going strong with this,
| been following for a few months now. As others have mentioned, I
| got a little bit of sticker shock when I first saw the price. Was
| expecting something closer to ~$2k. Do you have an ETA for when
| the kickstarter will be going up? I'll have to think about
| backing this, depending on the answers to my questions above.
| kanetw wrote:
| > How generalizable is this?
|
| All the software is or will be open source, so much more than
| any other headset on the market. Ideally the FPGA code would be
| open source to, but I don't know if that's possible with
| licensed IPs
|
| > Does it come with controllers?
|
| No controllers.
|
| > Can I hook in controllers from another system (vive, index,
| oculus, etc.)?
|
| Any controller that's supported by OpenXR is supported, and
| we'll likely have SteamVR support as well.
|
| > Can I play video games with this?
|
| In tethered mode, absolutely. In standalone mode, only very
| light games, but might be doable.
|
| > Can I stream a video feed from a real world camera (like with
| a raspberry pi) to the interior displays?
|
| Yes. In fact, we'll have AR passthrough by default, but
| nothing's stopping you from using different cameras.
|
| If you are not interested in the standalone capabilities, the
| headset without compute pack (i.e. tethered only) will be ~2k.
| tadbit wrote:
| I don't understand the design decision to use x86_64.
|
| It's not covered on their site, AFAIK. [1][2]
|
| It's not running Windows.
|
| Most software designed for Linux can be built for ARM.
|
| And, it's being billed as a next gen platform (by creating and
| using the term VRC) while using an older generation technology
| (x86).
|
| With the amount of power required to run that chipset this device
| will either require a _massive_ battery or to always be plugged
| into a power source, which effectively kills any appeal for me.
|
| All of this said, I'm glad they're doing this. VR/AR in the
| professional workstation space is very exciting, I'm glad someone
| is focusing on it.
|
| [1] https://simulavr.com/blog/how-we-designed-the-simula-one/
|
| [2] https://simulavr.com/blog/technical-overview/
| kanetw wrote:
| I don't consider ARM better unless you have billions to spend
| on custom silicon like Apple.
|
| The power consumption is inline with any other ultra-low-power
| x86 (~15W TDP for the CPU). That's pretty comparable to a
| Snapdragon XR2 with ~10W TDP and worse performance.
|
| Users would want to use proprietary apps that are only compiled
| for x86. Emulation for those on ARM is not particularly
| feasible for any acceptable performance. If you're buying a
| laptop now, you would not buy an ARM device.
|
| That being said, I'm not married to x86. But I don't think ARM
| is the future, either.
| tadbit wrote:
| > I don't consider ARM better unless you have billions to
| spend on custom silicon like Apple.
|
| It's better when you need lower power utilisation and
| physically smaller footprints.
|
| Apple isn't the only name in the ARM game, and I'm not
| suggesting that you should be designing and manufacturing
| your own ARM chipsets.
|
| > The power consumption is inline with any other ultra-low-
| power x86 (~15W TDP for the CPU). That's pretty comparable to
| a Snapdragon XR2 with ~10W TDP and worse performance.
|
| Which is all incredibly high for something that's portable.
|
| If a user is required to have the headset plugged in for
| continuous use, it might as well just be a regular VR headset
| connected to a separate PC.
|
| > Users would want to use proprietary apps that are only
| compiled for x86.
|
| With this argument the Simula One should be running Windows
| instead of SimulaOS. Most Linux based applications already
| work on ARM or can be recompiled for it.
|
| > Emulation for those on ARM is not particularly feasible for
| any acceptable performance.
|
| I'm not suggesting emulation should be used.
|
| > If you're buying a laptop now, you would not buy an ARM
| device.
|
| I would and have bought ARM based notebooks. MacBook Air
| (M1), PineBook Pro, various Chromebooks.
|
| I still don't understand the decision to stick with x86 on
| this.
| lostmsu wrote:
| The CPU performance should not be as important as GPU. How is
| the i7-1165G7 GPU vs XR2 GPU in terms of performance and
| power consumption?
| ramesh31 wrote:
| $2799 for integrated Intel graphics? I'd rather just put a real
| gaming laptop in a backpack and use a better headset.
| kanetw wrote:
| $1999 for the tethered version, which is in line with other
| upper-end headsets like the Varjo Aero (and that one doesn't
| have AR passthrough)
| georgewsinger wrote:
| If anyone's comfortable sharing: what is the price point you'd be
| willing to spend on a Simula One? (Unfortunately our unit costs
| are pretty stuck at these low volumes, but it'd still be really
| useful to know what people's long-run price expectations are for
| a Linux VR Computer).
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| You're selling a new way of working on your computer, something
| supposedly greater than the sum of its parts. Such things can't
| be expressed in numbers and tables, they can only be
| experienced. That experience won't be for everybody; they might
| get sick, they might decide it's a _worse_ experience and make
| things take longer, etc. Those are my fears.
|
| Spending $2800 (or, _gulp_ $3500) just to see if I 'd barf
| while in vim is a _really_ big stretch. Perhaps those with way
| more disposable income wouldn 't mind trying, but that's not
| me. If there was a trial period with free return, that would
| help.
| 3np wrote:
| I'm an outlier but I'm ready to jump in at these prices, which
| is pretty much what I would expect for the hardware.
|
| A bigger factor than price for me is payment options. If my
| only option is Paypal/Stripe/Google/Apple, I will most likely
| hold off; accept BTC and you've got me for sure.
|
| I have a feeling that my preference may be unusually common
| among the people excited about dropping thousands on a Linux
| headset.
| kipple wrote:
| Right now, here on the bleeding edge of VRPC, it would be
| something like $999. I'm seeing it as a Chromebook when they
| first came out -- interesting concept, but not yet proven in an
| actual working environment.
|
| Alternatively, some sort of money-back guarantee would be nice.
| "Try working in VR for 30 days, see how you like it."
| horsawlarway wrote:
| It's really hard to say without actually using the device.
|
| If this can genuinely make reading text about as easy as it is
| on a current hiDPI screen - I don't think this price is
| unreasonable.
|
| My issue is that - having gone through several VR headsets
| (Oculus, Oculus Quest, Vive, Vive Cosmos, and Valve index) None
| of them are even close.
|
| Reading text in any of them is basically a non-starter outside
| of maybe game menus, and even then it's annoying.
|
| Index is closest, but it doesn't support a wireless mode - so I
| end up using the vive cosmos with the external tracking
| faceplate and the wireless adapter the most.
|
| Basically - I don't think anything around ~3k is really a deal
| breaker if you can get the latency/resolution to a point where
| text is easy. But if reading text gives me a headache after 30
| minutes... it's a toy still, and competes with oculus at the
| ~300 price point.
| kanetw wrote:
| To give a comparison, 35 PPD is equivalent to a 1080p screen
| 60cm away from you.
|
| So the resolution is basically there, but what about latency?
| Output-to-photon is as direct as possible (NUC Displayport ->
| DP-to-MIPI -> Displays), so the only question is how low we
| can get the motion-to-output latency.
|
| Unfortunately that's not a question I can answer yet.
| Tracking is hard, especially when you're designing for a
| portable headset. But I'm pretty sure we'll be able to get it
| to sub-frame latency if my mmWave idea works out.
| Bayart wrote:
| It's about what I'd expect for a premium piece of productivity
| hardware. It's in line with specced-out laptops and
| workstations. At this price there will be certain expectations
| though, in particular regarding the finish and build quality
| (and even colour accuracy).
|
| In any case, I've been toying with the idea of using a VR
| headset for work after having seen a post on HN from a guy who
| described his whole setup, but I'm not at the point where I'd
| jump into investing much into it.
|
| I think your product is for people who have already a lot of VR
| experience and want to graduate to something more adequate.
| It's a hard sell for the mere VR-curious.
| sbeckeriv wrote:
| I did not realize the specs. I was hoping for like 600$usd but
| I might have reached for 1000$usd. I love the idea, however,
| most of my heavy lifting is done in a remote machine. I spend
| most of my day in a kitty terminal ssh-ed to a beefy box
| somewhere else. I dont think I am ready to early adopt a VR
| desktop yet.
| gs17 wrote:
| I actually think the (backer) price is about what I would
| expect for what you get. My issue is that it's a big investment
| for something that's really cool, but not necessary, so my
| current finances don't justify me getting one. A professor I
| work with is big on buying every bit of AR/VR tech that comes
| out, I'll have to see what he thinks of it.
| bontaq wrote:
| Any word on it having diopter adjustment? It'd be nice to be able
| to wear this without glasses.
| kanetw wrote:
| Likely a stretch goal. But if we notice that it's a big
| usability deal as opposed to glasses/prescription lenses, we'll
| put it in the baseline.
| cheriot wrote:
| Can anyone make the case for why VR will be more productive than
| a laptop and monitor? The Simula website mostly talks about specs
| and not why I'd want to use this for work.
| georgewsinger wrote:
| Here are some reasons:
|
| - 10x more windows/virtual screens than PCs & Laptops
|
| - Persistent ("always on") computing wherever you are able to
| walk and think.
|
| - Promotes better posture (you don't have to sit hunched over a
| laptop screen, but have more freedom of movement).
|
| - Better work immersion/focus than PCs & Laptops. There's
| something about having the world around you blocked out and
| just focusing on your work (though Simula will support an AR
| mode via front cameras when you need to see things).
|
| Though I am biased, there is also great aesthetic appeal to
| working in "The Future". From _Iron Man_ to _The Minority
| Report_ , our Sci-Fi has been promising us for decades a future
| of always-on spatial computing with omnipresent screens.
| Working in a VR Computer allows you start to experience that
| future.
| NationalPark wrote:
| Does it actually promote better posture? They don't mention
| its weight anywhere, which makes me think it's heavier than
| competing headsets, which already aren't the most comfortable
| to wear for long periods.
|
| I am excited about the possibilities this opens though. Will
| it be more convenient than a terminal emulator running tmux?
| Maybe not for me, but I could see people who deal with more
| visual assets like game developers using this.
| kanetw wrote:
| We don't promote the weight because we aren't yet at the
| stage of integration where we can promote it at. However,
| you can expect it to be around 800g front+back combined, so
| around the same as an Index.
|
| In our experience, a balanced headset is more important
| than a light one.
| adventured wrote:
| > 10x more windows/virtual screens than PCs & Laptops
|
| That's a productivity drain not a benefit. Modern operating
| systems could already drown us in zillions of screens if it
| were actually useful - it's not. That's a productivity
| fantasy element, like people pretending it's possible to
| multi-task (more screens, more work, more output). All you
| get is the equivalent of the hoarder clutter of a thousand
| browser tabs for no great reason. Humans max out on
| productivity and usefulness gains from additional screens at
| a very low number.
|
| > Persistent ("always on") computing wherever you are able to
| walk and think.
|
| A tablet, a smartphone - it's a trivial difference in timing,
| as those items are a moment away from use in terms of always
| on. And where are you walking with a VR computer on your
| head?
|
| > Promotes better posture (you don't have to sit hunched over
| a laptop screen, but have more freedom of movement).
|
| That one is false and probably your worst premise. Posture is
| a choice, you either consciously choose to pursue better
| posture and constantly reinforce it or you don't, and if you
| don't then absolutely nothing will keep you from bad posture.
| A VR computer on your head is very low on the list of things
| that is likely to finally encourage someone to consciously
| adjust their body toward better posture. I'd bet on the
| opposite outcome as far more likely, body damage from wearing
| a heavy object for too long.
| criddell wrote:
| My preferred setup is a sit/stand desk with a single high
| resolution monitor and a window to the left or right of me.
| For many years I worked with two or three monitors but found
| that it was more distracting than anything.
|
| When I'm stuck on a problem, I stare out the window or go sit
| outside with a pencil and pad of paper.
|
| I can't imagine I'd be happy working in a VR setup. I could
| see it being useful when I want some type of virtual presence
| (at least until I start feeling sick), but I only need that a
| few times a year.
| [deleted]
| 3np wrote:
| Portability is a huge one for me. Having vast screen real-
| estate plus immersion seems great for roaming.
| ptom wrote:
| I made several arguments along those lines in this article:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28678041
|
| For me it comes down to functionality, focus, comfort, and
| productivity. Convenience too, but it took a lot of setup and
| tuning to get to that point, so the net "convenience" gain is
| probably neutral. These days I don't want to work any other
| way.
| georgewsinger wrote:
| Highly recommend ptom's article:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28678041
| noir_lord wrote:
| > This is because sub-par VR technology (e.g. the Quest 2)
|
| Calling horseshit on that, I have a Quest 2 and it is a brilliant
| bit of kit for 1/10th the price.
|
| Is it a VRPC or whatever they are on about, no - it was clearly
| not intended to be, is it the sweetspot for VR right now, yep and
| it works fantastically when connected to a PC or standalone, the
| boy loves it.
| georgewsinger wrote:
| I should rephrase that sentence.
|
| Agreed the Quest 2 is a great device for its price. What I mean
| to say is that the Quest 2 isn't pushing the current limits for
| VR pixel density (by having a high Pixels-Per-Degree aka PPD).
|
| High PPD is important for gaming but _extremely important_ for
| VR computing /office, since it heavily impacts how high quality
| text and other fine details (icons, etc) show up for you. This
| is one of the main drivers of our high price. Since we're
| trying to get people to work in a VR headset for 8+ hours in a
| day (replacing their PCs/laptops as their primary computing
| device), we needed to offer as high a PPD as we possibly can.
| This requires state of the art displays and a compute unit
| powerful enough to power the rendering. We also have a special
| text filter in Simula which is optimized specifically for text
| rendering.
|
| There are other problems with the Quest 2 as well, but low PPD
| is the most important one. Price is definitely not one of its
| problems (though its low price is being subsidized by its
| bringing people into the Facebook ecosystem, etc). The Quest 2
| is _primarily_ a gaming /entertainment device, and it does a
| pretty good job at that. The Simula One is primarily a VRC
| (though it can be used for gaming in Tethered mode).
| gs17 wrote:
| The Quest also isn't pushing the limits for FOV either,
| compared to my usual headset it feels like goggles. I'm
| impressed if the Simula really beats it on both of these.
| kanetw wrote:
| We put in a lot of effort into the optics and we use
| variable magnification tech to get the most out of our
| displays (i.e. there's more pixels per degree in the foveal
| region, and less in the periphery where you can't see them
| anyways).
|
| The drawback is that the optical train is long and there's
| 3 complex lenses as opposed to 1 glued assembly (not sure
| if it's 1 or 2 lenses). Adds per-unit cost and assembly
| labor, and at a $300 ($800 realistically) price point
| that's a lot.
| a7b3fa wrote:
| The full quote is:
|
| > This is because sub-par VR technology (e.g. the Quest 2) is
| simply not good enough for someone wanting to work several
| hours per day in a VR Computer instead of their laptop -- even
| if most people don't realize this yet.
|
| Do you mean that the Quest 2 is good enough to do, say,
| programming work on for several hours a day, or just that it's
| a decently good gaming headset?
|
| The last VR headset I tried was the Oculus Rift, and that was
| nowhere near being usable for work. I'm really curious about
| the SimulaVR, but it's a bit outside my price range. So if you
| use the Quest 2 for work, I'd love to hear about your
| experience with it -- what software do you use, is the
| resolution good enough for working with text for hours at a
| time, etc.
| ptom wrote:
| I use the Quest 2 almost exclusively for my day job as a
| programmer (any time I don't have to be on camera in
| meetings), and have been using VR to do this for years - I'm
| the guy behind this article:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28678041
|
| The Quest 2 is remarkably capable for its form factor, but
| has some significant limitations and requires a lot of
| babysitting to get it tuned "just so" to make it that
| productive. Reaching that flow state, or even making it more
| productive than a traditional physical screen layout, isn't
| particularly accessible, certainly not yet on a mass appeal
| level. So yeah, it can work, but there's a LOT of room for
| improvement.
| psyc wrote:
| I used a Quest 2 for work for a few weeks while my monitor
| was being repaired. My biggest problem was not being able to
| see the keyboard. The display was not a problem for me. I was
| quite glad to have my monitor back anyway. For that matter,
| for all of the PCVR games I was so excited to play, I've gone
| back to playing them mostly on the monitor. I'm quite happy
| with the Quest 2 visuals, but the comfort (for longer
| periods) and controls are inferior for anything more complex
| than beat saber and golf.
| [deleted]
| caitlinface wrote:
| I work in VR when I'm not in meetings. I use Immersed for it.
| I love it.
|
| The text readability isn't perfect, but it's fine and usable.
| (Others don't consider it very usable, which can mean either
| they didn't spend the time to figure out the ideal setup for
| them or it's simply not usable for everyone yet.) There's a
| lot of after-market customization that help tremendously:
| better headstrap, upgraded facemask, prescription lens
| covers.
|
| We're definitely in early adopter territory. It takes
| tinkering to find the best setup for yourself. Some people
| don't have the time or desire for that, some people just
| don't find something that works after trying it out. It's not
| sustainable for widespread adoption yet, but it'll get there.
|
| It's improving every day as the Immersed team is adding new
| features along with the Quest opening up APIs. For example,
| right now you cannot see your keyboard. Most users get by
| with touch typing. You can bring in a VR version of your
| keyboard that is calibrated to the position, but it's pretty
| finicky. Quest is opening up an API soon for what is called
| "passthrough", which will allow the user to see the camera
| view outside of the set. Once a passthrough keyboard feature
| is implemented in the Immersed tool, I believe it's going to
| be a significant feature that will make it even easier to
| work in VR.
| spoonjim wrote:
| It doesn't make sense to put the PC right on the headset - it
| adds to the weight that needs to be supported by your neck. A
| backpack or Fanny pack Pc plus a tethered cable would be much
| smarter, and would also let you swap out the PC and headset
| separately.
| redhawk610 wrote:
| Looks like there's a cheaper tethered version available for
| $1999. Perhaps the computer is removable anyway?
| kanetw wrote:
| It is removable. In fact, we plan to have it dockable so you
| can use it separately and reuse it for e.g. homeserver
| purposes when the hardware gets older.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| When you say dockable, do you mean that the module will be
| easily removable to put in a dock or just that it's
| possible to remove it for that (e.g. by opening the unit)?
|
| Mainly want to know like... is this the kind of thing I
| could do regularly when I don't feel like being in VR, or
| is it more effort than that?
| kanetw wrote:
| The module will be easily removable so you can put in a
| dock. It basically slots into a receptacle in the back of
| your head.
| [deleted]
| w-m wrote:
| I don't understand the pixel per degree calculations. Quest 2
| sits at 20.58 PPD in the table, which makes sense, as that's
| 1832px/89deg. How do you arrive at a 35.5 PPD for the Simula VR
| with 2448px for 100 deg fov? It links to a [2] in the table, but
| there's no [2] I the references.
| kanetw wrote:
| We use variable magnification for the lenses. That is, the
| foveal region has a higher PPD and the periphery has a lower
| PPD. As your eyes follow the same pattern (your fovea has a
| high resolution, everything else drops off sharply), it's
| basically a free PPD gain.
|
| I put a link to the paper [1], but it's paywalled.
|
| [1] https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-
| of...
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Except that your fovea moves around with your eyes and this
| is glued to looking straight forward. You get PPD gain if
| you're looking at the same thing that your face is pointed
| toward, at the expense of when you look off to the side. Not
| exactly "free" but probably worth the tradeoff.
|
| How big a "sweet spot" do you have in the center? Enough to
| read lines of small text without rotating your head back and
| forth?
| kanetw wrote:
| About +-15 degrees. This accounts for 86% of saccades.
|
| I need to confirm how sharply it drops after that, but in
| any case it should be above 20 PPD +-(15 to 30) degrees and
| above 12 PPD for +-(30 to 50) degrees.
| w-m wrote:
| This seems a bit disingenuous, listing the max/center PPD for
| your product, and the average PPD for the Quest.
| kanetw wrote:
| No other headset except the Varjo Aero use this technology,
| and only the high-end Varjos have a focal view display
| (1920x1920 in the central 27 degrees). Rest is basically
| uniform throughout.
|
| We use the peak PPD for the Aero.
| disambiguation wrote:
| Wow I forgot all about MagicLeap, surprised to see they're still
| getting funding.
|
| re: Simula, this is the first I'm hearing of this device and it's
| a pretty cool concept. I have an Index but IME the larget
| bottleneck for productivity is the "screen door effect" and
| resolution. Text is tiny. The 2nd bottleneck being difficulty
| using peripheral devices (KBM) while in VR. Curious if anyone has
| tried this device yet and can confirm whether these problems are
| addressed?
| georgewsinger wrote:
| The Simula One has more than 3x the PPD/pixel density over a
| Valve Index, and we also have a special text filter we use in
| our rendering which is specifically optimized for text clarity.
| If you're interested in the Simula One, you should see a pretty
| immense difference between these two headsets.
|
| RE peripherals: Simula itself (e.g. the VR window manager on
| our headset) is designed to work best with just a keyboard
| (obviating the need for peripherals/controllers). You control
| the mouse cursor with your eye gaze, and can move/resize
| windows with keyboard shortcuts and eye gaze as well (we plan
| on supporting hand tracking in the Simula One, but I think in
| practice it won't be used as much as people think).
| chaostheory wrote:
| I haven't tried this device, but I've tried HP's G2 (which is
| noticeable absent from Simula's comparison matrix). From
| personal experience, it's terrible for games that require
| controller tracking aside from driving and flying sims, but...
| it has a 2160 resolution per eye (text is very clear with no
| screen door effect) and it's $599 MSRP; it also frequently goes
| on sale for $399. Paired with Virtual Desktop software, you can
| work in VR now in Windows & MacOS if portability and Linux
| support isn't a necessity; though I imagine it could work on a
| high powered laptop
|
| https://www.hp.com/us-en/vr/reverb-g2-vr-headset.html
|
| https://www.vrdesktop.net/
|
| On a side note, I don't notice the screen door effect in either
| the Index or Quest 2 while playing games. Are you saying you
| notice it while playing games, or while reading text?
| foobiekr wrote:
| I'm curious - can you use the valve knuckles and base station
| while using a g2 headset? All the g2 complaints seem to be
| about the controllers tracking, not the g2 tracking for the
| headset position/angle/... itself. I already have a Vive but
| the fuzziness really is getting to me.
|
| I really think the lack of graphic/positional/...
| representation of keyboard/mouse/Hotas is a big issue for VR.
| Valve base station tracking point receivers are cheap, it
| seems like someone would have made at least a keyboard with
| them, or come up with a way to attach the vibe tracker in a
| not super janky way.
| chaostheory wrote:
| > can you use the valve knuckles and base station while
| using a g2 headset?
|
| Yes, but I haven't tried it personally. Not sure how easy
| it is because of conflicting statements
|
| > I really think the lack of graphic/positional/...
| representation of keyboard/mouse/Hotas is a big issue for
| VR.
|
| This has been solved with the Quest 2 if you buy a specific
| logitech keyboard / trackpad combo
|
| https://www.logitech.com/en-
| us/products/keyboards/k830-illum...
|
| https://medium.com/xrlo-extended-reality-lowdown/the-
| logitec...
| foobiekr wrote:
| Wow, thanks. I did not know that.
| disambiguation wrote:
| re: index, it has definitely gotten a lot better vs. the OG
| vive but ex. 12px font is still fuzzy IMO. Overall it does
| not yet improve on what i can do on a regular laptop screen.
| chaostheory wrote:
| > ex. 12px font is still fuzzy IMO.
|
| The G2 definitely solves that problem.
|
| > Overall it does not yet improve on what i can do on a
| regular laptop screen.
|
| If you're ok with a small laptop screen that makes sense.
| The main thing that it solves at the moment is available
| screen real estate. It greatly increases it. Depending on
| the software you use, it can also solve the issue of
| feeling isolated. IM and video calls aren't good enough
| lab14 wrote:
| A little off-topic, but does anyone know if there's been good
| research about the long term effects of having a screen a few
| millimeters away, beaming photons to your retina continuously?
| Buttons840 wrote:
| I wish most devices had a gradual fade option for volume and
| brightness, etc. I'd rather hit a button to increase the volume
| once an hour than realize I've had the volume way to high for
| the last hour, or realize I've been staring at a full
| brightness screen for no good reason.
| JosephRedfern wrote:
| I am curious -- why the 1:1 aspect ratio/FoV? A quick Google
| suggests the human eye is more like 5:3 (though vary variable).
| kanetw wrote:
| Several reasons:
|
| * Square displays are what's readily available in the VR form
| factor (2-3" diagonal)
|
| * Rectangular displays will murder your minimum IPD, which
| kills accessibility for a lot of users
|
| * Reducing the size/increasing pixel density makes the optics
| exponentially more complex. We're already pushing the limits of
| what's possible without pancake lenses.
|
| * Pancake lenses are a nightmare of complexity when you want
| high-quality images. Ghost images, low transmission, etc. all
| increase development cost by a lot. And the unit cost is
| significantly higher, but that's not an issue here (the NREs
| are the main cost driver)
| JosephRedfern wrote:
| Very interesting. Thank you!
| MrQuincle wrote:
| Seems clunky. I would also go for a wireless solution. Moreover,
| I would bring out two products. The headset and the box. The box
| only has to be powered on. Nothing fancy. It can be completely
| dedicated to the headset. And the headset itself is very light
| and optimized for pixels and receiving data as quick as possible.
| In that case you don't rely on any wifi in the house.
|
| What might happen is that you developed a box on h.256 optimized
| for super low latencies. Sounds as valuable tech on its own. :-)
| d23 wrote:
| So is the entire computer in the headset, or am I missing
| something? It seems like it would be heavy, no? I haven't
| followed this space closely, so apologies if it's an ignorant
| question.
| kanetw wrote:
| The computer is on the back of your head. We target a weight of
| about 800g* balanced evenly, so it shouldn't be more straining
| than an Index
|
| * Preliminary number, might change as we make tradeoffs of
| battery life vs thermal solution vs weight.
| RandomChance wrote:
| Is the charging port USB-C? If so, can it be charged through
| more than one port, in the event the primary one is damaged?
| _(My phone experiences tell me the likelihood of port damage
| increases the more you handle something, and this will not be
| sitting on a desk all day)_
|
| My first thought, before I realized I had a serious question
| was that it would be awesome (in my particular opinion) if
| the battery could be separate, enabling easily swapping it or
| having various configurations... Maybe a belt clip or _the
| dreaded fanny pack_?
|
| .....
|
| I just realized this is probably quite silly, you almost
| certainly have it identical to a laptop where you can work
| with it plugged in/ charging, and that would make that port
| even _more_ likely to be a problem.
|
| Personally I would love to see easy support for external
| power packs to extend usage, but I can't think of a good
| reason why I would actually need that, so maybe I have been
| playing to many cyberpunk games lately...
|
| I really whish I could know if I would actually get the use
| out of it it deserves... I love the idea but sadly I can only
| actually work on company devices because of export control
| restrictions, so my personal use case would need to include
| gaming to justify a high end new machine right now. I will
| absolutely be keeping an eye out though, and if I don't get
| one I will hopefully be able to buy your V2 model.
| kanetw wrote:
| Every USB-C port will be a PD sink and source, and we plan
| for replacement parts/schematics to be easily available so
| any repair shop or competent person can do a repair.
|
| We're thinking about a separable battery for the V2. V1,
| too much complexity for now.
|
| You'll be able to power it off the charger or any USB-PD
| source while charging the battery (provided it has enough
| power, but that should be doable).
| RandomChance wrote:
| Honestly now that I think about it that is probably the
| best of both worlds.
|
| Thanks for answering my questions!
| georgewsinger wrote:
| Though our unit prices are more or less stuck at these low
| volumes, we appreciate the feedback in this thread, and hope to
| offer a lower priced VR computer during our next iteration.
|
| If you're comfortable with our current price, we're offering a
| small number of early bird headsets for $2,499 (vs. our standard
| $2,799 Kickstarter price). If you're interested in getting
| notified an hour before our campaign starts (to max the chances
| of getting one), you can sign up here:
| https://buttondown.email/simula_one_kickstarter
| axiomdata316 wrote:
| I have to admit I got some sticker shock when I saw the price. I
| really wanted to get this too...
|
| Looking at the details of the article I still can't see what the
| breakout feature is that keeps me from just getting an Oculus
| Quest and using the Immersed app to do basically the same thing.
| The biggest "negative" the article seems to be focusing on is
| that you need a Facebook account to use Oculus Quest but I don't
| see many limits on the basic experience.
|
| Also, it focuses on how no sacrifices were made and that this is
| a premium product. This is a hard sell since you can't wear it or
| try it first before forking over almost 3 grand. When iPhones
| first were released, they were a premium product, but you could
| go to an Apple Store and play with it first. Here you have to
| rely on a datasheet and trust that these improvements will
| significantly matter.
|
| I would much rather have started with a less premium product that
| allows me to try it first and if I fall in love with the
| potential for productivity, I may invest it the premium product
| in the future.
| ugjka wrote:
| Would make sense for them to have an easy and painless return
| and refund policy
| kanetw wrote:
| I'll talk with George about introducing a refund policy. In
| fact I'm pretty sure we had it in the original drafts for the
| webshop, but since we moved to Kickstarter funding we haven't
| thought about that yet.
| stocknoob wrote:
| I think 3 grand for an early adopter product is cheap. The
| Macintosh was $2500 in 80s dollars (5-6k today) when it
| launched.
|
| If this is something that actually helps your work, a few
| hundred a month is well worth it.
| georgewsinger wrote:
| We should have added comps for early/retro PCs =]
|
| My dad (who isn't a technical person; lawyer by trade) once
| told me that he spent $5K in early 90's dollars (which is
| much higher today) on an early 386 color laptop. This was
| like the price of a new car.
|
| (Not saying Simula's VRC is an apples to apples comparison
| with this, or that we'd ever want to charge that much for
| something, but it is interesting to hear about how expensive
| some early computing devices were when the laptop industry
| was getting off the ground).
| kanetw wrote:
| > Looking at the details of the article I still can't see what
| the breakout feature is that keeps me from just getting an
| Oculus Quest and using the Immersed app to do basically the
| same thing. The biggest "negative" the article seems to be
| focusing on is that you need a Facebook account to use Oculus
| Quest but I don't see many limits on the basic experience.
|
| Compared to a Quest/Immersed combo:
|
| * we offer significantly higher PPD (and better optics with no
| ghost images, Fresnel rings, etc.; but that's hard to quantify)
| than any other headset on the market except super-high end
| ones. You would not be able to read text on a Quest like you
| can on a normal 27" monitor; you can with our headset.
|
| * Immersed does not do window management. We support unlimited,
| actual windows. Immersed only does a handful (up to 10 at
| reduced resolution? need to check) virtual displays, which is
| pretty annoying from a UX perspective.
|
| * Immersed needs to be tethered, which is reduced quality and
| higher latency due to the WiFi connection.
| r_hoods_ghost wrote:
| I'm quite interested in the product because I've spent a lot of
| time using the quest 2 since it came out and I'd agree that it's
| not quite there resolution wise for work. But man is this written
| in an arrogant, self aggrandising, off putting way. It's like
| they're trying to channel the spotty PC Gamer / Linux master race
| energy. Definitely putting this onto the "do not back" pile.
| georgewsinger wrote:
| I'm sorry we gave you that impression.
|
| After several years, there's been nothing more humbling than
| trying to get Simula off the ground (first developing the
| software, and now the hardware). We've been smacked in the face
| so many times. So we don't _feel_ very arrogant, at least.
|
| Maybe our tone isn't quite right. We're just trying to convey
| to people that our headset has a different use case/is designed
| for something different than portable gaming/entertainment.
| istorical wrote:
| I think your characterization of your device as fitting a new
| category is entirely fair, but you don't do yourself favors
| by using glib language to describe competing
| products/categories:
|
| "We decided early on that, given the cards we were dealt,
| it's better to build a premium headset with a high price than
| to build a shitty headset with a low price. This is because
| sub-par VR technology (e.g. the Quest 2) is simply not good
| enough for someone wanting to work several hours per day in a
| VR Computer instead of their laptop -- even if most people
| don't realize this yet."
|
| If you simply reworded this from "sub-par" to "other" or
| "existing" or "lower-end" you'd come across as less arrogant.
| I say this with upmost respect for what your team has been
| able to accomplish, but if the Quest 2 is "shitty" then your
| product is flaming garbage. But if you simply mean to say
| it's shitty in the particular dimensions / role you are
| designating the VRC (VR Computer) then you may reword it and
| be a bit more diplomatic.
| georgewsinger wrote:
| We just pushed the change to the blog post.
|
| Though it's true we are very opinionated about the Quest
| 2's adequacy for long VR computing sessions, we're _not_
| trying to be glib or flippant about the Quest 2 (an
| otherwise excellent VR headset for the price).
| chaostheory wrote:
| I agree with @isotarical. Instead of using adjectives that
| you'd find in gamer subs on reddit, it would sound more
| professional and less condescending if you were more specific
| i.e. use the stuff you have in your comparison matrix as the
| talking point
|
| That said, marketing is really hard, and you're still doing a
| better job than me.
| istorical wrote:
| Hadn't heard of this product but it looks pretty cool, although
| at this point for me content is a bigger problem than hardware
| with VR. But congrats on what looks like a cool product.
|
| One thing I'd like to hear is how this device feels to wear as
| the weight sounds quite intimidating. Quest 2 already gives many
| a sore neck at less than 200g but this seems to be 800g? My
| assumption was/is that as you start increasing your perf/hardware
| it starts to make more sense to go with the hockey-
| puck/backpack/pocket smartphone etc. tethered processing unit
| elsewhere on the body rather than strapping a toaster to the
| front of your face.
| kanetw wrote:
| The heat should be fairly manageable. Most of the front side
| components are low-power and we'll be managing the climate in
| the face part so you don't get sweaty due to low circulation.
|
| The compute pack will be at the back of your head with the
| airflow going away from you, so it shouldn't be too noticeable.
| Thermal design is definitely a priority for us.
|
| Putting it on your head reduces the amount of cables on your
| person, so you don't accidentally tangle yourself or something.
| Also, it improves the balance so it might actually feel
| _better_ than a front-heavy headset (compare a Vive with an
| Index for example).
| 0x6c6f6c wrote:
| The weight is actually very similar to the HTC Vive with the
| premium audio strap, which is 741g.
|
| That as well, it actually feels better to have the audio strap
| which distributes the weight better than just the 470g headset
| alone.
| thebigman433 wrote:
| Quest 2 is a bit under 600g I think, not 200
| paxys wrote:
| Something I have been curious about - why is VR headset
| development going in the direction of cramming all electronics
| into a single component which sits on your head, rather that the
| headset itself being a dumb terminal and the actual
| storage/processing done on some other box (which doesn't have to
| be a PC) sitting somewhere in your house and sending signals to
| it wirelessly?
| savanaly wrote:
| What little I know about the subject suggests it has to do with
| retention. It seems users of VR are much more likely to pick it
| back up after the initial honeymoon phase has worn off if the
| whole "picking it back up" process is just strapping on a
| headset rather than involving a second device, pairing it, etc.
| The less friction the better.
| kanetw wrote:
| Yes, exactly. We want people to just put on a headset and use
| it, instead of having to boot Linux and plug everything in.
| God knows it's a pain when I'm developing with a tethered
| headset.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Because the PC or laptop required to run a dumb terminal well
| is more powerful than most people have. By selling an AIO unit
| you have a console like uniformity of hardware and ease of use
| experience for both the devs and the customers.
| soylentcola wrote:
| The flip side of this (much like with AIO PCs and "smart"
| TVs, but in reverse) is that I'd be a lot more likely to buy
| a less expensive client/terminal and connect it to a more
| powerful PC because if the headset - which is the thing
| trying to prove its usefulness - breaks or ends up collecting
| dust, I still have the PC which can power all sorts of other
| tasks and uses.
|
| If I spend all the dough on an AIO headset PC and it turns
| out to be underwhelming or I just never fit it into my long-
| term usage, then I've got a $2k+ computer I never use. Just
| as I'd prefer to separate the monitor from a PC or the media
| player from a TV, I'd be a lot more eager to try a headset if
| it wasn't attached to its own expensive PC.
| kanetw wrote:
| That's why we offer a tethered option, and why the compute
| unit is detachable and dockable.
| kanetw wrote:
| Latency and bandwidth.
|
| We push about 3.4 GByte/s (or 27.5Gbit/s) to our displays. Even
| a 26Gbit/s DP1.4a HBR3 link needs display stream compression
| for that. So a wireless link will absolutely need strong
| compression.
|
| H.265 can push that to maybe (ballpark) 200Mbit/s, which is
| fairly feasible. But that will need to be evaluated and
| optimized for text quality and latency. Some googling suggests
| 100ms end-to-end latency as good. That's pretty high for VR,
| IMO.
|
| [Edit: fixed the DP1.4a bandwidth)
| akvadrako wrote:
| You can definitionally get lower latency with H.264 -
| somewhere around 5-10ms encode and 2ms decode. That's what
| makes Parsec and streaming gaming platforms possible even
| with all the other latencies involved.
|
| H.265 might be slower, but EVC, especially LCEVC, is supposed
| to be about 30% lower latency encoding than H.264.
| kanetw wrote:
| Interesting. I wonder why the googled numbers were so high
| then. I'll take a look sometimes; wireless streaming would
| be cool.
| potatolicious wrote:
| Latency, bandwidth (and with that, packet loss).
|
| Right now the closest tech to do this would be something like
| WiFi - but the latency is high, and the typical home's WiFi
| network bandwidth (practically due to the vagaries of radio) is
| not sufficient.
|
| A few reasons this is important:
|
| - latency in VR induces motion sickness and operates on a
| different scale than we're used to for regular network
| communications. A 50ms lag in a 2D video game is acceptable, a
| 50ms lag in VR will cause nausea and vomiting. This is a domain
| where single-digit milliseconds matter a great deal for user
| comfort.
|
| - resolution and refresh rate is everything - VR's viability in
| large part hinges on the resolution of the screens, which right
| now are somewhere between "poor" and "mediocre" - nothing so
| far has come close to replicating 20/20 vision. Moreover you
| need those screens to refresh far more quickly than a regular
| monitor - 60Hz doesn't cut it, 90Hz is basically the minimum.
| Streaming an uncompressed 8K stream at 90Hz over wireless
| requires more bandwidth than any existing standard can deliver.
| It's at the edges of our _wired_ capabilities.
|
| Of course you _can_ compress the streams, but that not only
| degrades image quality (which matters a great deal when the
| screens are replacing your eyesight) but also injects
| additional latency into the whole affair.
|
| It's theoretically possible - but would require developing a
| lot of custom tech that doesn't exist yet. It would also likely
| be highly sensitive to the exact particulars of the physical
| environment - one user may have a perfect experience while the
| other experiences so much packet loss/reduction in bandwidth
| that the whole experience is unusable.
| basch wrote:
| >Right now the closest tech to do this would be something
| like WiFi
|
| Is that true? 802.11ad (wigig) should be able to handle it. h
| ttps://www.networkworld.com/article/2172394/understanding-w..
| .
|
| Have you ever used a wigig dock? You plug everything into
| your dock (hdmi, usb, ethernet) and it all gets beamed to the
| computer. ~10 microseconds latency.
|
| edit: I see another commentor mentioned its successor
| 802.11ay. Same thing applies, except that 802.11ad is a
| delivery from the past, not a future promise. we are already
| there.
| kanetw wrote:
| Unfortunately still not high enough for low-compressed (DSC
| 3:1 ~= 9.2Gbit/s) or uncompressed video (~= 27.5Gbit/s) at
| least at our resolution. But might be viable for lower-res
| displays.
| basch wrote:
| What about splitting up the load? Pre-processing happens
| on the floor cube, with final work done on the headset.
| The headset doesnt have to be a video screen only.
| kanetw wrote:
| Could be doable, and might be something we investigate in
| future iterations. I don't think it's worth it for this
| one, though.
| allanrbo wrote:
| How about just a short cable to a box on the desk in front of
| you? The weight and heat of strapping it all on your head
| sounds tiring...
| potatolicious wrote:
| This is pretty much the status quo for tethered VR - you're
| hooked up to a PC sitting on your desk. It works, but has
| major usability issues that IMO make it a complete long-
| term dead-end.
|
| It removes any interactivity that require the user to move
| significantly. More than that, even for just typing/using
| peripherals the cable is constantly in the way.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| How about a short cable to a box on your belt? Maybe a vest
| for extra tactile feedback. Or even just putting all the
| heavy stuff like PCBs, heatsinks, and batteries on the back
| of the strap to balance the screens and optics on the
| front.
|
| My little Petzl headlamp doesn't mount the tiny 23g battery
| pack on the forehead due to balance and comfort concerns, I
| can't imagine the Simula fares any better!
| kanetw wrote:
| All the heavy stuff (compute pack) _is_ in the back :)
|
| We're considering offering a belt clip option, but I'm
| not sure it's worth it overall.
| thebigman433 wrote:
| Having to play around a tether the whole time isnt a super
| great experience. The wire gets in the way and you have to
| think about it constantly.
| kanetw wrote:
| Yeah, the only way this is remotely feasible without massive
| latency and compression is a 802.11ay link, if it works when
| you're moving around. And since it's mmWave you'd need a base
| station in every room and 100Gbit ethernet to connect to it.
| [deleted]
| jjcm wrote:
| I'd actually argue against this - I've been using my Quest
| recently to stream steam games over wifi on it, and I've been
| impressed with the capabilities. Overall the experience is
| seamless 95% of the time, and I don't notice any major
| differences between it and my HTC Vive. There _are_ hiccups
| though - wifi will cut out briefly whenever there 's any
| interference on that frequency, and you'll drop a few frames
| and quality will degrade for a couple seconds. Overall though
| I highly expect a stream over wifi 6 to be 100% usable for
| VR.
| potatolicious wrote:
| There is some promise, but I'd push back on the implication
| that this is viable as a mainstream option.
|
| Right now through either Oculus (Wireless) Link, or
| something like Virtual Desktop, you can totally stream
| content from a PC to the headset, but that comes with a big
| list of asterisks (easily observable if you look at any
| support channel for both products):
|
| - Most people's WiFi sucks, the room they're in has poor
| signal, or their router is mostly shite. The experience is
| awful for them.
|
| - Most people's PCs are _not_ connected to their network by
| ethernet, which seems like a crucial part of getting a good
| experience.
|
| - Even under ideal conditions configured by an enthusiast
| who groks the tech, frame drops are relatively common.
|
| - Streaming is generally not possible at full-resolution
| due to bandwidth limitations. A wireless-first approach
| presents an additional barrier to one of VR's biggest
| stumbling blocks - as screen resolutions increase streaming
| cannot keep up.
|
| So getting the setup to work well right now requires a
| pretty knowledgeable user. Even assuming we can improve on
| this, I will wager that "95% effective, visible degradation
| a few seconds at a time at random intervals" is enough of a
| problem to be a hard stop on mainstream adoption.
|
| This is the hole VR is in generally - the tech is "good
| enough" for enthusiasts, but punishing to the mainstream.
| jjcm wrote:
| I'd agree with all of these caveats. I'll also say that I
| suspect part of the reason why my experience is good is
| my PC is hardwired, and my headset is ~2 meters away from
| my wifi router.
|
| I'll also add to what you mention about the initial setup
| - it's an absolute pain in the ass... every single time.
| Takes me about 10min to do the setup dance each time I
| set up air link.
|
| In general though I see all these as being fixable. A
| dedicated transmitter and improvements in the UX of this
| can address all of these.
| potatolicious wrote:
| Me too. I have a WiFi 6 router sitting on my desk with
| direct LOS to the headset _and_ my machine is hardwired
| to ethernet _and_ I have a really high quality network
| setup at home.
|
| The experience with Oculus Link is _pretty good_ - but I
| 'm an outlier in my setup!
|
| And yes, none of this is completely un-conquerable, but
| I'd argue unfixable without significant new hardware and
| standards. This is not a "just have to improve the
| software" problem.
| vfournier11 wrote:
| Using Lenovo MSRP is doing deck stacking as they are notoriously
| overpriced and always on "sale".
| kanetw wrote:
| Even if you reduce it to it's sale price it's favorable. It's
| not like we aren't on "sale" either via Kickstarter discounts.
| vfournier11 wrote:
| Not sure to follow, my point was that the Lenovo is currently
| on sale for $2045 and that using $3500 as a price is kind of
| misleading as you would never buy this laptop at MSRP.
|
| That being said your Kickstarter rebate is a real rebate (or
| sale ;)), I was using "sale" because Lenovos laptops are
| always on sale hence the real price is the price on sale.
| kanetw wrote:
| I guess it depends? I bought my P14s at basically MSRP and
| it didn't drop much. The X1 Carbon did drop a lot, though.
| We might adjust it to be "$2k current price, $3.4k MSRP"
| though.
| kipple wrote:
| Would you spend all day working in VR?
|
| A few months ago, I would say no.
|
| But I got myself a Quest 2 for Christmas, and now... maybe.
|
| AR would make it better though, so I'm not just floating
| disconnected in digital space. I see in their homepage hero
| banner background[0] you get a floating window with video of your
| hands. It would be nice if the whole background is a passthrough
| to reality, and then you float your OS windows on top of that.
|
| [0] https://simulavr.com/
| kanetw wrote:
| It will be. We'll be demoing the AR mode in our Kickstarter ad,
| but basically the entire background will be replaced by
| passthrough.
|
| No depth mapping yet, so it'll only be in the background, but
| first things first.
| kipple wrote:
| Nice! That makes it more attractive.
|
| Depth mapping would be great too, like I could pin virtual
| artifacts to my physical environment? Yes please.
| kanetw wrote:
| I'm experimenting with mmWave RADAR to get depth mapping
| without the idiosyncrasies of stereo RGB cameras.
| Especially in wildly varying environments I think that's
| the way to go over traditional camera-based SLAM. But if it
| turns out to be unfeasible, nothing's stopping us from
| adding more tracking cameras and doing it that way.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >But I got myself a Quest 2 for Christmas, and now... maybe.
|
| Let me know what you think in a month. The problem with current
| VR tech is that it's mindblowing and incredible for the first
| few days, then it quickly becomes too cumbersome and
| frustrating to deal with on a regular basis and you forget
| about it. Mass adoption really won't come until it's as
| seamless as putting on a pair of reading glasses.
| tluyben2 wrote:
| I am going into month 3 of every day use for work and play.
| potatolicious wrote:
| I agree though I'd argue it's not a single axis of
| "bulkiness/easy of use", and more a balance between
| "bulkiness/ease of use" and "functionality".
|
| The Quest (and self-contained VR devices generally) has done
| a lot to move the ball forward on bulkiness/easy of use, but
| IMO has not done a lot on the functionality part. Most VR
| experiences are toys that don't have lasting power. It is
| revealing that FB's marketing for the devices is
| _overwhelmingly_ about a single game (Beat Saber).
|
| I have a Quest 2 that has been sitting in the closet
| collecting dust for close to a year now. The experience is
| pretty mind-blowing the first few times, but there isn't
| anything _there_ to keep me coming back. Once in a blue moon
| some novel (and usually rather short) VR experience will draw
| me back in for a day or two, but then the device goes back
| into the closet again.
|
| The breakthrough hinges on the combination of easy of use
| _and_ what the heck there is even to _do_ with the device
| that is compelling.
|
| [edit] Seeing some other folks opine about the lack of
| content elsewhere in the thread - yes it's true, but I think
| framing the issue as one about _content_ leans heavily into
| the local maxima (which is a very low local maxima) we are in
| right now, where VR is really only about gaming. I remain
| unconvinced that gaming is the best use of this technology -
| and if we implicitly /explicitly define this as a "content
| problem" rather than a more general "things to do" problem I
| think we're missing something key.
| Elidrake42 wrote:
| Isn't that how the Quest is now? It is for me, pop on the
| device and get straight into my workout.
| Xevi wrote:
| The Quest 2 has a few things that prevents me from using it
| for long sessions.
|
| 1. It's way too heavy, which makes it uncomfortable.
|
| 2. It gets too hot.
|
| 3. It lacks a hinge that would make it possible to easily
| flip it open, while it's still on your head. Taking it off
| all the time is annoying.
|
| 4. It's been really difficult for me to keep the content
| I'm viewing looking sharp. It always looks kind of blurry,
| especially toward the edges.
| ptom wrote:
| I agree about the mass adoption threshold, but even the
| current breed of tech makes the workday-in-VR feat possible:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28678041
| tluyben2 wrote:
| I spend most of my days working in the Quest 2 with Immersed.
| It can ofcourse be better but it works well now. AR would
| indeed be better. If it is possible to keep the screen dark
| enough to see with room light of course.
| redhawk610 wrote:
| If the specs can be delivered then the pricing seems fair, but I
| guess I was wishfully thinking for a deal. Guess not everyone can
| recoup their costs with your data like Meta
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-13 23:02 UTC)