Your opinion about VR and Oculus Rift ?

[ChouMasamori]

Ever heard of Oculus rift and it's proclaimed first Virtual Reality Device ?
What do you think about this ? What is Virtual Reality ? And does the Oculus Rift is a "virtual reality" device or just a 3D Gaming device.

For my opinion, it's more to 3D Gaming device, as we can very differentiate between reality and the game. and our senses is still connected to reality. It's just a 3D Gaming with first person shooter point of view.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I am a late adopter of technology. I will be a late adopter of this tech. If it is any good I will build a new computer to support it.

 

[Rook]

"3D" is too simple a term.
I would rather go with full visual immersion device.

Two of our senses are used in the occulus, that of hearing and sight.
Now, add the fact that you see only that which is in the occulus(as opposed to regular gaming platforms), and hear only that which occurs in the game(if one's headphones are loud enough), the immersion becomes quite persistent.

Moving on to what is VR:
I would say real VR is something that engages all our senses.
An accurate representation of a tweakable reality existing in a virtual environment.
Thus the OR is not a full VR device.

Note, however, that it is an important step to attaining full VR.
It has also placed the search of VR in a more commercial light, which may speed up innovation in the field.

My argument is short and unsubstantiated, but I have to breakfast.

 

[ChouMasamori]

"3D" is too simple a term.
I would rather go with full visual immersion device.

Two of our senses are used in the occulus, that of hearing and sight.
Now, add the fact that you see only that which is in the occulus(as opposed to regular gaming platforms), and hear only that which occurs in the game(if one's headphones are loud enough), the immersion becomes quite persistent.

Moving on to what is VR:
I would say real VR is something that engages all our senses.
An accurate representation of a tweakable reality existing in a virtual environment.
Thus the OR is not a full VR device.

Note, however, that it is an important step to attaining full VR.
It has also placed the search of VR in a more commercial light, which may speed up innovation in the field.

My argument is short and unsubstantiated, but I have to breakfast.

Agreed
Yeah maybe the term "3D Gaming" is too simplistic and didn't represent it.

 

[idokaiho]

virtual reality:
the computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment, such as a helmet with a screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors.

Some would argue that even 2d computer-generated simulations are virtual reality and according to some definitions they would be right.

I've been following the Oculus Rift since before it Kickstarted on the mtbs3d forums where Palmer began posting about it (http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=14777). Oculus hasn't self-proclaimed (if that's what you meant) itself as the first VR device, however media may have proclaimed such.

Moving on to what is VR:
I would say real VR is something that engages all our senses.
An accurate representation of a tweakable reality existing in a virtual environment.
Thus the OR is not a full VR device.

Full VR = Matrix IMO. If we ever make Matrix level VR I'd be paranoid that I would go in and come out in a simulation that appears to be reality. I still would probably go in after lots of making sure my gear couldn't be hacked... I've thought about this >_>.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

For my opinion, it's more to 3D Gaming device, as we can very differentiate between reality and the game. and our senses is still connected to reality.

If human senses cannot tell they are in another reality, that would actually mean that another reality was achieved. I wouldn't call matrix "virtual==unreal", as one may go about ones life indefinitely and never doubt the perfect illusion, that's the same as this reality we have.

To be conscise : Every interaction has some believable performance and can be fully realised within the system, so that no interaction can be carried out that would make it impossible for the system to simulate it in relation only to itself.

 

[idokaiho]

I was thinking along those lines as well but I'd say it's relative and that even a virtual simulation indistinguishable from reality is still virtual reality, a reality yes, but not reality. Not to say that we are in the supreme reality ourselves...

 

[Jennywocky]

If human senses cannot tell they are in another reality, that would actually mean that another reality was achieved. I wouldn't call matrix "virtual==unreal", as one may go about ones life indefinitely and never doubt the perfect illusion, that's the same as this reality we have.

True, it would be indistinguishable and thus on even footing with what we currently experience as reality... how would we know?

 

[wilsonwatson]

I agree with Rook. It's not yet virtual reality, but it definitely tricks (at the very least) your subconscious into thinking it's in reality. Roller coaster rides/scary scenes are quite thrilling/terrifying in the Rift. I was driving a car in the Rift and kept flinching because it really felt like I was going to get hit by things.

It's definitely much more than just a "3D" device, though I wouldn't say it's Virtual Reality.

 

[JansenDowel]

Full VR = Matrix IMO. If we ever make Matrix level VR I'd be paranoid that I would go in and come out in a simulation that appears to be reality. I still would probably go in after lots of making sure my gear couldn't be hacked... I've thought about this >_>.

Speaking of the matrix, VR can probably be achieved using biotic ecologies.

 

[Reluctantly]

I don't know, this is pretty cool - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7n5kRRHDpw
You've got depth perception 3D, something to move and run on, and motion sensing with the controllers. It has a lot of potential to be incredibly immersive.

 

[ChouMasamori]

I don't know, this is pretty cool - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7n5kRRHDpw
You've got depth perception 3D, something to move and run on, and motion sensing with the controllers. It has a lot of potential to be incredibly immersive.

The only oculus part is the headset

 

[Reluctantly]

Yeah, but seeing what that guy was able to do with it makes it promising. Though honestly, it's hard to get game designers to program in extra features. The 3D that's in the Oculus isn't even fully supported in most games. I know because I've used 3D in games for awhile. The only one I've played that fully supported it was Trine 2 and Tomb Raider 2013.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't see a sustained market for it, not yet. Seems like it will go the route of 3D gaming. Big corporate push -> obscurity, occasional dev choice.

This is kind of tangential, but it would be cool to see arcades brought back in the style of LAN. There would be gaming locations where you could physically goto and socialize. This platform would then allow for the complex devices of immersive VR like in Reluctantly's link.

 

[Turniphead]

I've tried the first version of the devkit. It's nice.
You really do get a sense of being physically in the virtual space that you could never get from a flat screen.

Of course it's not a stand in for reality. But is it closer to a virtual reality than what we have had available so far? Yes.

I think it's going to gradually catch on, as the production costs gradually come down.


("proclaimed first Virtual Reality Device" no one has said this. VR devices have been around for many years)

 

[420MuNkEy]

There seems to be 2 main types of people who are seriously interested in the Oculus Rift. Those who just want to peek their head in a virtual world, and those who want to be able to physically run and jump and flail their body around in a virtual world. I'm definitely one of the former. I think those wanting the latter will be bitterly disappointed.

I'm fine with the limitations imposed by using a gamepad or mouse/keyboard. Running around has very little appeal to me. Sure, it might be a nice way to exercise, but I think with the current state or even the near future of technology this would only come off as a cheap gimmick. To have satisfying complete immersion in a virtual world I think you would need some sort of direct neural stimulation and muscle override.

Beyond the massive gaming improvements that comes with extremely high quality 3D depth and the additional natural input of being able to look around, the oculus delivers something that hasn't been delivered before: presence. Not to be confused with something like the holodeck, "presence" is a much more modest (yet still profound) sensation of being somewhere, though not necessarily physically. Inhabiting a region of virtual space, even as a floating ball of non-interacting consciousness is a very appealing concept to me.

What I would really like to see in the iteration after the first consumer release is smell. This would be an incredibly difficult problem to reliably solve, but I think it would go a long way to the type of experience I ultimately want out of VR. Along with this I would like to see great eye tracking/face tracking and hand tracking (for virtual interactions with other people). All of these things the Oculus guys have expressed interest in pursuing, so it seems some of my wishes might come true in the future, assuming most people don't expect the Holodeck from Oculus Rift Consumer Version 1.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

...and those who want to be able to physically run and jump and flail their body around in a virtual world.

This camp has some pretty absurd expectations at this current point in time.

 

[420MuNkEy]

This camp has some pretty absurd expectations at this current point in time.

I wouldn't say the desire is absurd, it'll probably happen eventually, but if that is what you really want from a VR experience you're most likely going to be let down by the Rift.

 

[kris]

Sony's Morpheus seems like it's moving in that direction regarding physical movement (coupled with the move/ eye). Much of the technology exists, but it's a question of getting it to the right price point and getting people to adopt the technology. I don't know if Sony can really take this technology anywhere as people don't seem to be that supportive of console peripherals. It's great to have the promise of immersive play, but if the price tag seems high and there isn't support from game developers, who is going to buy it?

I think Sony's consumer product will be better than Oculus Rift, but I don't know how far Sony is willing to ride out Morpheus if the adoption rate is too slow for their expectations.

 

[J-man]

My opinion: fuck Facebook and death to Mark Fuckerturd. And not just for buying Oculus.

 

[420MuNkEy]

My opinion: fuck Facebook and death to Mark Fuckerturd. And not just for buying Oculus.

What an eloquent and well reasoned post.

 

[J-man]

Thank you, Munkey.

 

[Reluctantly]

My opinion: fuck Facebook and death to Mark Fuckerturd. And not just for buying Oculus.

*throws keyboard on ground*
YEAH, FUCK THE FREE WORLD!

 

[J-man]

*throws keyboard on ground*
YEAH, FUCK THE FREE WORLD!

...No, just Facebook and fucker turd.

 

[Reluctantly]

Lol, what did he do to you anyway?

 

[Reluctantly]

I've tried the first version of the devkit. It's nice.
You really do get a sense of being physically in the virtual space that you could never get from a flat screen.

Of course it's not a stand in for reality. But is it closer to a virtual reality than what we have had available so far? Yes.

I think it's going to gradually catch on, as the production costs gradually come down.


("proclaimed first Virtual Reality Device" no one has said this. VR devices have been around for many years)

Oh, I wanted to ask you, how is the virtual reality different from the stereoscopic 3D that we have now? Or is it the same? I was under the impression it was the same, but in 180 degree viewing or something. I don't really know, but if you've used it, you could probably say.