Support NeoGAF

[EventHorizon]

Well the power is the reason for the FOV.

No, optics are the reason why Hololens has a small FOV. Unless you want incredibly bulky glasses that would not be marketable, you simply can't bend the light enough to project the image from the side and have a large FOV.

It's made for enterprise users first. Unlike potentially the Vive which could launch at $1500 for consumers.


And it's annoying to see so many people completely disregard all of the positive hands on impressions of this.

You've go that backwards. It's marketed towards enterprise because they are the only ones who would possibly pay the cost to own one. Outside of some very limited use cases there isn't a market for these things. The battery life is too short, the cost is too high, and the field of view is too small.

 

[ps3ud0]

Absolute and total bollocks.

I will one day be excited for HoloLens 2022 Edition, but FUD on VR in the meantime with nonsense like "Vive might be $1500 too!" is insufferable. People pretending the FOV wasn't a big deal last year and MS weren't "really" misrepresenting it were bad enough, but now we move into Phase 2 I guess.

It does sound like from that article they have reduced the FOV from what was shown last year so perhaps it is to increase battery life. Ultimately FOV is limited by the lens' refractive index which is why it wont go full FOV until someone invents a material with higher RI that doesnt cost loads to manufacture

ps3ud0 8)

 

[Rembrandt]

Absolute and total bollocks.

I will one day be excited for HoloLens 2022 Edition, but FUD on VR in the meantime with nonsense like "Vive might be $1500 too!" is insufferable. People pretending the FOV wasn't a big deal last year and MS weren't "really" misrepresenting it were bad enough, but now we move into Phase 2 I guess.

How is it nonsense or FUD? Oculus is $600 and the Vive is going to cost more than that, we know that. $1500 is the rumored price. And MS allowed several hands on previews, didn't hide from talking about the FOV or anything. The tech has only been shown off at tech enthusiast conferences and it's not like they're showing it to the public to get them excited yet. And people were downplaying the FOV because it's still amazing technology nonetheless and people act like the FOV renders the entire thing either useless or fake.

So who's worse, the people that accept the technology as it is and still see it as great or the people that are claiming it doesn't work even after previews?

You've go that backwards. It's marketed towards enterpise because they are the only ones who would possibly pay the cost to own one. Outside of some very limited use cases there isn't a market for these things. The battery life is too short, the cost is too high, and the field of view is too small.

Yeah I mean Volvo, NASA, Autodesk Fusion, medical schools, etc are using it or going to be using it and we all know these industries all do the same thing; you're right, very limited use cases indeed.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

The better question is why shouldn't we? Having everything wireless and self-contained is more future leaning than hooking everything up to wires/boxes just to look at something. A big negative for the Oculus is that it is wired and you need to buy a good enough PC (if u don't have it already) to use it. With the self contained unit, u just buy the unit. .

Yea but, if this is supposed to be used in offices at least the first iterations could go wired, if anything insisting on a wireless unit is limiting the thing.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Well, if any of you watched the video of the MS Exec talking you could see how frank he was about it. He also mentioned that they had a version of the Hololens with "full FOV" but it would die in about 20 minutes, you can't sell that. So as the processor and battery tech get better over time...that FOV will increase. So it's really just a matter of time and tech.

If that's the case then they could just have a belt with some fat batteries and go from there. The first generation is going to enterprise anyway. You could absolutely sell that. I honestly think it has more to do with the processing hitting a pixel limit than it does the batteries.

 

[Alx]

Yea but, if this is supposed to be used in offices at least the first iterations could go wired, if anything insisting on a wireless unit is limiting the thing.

Industry context isn't limited to rows of desktops in an open space. You should consider environments like this one :

 

[EventHorizon]

Yea but, if this is supposed to be used in offices at least the first iterations could go wired, if anything insisting on a wireless unit is limiting the thing.

Unfortunately wireless is probably the only way you can sell AR. After all what good is AR if you are stuck tethered to a PC or console. The whole point to AR is to augment your reality. If that reality is confined to a small area, then it loses its utility. At that point you might as well just look at a monitor or go full VR.

 

[Pie and Beans]

It does sound like from that article they have reduced the FOV from what was shown last year so perhaps it is to increase battery life. Ultimately FOV is limited by the lens' refractive index which is why it wont go full FOV until someone invents a material with higher RI that doesnt cost loads to manufacture

ps3ud0 8)

Oh so the FOV got even worse than the 2015 press demos? Boy howdy, what a product.

How is it nonsense or FUD? Oculus is $600 and the Vive is going to cost more than that, we know that. $1500 is the rumored price.

There's been a lot of bullshit over VR prices thanks to sloppy journalism with things like the PSVR fake Amazon price being reported as fact. What makes Rift CV1 so expensive is the headset with its optics and lens systems and so on. Since the Vive does not have 2 headsets, just one with all the peripherals, no it isn't going to cost 2.5 times as much because jesus christ, maths.

On the order of "yes this isn't a product Microsoft is pretending is headed to market any time soon!", they have shown it at every single press conference and consumer show they can. They rolled it out at E3 for gods sake. Sure, we all know the reality that its 5-10 years off from a real buy off the shelf product, but thats not been how Microsoft has foolishly been positioning it last year against VR. MS shenanigans hurt AR's future almost as much as the actually exciting tech they've started down the road on helps it.

 

[EventHorizon]

Yeah I mean Volvo, NASA, Autodesk Fusion, medical schools, etc are using it or going to be using it and we all know these industries all do the same thing; you're right, very limited use cases indeed.

I'm glad you agree.

 

[ps3ud0]

Well, if any of you watched the video of the MS Exec talking you could see how frank he was about it. He also mentioned that they had a version of the Hololens with "full FOV" but it would die in about 20 minutes, you can't sell that. So as the processor and battery tech get better over time...that FOV will increase. So it's really just a matter of time and tech.

Missed this before - you dont have a link/timestamp to that video when he mentions that?

ps3ud0 8)

 

[panda-zebra]

Nice to know battery and cost are the cause of the limited fov.

Yeah, forget physics, it's honestly just cost cutting and battery life, things the fans can happily believe will improve over a relatively short period of time. TBF, the planned release hardware might well be cost-cut and FOV-reduced from what was initially shown.

Industry context isn't limited to rows of desktops in an open space. You should consider environments like this one :

For hololens to function well, consider something much more minimal, that space is far too cluttered with intricate and fussy details everywhere. It'd likely go tits-up at a guess.

 

[Fox_Mulder]

#microsoft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qlHoxPioM
#stillmicrosoft

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Industry context isn't limited to rows of desktops in an open space. You should consider environments like this one :

I get what you're trying to say but I think you should use a better picture to get your point across. that's a machine shop, when you're working an industrial lathe the last thing you need is visual distractions in front of you - add to the fact, there's tiny pieces of hot metal flying of the work piece which could damage the hololens unit

Unfortunately wireless is probably the only way you can sell AR. After all what good is AR if you are stuck tethered to a PC or console. The whole point to AR is to augment your reality. If that reality is confined to a small area, then it loses its utility. At that point you might as well just look at a monitor or go full VR.

but you work at a desk or station (sitting or standing), for those who said they have 5+ monitors on their station why not replace it by a single wired unit

 

[Rembrandt]

There's been a lot of bullshit over VR prices thanks to sloppy journalism with things like the PSVR fake Amazon price being reported as fact. What makes Rift CV1 so expensive is the headset with its optics and lens systems and so on. Since the Vive does not have 2 headsets, just one with all the peripherals, no it isn't going to cost 2.5 times as much because jesus christ, maths.

On the order of "yes this isn't a product Microsoft is pretending is headed to market any time soon!", they have shown it at every single press conference and consumer show they can. They rolled it out at E3 for gods sake. Sure, we all know the reality that its 5-10 years off from a real buy off the shelf product, but thats not been how Microsoft has foolishly been positioning it last year against VR. MS shenanigans hurt AR's future almost as much as the actually exciting tech they've started down the road on helps it.

But the Vive has the front facing camera and all of the other stuff the Oculus doesn't current have, right? Does that not factor into price? Isn't the difference in tech the reason for some games to be Vive exclusive.

Microsoft has said in interviews that a version for consumers isn't coming soon. And of course they rolled it out to conferences, it's tech they want devs to develop for? The only people acting like this version here is supposed to compete with Oculus are people like you that somehow manage to find your way into the 17 topics posted about the FOV by people that posted in the topics before theirs.

 

[Mula]

No limits huh?

This is early gen AR. It is to be expected.

With AR. you can play golf in your own room. With VR you can play golf on Mars, on the mount Everest ...
It's just a concept thing.
In AR you allways Interact with the room you are.

 

[0racle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qlHoxPioM
#stillmicrosoft

I have never used kinect before, it does not work like that?

Even if it does it looks ridiculous.....I cant imagine what they delivered then....

 

[Alx]

I get what you're trying to say but I think you should use a better picture to get your point across. that's a machine shop, when you're working an industrial lathe the last thing you need is visual distractions in front of you - add to the fact, there's tiny pieces of hot metal flying of the work piece which could damage the hololens unit

Yeah I didn't take the time to look for the "perfect picture". Heavy machinery may not be the best context, even if the mobility of the Hololens would also make it easier to put it on and off depending on what you need to do at a given time.
Having worked with people from the car industry who were always tinkering in such places though, I think that wearing a headset that would add informations on location of different parts, wires etc would have been very useful to them.

AR at a desk must be cool and all, but there's not much that can't be emulated by a screen and 3D viewing software. The point of AR is augmenting reality, so it needs something real to augment, and not just a bland desk.

 

[Fox_Mulder]

that's the AR visor people deserve

 

[Maintenance]

The future generations of this thing could be great, but I'll pass this one.

 

[Dreamwriter]

The HoloLens FOV isn't really as bad as that quote makes it sound. Put a 15" monitor two feet in front of your face, it's going to be taking up a decent amount of your view. Stand a few feet away from a wall and yes you can stretch a large-screen monitor onto that wall and see the whole thing, because you are a few feet away. Right now in the room I am in, that would encompass the entire far wall in the room.

With AR. you can play golf in your own room. With VR you can play golf on Mars, on the mount Everest ...
It's just a concept thing.
In AR you allways Interact with the room you are.

And with AR you can make the room you are in Mars, Mount Everest... AR is most definitely the true future, because true AR *encompasses* VR. Literally anything that can be done in VR can be done in AR.

 

[ypo]

Should do well with stamp collectors.

With AR you can walk around in circles with that same piece of coffee table pretending to be a rock on Mars. Sounds exciting.

You can do it again in The Room: The Game #748261.

 

[EventHorizon]

but you work at a desk or station (sitting or standing), for those who said they have 5+ monitors on their station why not replace it by a single wired unit

First, how many people are using 5+ monitors? If that is Hololens' total market space potential then they've got huge problems.

Second, outside of the novelty factor why wouldn't you just use monitors? Why would a virtual monitor be any better than a physical one? After all the best this can do right now is mimic a single 15" monitor at a time. There are some limited use cases for this but that is about it.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Yeah I didn't take the time to look for the "perfect picture". Heavy machinery may not be the best context, even if the mobility of the Hololens would also make it easier to put it on and off depending on what you need to do at a given time.
Having worked with people from the car industry who were always tinkering in such places though, I think that wearing a headset that would add informations on location of different parts, wires etc would have been very useful to them.

AR at a desk must be cool and all, but there's not much that can't be emulated by a screen and 3D viewing software. The point of AR is augmenting reality, so it needs something real to augment, and not just a bland desk.

Perhaps it might, I think it would be a great tool for training first time mechanics.

I don't mean to be difficult, however, keep in mind that for ANY workshop an emphasis on safety first is always stressed. Having a unit on your head that potentially may be caught in something or fall into something AND doesn't provide protection for the head or eyes AND is a visual distraction AND could cost somewhere of $300 is not going to convince employers and workshop foremen that it is a necessity to have

an industrial version may be in the works, but until then, i remain skeptical about its use outside of consumer and office applications

First, how many people are using 5+ monitors? If that is Hololens' total market space potential then they've got huge problems.

Second, outside of the novelty factor why wouldn't you just use monitors? Why would a virtual monitor be any better than a physical one? After all the best this can do right now is mimic a single 15" monitor at a time. There are some limited use cases for this but that is about it.

lol, I asked the same question before and Zedox and other posters were quick to show that they use at least 3 and there are jobs that require 6+...so, on that example I conceded that a single hololens would be preferable to multiple monitors

 

[panda-zebra]

With AR. you can play golf in your own room. With VR you can play golf on Mars, on the mount Everest ...
It's just a concept thing.
In AR you allways Interact with the room you are.

In VR you could play golf in a VR representation of your own room.

And with AR you can make the room you are in Mars, Mount Everest...

Your room is always your room, placing things within it will not transport your to otherwordly places.

AR is most definitely the true future, because true AR *encompasses* VR. Literally anything that can be done in VR can be done in AR.

I don't accept that. Without the ability to make the world you inhabit truly disappear from your view, AR would never truly be able to accomplish that which VR can.

VR with forward-facing cameras potentially could.

 

[LukasTaves]

then why the insistence of a self contained unit? I like the idea of freedom of movement, but maybe also make one that has a full fov but is wired to a host computer?

I think this shitty fov hurts AR more than a power cord atm.

So far the device is aimed at developers, they probably feel it's better to let developers untethered so they can create experiences with the user moving freely than limiting it just so developers can have a wider fov, specially if the things keeping them from increasing the fov are cost, and not some limitation of the tech they are using.

 

[JaggedSac]

You're just assuming it does.

No assuming needed. All hands on reports have the tracking and smoothness of the overlay as being quite nice.

 

[EventHorizon]

And with AR you can make the room you are in Mars, Mount Everest... AR is most definitely the true future, because true AR *encompasses* VR. Literally anything that can be done in VR can be done in AR.

You can only do that when you turn AR into VR so what is the point. That's like saying I could fly...if I was a bird.

Actually what I really think you are doing is trying to compare AR in the far distant future to VR of today. The reality is that in that far distant future VR will have improved greatly too. The only difference between AR and VR would be how much of your vision you chose to obscure. The same device would handle both AR and VR.

 

[Zedox]

Missed this before - you dont have a link/timestamp to that video when he mentions that?

ps3ud0 8)

I don't have the timestamp but here's the video.

https://vimeo.com/152007588

Which I got from WMPoweruser ( http://microsoft-news.com/why-microsoft-hololens-has-narrow-field-of-view/ )

Regarding the field of view, he said that you should think it is as 15-inch monitor few feet away from your body in air. He said there is a reason why it is limited. Manufacturing the glass on which the Holograms are projected is a complex process. If you want manufacture a larger glass for better field of view, the failure rate goes up high and so the cost will go up significantly. For now HoloLens costs $3000, it may cost several thousand dollars more if larger glass needs to be included. Another reason Microsoft didn’t opt for larger field of view is battery life. When you want to project more, battery goes down exponentially. Microsoft even tried it and with the current battery capability, HoloLens can run only for 20 mins. But in future, when manufacturing cost comes down and battery life gets improved, we may get Field of View in HoloLens.

So it's two things...manufacture processes and battery life.

 

[Doofcake]

that's the AR visor people deserve

That's VR.

Yes, it has a front-facing camera for safety and comfort purposes, but it does not do AR.

 

[Ydahs]

Well it's a start. Really looking forward to seeing the improvements made over the next 5-10 years. I already have some ideas for applications I'd like to develop

 

[EventHorizon]

lol, I asked the same question before and Zedox and other posters were quick to show that they use at least 3 and there are jobs that require 6...so, on that example I conceded that a single hololens would be preferable to multiple monitors

I didn't say that there weren't people that used that many monitors. I said there weren't very many of them. I also point out making multiple virtual 15 inch monitors isn't all that helpful. Unlike a real monitor the virtual ones would not be visible at all to you peripheral vision. Presumably they have that many monitors because they need to track a lot of information at once. With these virtual monitors there would be no way to flash an alert. If you are not looking directly at them they don't exist. You'd be giving yourself tunnel vision.

 

[Mula]

The HoloLens FOV isn't really as bad as that quote makes it sound. Put a 15" monitor two feet in front of your face, it's going to be taking up a decent amount of your view. Stand a few feet away from a wall and yes you can stretch a large-screen monitor onto that wall and see the whole thing, because you are a few feet away. Right now in the room I am in, that would encompass the entire far wall in the room.



And with AR you can make the room you are in Mars, Mount Everest... AR is most definitely the true future, because true AR *encompasses* VR. Literally anything that can be done in VR can be done in AR.

I think you need to understand what VR and what AR is. It's not a tech thing it's the concept.

 

[Melchiah]

It was revealed last July that the staggering June E3 demo wasn’t quite representative of the actual user experience.

That line evokes memories of the Milo incident.

 

[SomTervo]

Perfect for TV/living room set ups.

FTFY

 

[Dreamwriter]

Your room is always your room, placing things within it will not transport your to otherwordly places.

In AR, you can put objects that appear to be in the real world. OK, so now replace the floor with the surface of Mars. Now replace the walls with the sky of Mars. Program it so when the player moves towards the wall, the image changes to match. BAM, instant VR! If AR can put any solid objects anywhere in your sight, then it can replicate VR perfectly - turn into VR. If everything you see is computer generated, then it is VR, and AR allows that.

VR using a forward-facing camera to allow it to show your room perfectly, so you can add other images to it, that's AR. And not possible with the Vive, BTW.

Note, I am talking about the future of AR, not the current HoloLens - HoloLens' limited FOV and how it makes it holograms translucent, that wouldn't be cable of obscuring the view of your room. From what Magic Leap has shown, theirs might be capable of it.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

I didn't say that there weren't people that used that many monitors. I said there weren't very many of them. I also point out making multiple virtual 15 inch monitors isn't all that helpful. Unlike a real monitor the virtual ones would not be visible at all to you peripheral vision. Presumably they have that many monitors because they need to track a lot of information at once. With these virtual monitors there would be no way to flash an alert. If you are not looking directly at them they don't exist. You'd be giving yourself tunnel vision.

Buddy, you're preaching to the choir.

I only conceded on that point because I could kinda see it working, thus why I said if a wired power solution would solve the FOV to what has been shown in marketing materials then and ONLY then would this be viable.

but, if we keep insisting on keeping it wireless without addressing power consumption issues and by proxy limiting the FOV then yes I agree the multiple monitor use case is as good as dead.

 

[LukasTaves]

No, optics are the reason why Hololens has a small FOV. Unless you want incredibly bulky glasses that would not be marketable, you simply can't bend the light enough to project the image from the side and have a large FOV.

That could be solvable with multiple projectors, which could give credence to power being the limiter, as multiple projectors are likely to draw more power (they will probably add up to space and weight of course, but perhaps they can already make those small and tiny enough?)

 

[EventHorizon]

I don't have the timestamp but here's the video.

https://vimeo.com/152007588

Which I got from WMPoweruser ( http://microsoft-news.com/why-microsoft-hololens-has-narrow-field-of-view/ )



So it's two things...manufacture processes and battery life.

I think you are describing two different problems. The reason why AR can't have a very large FOV is due to optics. It's true that price and battery life would be a major limiter here too but they physically can't make very large FOV AR glasses.

Now what you and that video are talking about is why MS had to reduce their FOV even smaller than it was before. Yes it is physically possible to make the FOV a bit bigger, but at that limited scale price and battery life make it economically infeasible. To get a truly wide FOV MS would have to go with an entirely different technology for projecting images like Magic Leap is rumored to be doing.

 

[ps3ud0]

I don't have the timestamp but here's the video.

https://vimeo.com/152007588

Which I got from WMPoweruser ( http://microsoft-news.com/why-microsoft-hololens-has-narrow-field-of-view/ )



So it's two things...manufacture processes and battery life.

Cheers he starts at around 6:15 stating the glass (he means the lens at that point) cant be bigger due to manufacturing and on top of that the bigger the glass (again lens) the more power it uses (exponentially as he puts it).

Nothing really that says theres capability of manufacturing it with a full FOV IMO because of the cost (making a bigger lens would mean a larger FOV but would lead to higher failure rates in producing it) and from what Ive read of their white papers there is a hard limit to what materials are available that can be produced with the high RI it requires because of my previous point (if you cant make the lens bigger you try and make the projected 'throw' wider - not the best description sorry) .

ps3ud0 8)

 

[-Horizon-]

That's not that good :/

I mean I still like what I've seen of it though. Maybe in future iterations it'll get better if its successful.

 

[Ghost]

I've been pretty disappointed with where MS have got to with Hololens since they first unveiled it. I think they've probably hit a roadblock technically and after it gets a luke warm reception from developers ($3K for a kit and no plans to make them commercially available pretty much ensures that) they'll use that as a reason to halt the R&D on it.


Then in 5-10 years someone will solve the FOV problem and make a killing.

 

[TheFurizzlyBear]

With AR. you can play golf in your own room. With VR you can play golf on Mars, on the mount Everest ...
It's just a concept thing.
In AR you allways Interact with the room you are.

With AR you could go play actual golf but, with a special golf ball, it could track your stats. It could also overlay a map of the hole you are on, add a tracking arc of your shot and many other things.

 

[Zedox]

I think you are describing two different problems. The reason why AR can't have a very large FOV is due to optics. It's true that price and battery life would be a major limiter here too but they physically can't make very large FOV AR glasses.

Now what you and that video are talking about is why MS had to reduce their FOV even smaller than it was before. Yes it is physically possible to make the FOV a bit bigger, but at that limited scale price and battery life make it economically infeasible. To get a truly wide FOV MS would have to go with an entirely different technology for projecting images like Magic Leap is rumored to be doing.

I'm not gonna talk about Magic Leap because no one knows what they are doing and they are more vaporware than anything (to the public) until they show people their product.

Yes, economically infeasible. That's what it comes down to, because it is possible (as you stated).

Cheers he starts at around 6:15 stating the glass (he means the lens at that point) cant be bigger due to manufacturing and on top of that the bigger the glass (again lens) the more power it uses (exponentially as he puts it).

Nothing really that says theres capability of manufacturing it with a full FOV IMO because of the cost (making a bigger lens would mean a larger FOV but would lead to higher failure rates in producing it) and from what Ive read of their white papers there is a hard limit to what materials are available that can be produced with the high RI it requires because of my previous point (if you cant make the lens bigger you try and make the projected 'throw' wider - not the best description sorry) .

ps3ud0 8)

He stated that they had one "full fov"...but it was more of a hand gesture than words but it wouldn't last long (with the current battery that they are using). So it's all possible...but it would cost too much and it wouldn't last that long.

Either way, it's going to take time before what they originally showed to come to fruition. So i'm not disagreeing with you guys at all...just stating what I see and hear from the MS exec.

 

[Fox_Mulder]

That's VR.

Yes, it has a front-facing camera for safety and comfort purposes, but it does not do AR.

Yep, it does also AR

The camera is not only for safety and confort purpose

 

[fred]

That is not exactly news. We already know the FOV is shit.

This ^^^

Microsoft are REALLY frustrating. They keep on coming up with great ideas like Kinect and HoloLens but release them before the technology is ready to do the job properly. Kinect had the same problem too, the lag made the thing about as useful as a chocolate teapot for gaming.

HoloLens is going to flop just as badly as Kinect did unfortunately.

 

[EventHorizon]

That could be solvable with multiple projectors, which could give credence to power being the limiter, as multiple projectors are likely to draw more power (they will probably add up to space and weight of course, but perhaps they can already make those small and tiny enough?)

It takes more power because to fill a larger field of view they have to generate a more pixels. It's the same reason why you would need a more powerful graphics card to show a 4K image instead of a 1080p one.

I'm no expert on this but I have looked into it enough to understand the basic problem with the FOV. For AR to work you have to create and project an image. So where do you put those projectors? You could put them directly in front of your eyes but then that would block the view of the world and defeat the point of AR. Btw, VR doesn't have this problem because it is assumed already that the outside world will be hidden.

Anyways, for AR to work it has to project the images from the side and then somehow redirect the light to go in your eyes. There are two main ways to do this. They can use tiny mirrors but that makes the glasses very thick, and I believe heavy and fragile. The other way is to bend the light like a lens but there are physical limits on how much you can do this. Different colors of light bend at different rates. If you try the bend the light too much the colors start to separate. This is why there is a small FOV. You need to be able to bend the light more to increase the FOV.

There are many different techniques used to try to overcome these problems but they all have some kind of drawback. Some entirely new way is needed to get a large FOV with AR glasses and to the best of my knowledge MS is just using existing known techniques and thus are stuck with their limitations.

 

[ps3ud0]

He stated that they had one "full fov"...but it was more of a hand gesture than words but it wouldn't last long (with the current battery that they are using). So it's all possible...but it would cost too much and it wouldn't last that long.

Either way, it's going to take time before what they originally showed to come to fruition. So i'm not disagreeing with you guys at all...just stating what I see and hear from the MS exec.

If thats related to the comments at 7:25 that sounds more like extrapolation of numbers than actually 'we have a full FOV model whose battery only lasts 20mins'.

Cheers for the link though - more useful than any of the presser demos MS have done - the bit about the possibility of leveraging cloud compute and shared experiences with multiple hololens was interesting.

ps3ud0 8)

 

[Dreamwriter]

Yep, it does also AR

The camera is not only for safety and confort purpose

No, the camera on the Vive is only for safety and comfort purpose - your video didn't show anything new. The Vive's front-facing camera is capable of replacing all computer-generated imagery with Tron-like blue silhouettes of what's in your room, one of the demos they used to show it off was telling users to turn on that mode and then see if they can find and sit down in the chair in the room. So in that mode, you only see "your room", but it doesn't mix it with VR imagery. The other use is when you get near the limits of your room-scale area, rather than only seeing the grid showing the limit, it fades in blue images of what's beyond the limits.

That's not AR, and without adding a depth camera to it, AR isn't really possible.

 

[EventHorizon]

I'm not gonna talk about Magic Leap because no one knows what they are doing and they are more vaporware than anything (to the public) until they show people their product.

Yes, economically infeasible. That's what it comes down to, because it is possible (as you stated).

That's why I said Magic Leap was rumored to have new technology. The point wasn't to imply that Magic Leap has the problem fixed, but that in order to do it you'd have to do something completely different. Btw, I too find it incredibly hard to believe what Magic Leap is saying. The only thing keeping me from writing them off as a total scam is that Google has invested in them and I have to believe that they would have vetted the company. However the main takeaway is that I think AR is a very immature technology and I am skeptical of all of them.

 

[Mula]

With AR you could go play actual golf but, with a special golf ball, it could track your stats. It could also overlay a map of the hole you are on, add a tracking arc of your shot and many other things.

There are cool things you can do with AR apart from Gaming no doubt.