LyleLanley
Banned
Google.
I can't imagine even Google would want to invest the ridiculous amount of resources it would be required to make such a thing. Would there even be a big market for such a thing?
Google.
That's a common bias from people who are too close from the technical aspects. You may focus on how AR is done, but that's not why. AR and VR share most of their technology (display, positional tracking, ...), but don't have the same purpose, audience and applications.
As a technology, AR and VR are very similar. As a product, they are very different, and sometimes even opposed (for example AR is about the technology following you everywhere, VR is about keeping you attached to the technology).
...none of that countradicts what I said. I said AR is a subset of VR, not that they are entirely the same. AR is derivative technology. AR is VR abstracted over reality.
Your personal feelings aside, you won't get the AR you desire until we conquer VR.
You guys are having one of the most pointless arguments I have seen.Nothing I have said has indicated that I believe AR and VR don't have differing agency. No matter how much you want to ignore the details, AR is a subset technology of VR. They obviously have different applications, nobody is making that argument. But it is still a subset technology.
Not that I disagree with anything you're saying really... but don't you mean that AR is a superset of VR, rather than a subset?
You guys are having one of the most pointless arguments I have seen.
Nothing I have said has indicated that I believe AR and VR don't have differing agency. No matter how much you want to ignore the details, AR is a subset technology of VR. They obviously have different applications, nobody is making that argument. But it is still a subset technology.
The thing is AR and VR describe functionalities, not technique.
I guess, actually, yes. What I mean is that AR is derivative of VR, ultimately. So yeah, visualizing a venn diagram, I guess that would be superset, not subset.
You quoted a response to a post you made about someone once claiming that the internet would be nothing more than a fad in a thread that's discussing VR.
I don't think either console is a great fit to handle VR with anything besides very basic looking games.
What do you consider 'very basic looking'? Both PS4 and Xbox one could do VR at 1080p/60 at better quality than PS360 and I think that would be a good enough level for me.
What do you consider 'very basic looking'? Both PS4 and Xbox one could do VR at 1080p/60 at better quality than PS360 and I think that would be a good enough level for me.
Yea, I got what you were saying, in that we'd essentially have to solve all of VR in order to have solved part of AR. Just the word "subset" was sticking out for me.
I completely agree with your points though.
What do you consider 'very basic looking'? Both PS4 and Xbox one could do VR at 1080p/60 at better quality than PS360 and I think that would be a good enough level for me.
960x1080 times 2 at 60 fps
Are you saying they could play PS3/360 games at the proper resolution and FPS for VR? I have no idea if that's possible or not but I have my doubts they could do something like The Last of Us at the required resolution with a stable 60 fps.
Remember VR has to render the same image twice while also running the game at a high and consistent frame rate.
not as cool as cake boss'GTAV boss' must be a cool job.
Surely this is untrue.
A space sim like Elite or NMS isn't going to render the same frame twice. A lot of screen space is going to consist of extremely distant objects (starfield, planets, sun, etc), which are going to look identical for each eye.
I assume devs will simply clone content between images if its distance exceeds a threshold. Only close objects need to be rendered twice.
Sure there will be an overhead to VR, but it's not a straightforward doubling.
It would be interesting to know at what range objects become identical for each eye, I guess it's somewhere around 20-50 metres?
Also, I guess that objects very close to the user, which need the heaviest additional rendering, are either going to be slow-moving or transient, which probably allows for some sleight of hand to reduce processing overhead.
You lost me on the second line. Why would objects closer to the viewer be slower moving? Wouldn't any displacement be far more significant than that same object at a distance?
No they don't. VR is a specific technique, as is AR. They are mediums.
And, in any case, you've lost sight of the point of the conversation - the guy is asking why we are concentrating on VR instead of doing work with AR. Obviously, the reason why is because VR forms the foundation of AR. You don't get AR, until you have VR.
One is not the result of the other though.
Sorry, I didn't make much sense!
I was thinking that anything getting close to a user at constant speed would only be really close and need really detailed rendering for a short time before passing the user and moving further away again.
If something was going to be filling your vision for a long period of time then it can't be moving fast relative to you, and maybe devs can get away with duplicating more content between frames.
I don't have any VR development experience, this is just speculation!
Yes, they are.
The current AR that you point to, is built on the foundation for VR that existed 30 years ago.
You're still having a hard time separating product from technology. AR benefits from the technology developed from VR. But it is not an extension of VR, their applications barely overlap.
It's like saying planes are the result of car development. They're not, even if the development of engines that started with cars made planes possible. And both planes and cars could evolve alongside, we didn't need to have the perfect car to start flying in the air.
You're still having a hard time separating product from technology
Are you saying they could play PS3/360 games at the proper resolution and FPS for VR? I have no idea if that's possible or not but I have my doubts they could do something like The Last of Us at the required resolution with a stable 60 fps.
Yes. All this '2x' stuff isn't anything special - if it was a 1080p screen then basically you're rendering side-by-side 3d. It's still just one 1080p screen with one side per eye.
PS3 did stereo 3D last gen on a few games at 720p per eye @60Hz. That's a similar number of pixels being moved around (1280x720 vs 960x1080, np oth approx 1m pixels per eye). And games like motorstorm 3D Rift or apocalyose didn't lose too much detail.
PS4 and morpheus will be fine. So would Xbox one.
And PC will have its own issues - when a stable frame rate is critical and you're targetting so many varied setups, there will be potentially lots of tweaking going on.
Because VR isn't a product. VR is a technology. It seems you are having the problem separating product from technology. Oculus Rift is a product. Sony Morpheus is a product. VR is a technology. Microsoft Fortaleza is a product. Google Glass is a product. AR is a technology. I can't walk into a store and buy VR. I walk into a store and buy GearVR. GearVR is a product which uses VR technology. Google Glass is a product which uses AR technology.
What is VR? VR is perspective corrected projections of 3D models rendered with fedility such that they become indistinguishable from tangible, physical products to the degree that they affect subconcious systems in our minds. What is AR? AR is perspective corrected projections of 3D models rendered with fedility such that they become indistinguishable from tangible, physical products to the degree that they affect subconcious systems in our minds, abstracted over reality.
Anyway, by your own definition, VR is defined by giving the illusion of being in a fake 3D world. That is a what, not a how. Whether you do that using technology like inertial sensors and LCD displays, or fictional brain implants, as long as you reach that result and match that definition, you're doing VR.
If AR is defined by inserting fake objects in our perception of the real world, then by definition it is different from VR. It just happens that the current implementation uses similar technologies as VR (inertial sensors, LCD displays etc).
They don't even have the same hurdles and limitations, latency and resolution not having the same consequences in AR and VR experiences for example.
Isn't that a very, very narrow description of AR though? You can augment reality completely without the use 3d models, and you don't even have to fool the brain that what it is seeing is real to have augmented reality. I'm thinking of applications such as rendering overlays in real-time sports broadcasts, or even looking at a real-time feed of night-vision video.What is VR? VR is perspective corrected projections of 3D models rendered with fedility such that they become indistinguishable from tangible, physical products to the degree that they affect subconcious systems in our minds. What is AR? AR is perspective corrected projections of 3D models rendered with fedility such that they become indistinguishable from tangible, physical products to the degree that they affect subconcious systems in our minds, abstracted over reality.
What you're describing is more of a hud than augmented reality. Most working with ar would not classify what you described as ar. Going back to my calculator example, you could call a calculator a personal computer, but when people refer to pcs, everybody knows what they're taking about.Isn't that a very, very narrow description of AR though? You can augment reality completely without the use 3d models, and you don't even have to fool the brain that what it is seeing is real to have augmented reality. I'm thinking of applications such as rendering overlays in real-time sports broadcasts, or even looking at a real-time feed of night-vision video.
Isn't that a very, very narrow description of AR though? You can augment reality completely without the use 3d models, and you don't even have to fool the brain that what it is seeing is real to have augmented reality. I'm thinking of applications such as rendering overlays in real-time sports broadcasts, or even looking at a real-time feed of night-vision video.
What you're describing is more of a hud than augmented reality.
There needs to be a balance in the definition of AR: I would say that the rendered objects need to be integrated into the real world. Text overlays from Google glass or similar aren't AR, are they? If they are how are they different from subtitles on a TV, or a real-world signpost?
I (and apparently Wikipedia) don't agree with this classification. VR is about creating an artificial reality for the human senses. AR is about adding things to the "real" reality and feeding back the results through human senses. The only thing the terms necessarily have in common is that both contain the word "reality".What you're describing is more of a hud than augmented reality. Most working with ar would not classify what you described as ar. Going back to my calculator example, you could call a calculator a personal computer, but when people refer to pcs, everybody knows what they're taking about.
The technology called ar will be what I described above going forward.
That's still the original definition of augmented reality. The Playroom or Invizimals are in the augmented reality category too. As long as you're adding to a real stream information that is relevant to its content, you're doing AR. A fighter pilot helmet that points enemy planes is doing AR too, even if it's only drawing tiny squares on his visor.
That's still the original definition of augmented reality. The Playroom or Invizimals are in the augmented reality category too. As long as you're adding to a real stream information that is relevant to its content, you're doing AR. A fighter pilot helmet that points enemy planes is doing AR too, even if it's only drawing tiny squares on his visor.
I (and apparently Wikipedia) don't agree with this classification. VR is about creating an artificial reality for the human senses. AR is about adding things to the "real" reality and feeding back the results through human senses. The only thing the terms necessarily have in common is that both contain the word "reality".
When people talk about augmented reality, they are not referring to watching their tv across the room filming their table and putting text over it. When people talk about augmented reality, they are describing what I described.
Nice. What does this have to do with VR?Well, we've got the other example, where nobody gives a fuck about 3D movies and buy 3D tvs because basically there's no no-3D tvs anymore
I think you're too focused on your own activities... there are many people working and focusing on augmented reality in the traditional sense, and not only "what you described".
I think you're too focused on your own activities... there are many people working and focusing on augmented reality in the traditional sense, and not only "what you described".
That's a leading question. You can accomplish AR and VR without the use of vision altogether.Do me a favour an break down the process by which you believe you accomplish virtual reality, and the process by which you accomplish augmented reality. They are the same process with the difference being one is put against a black backdrop, and the other is put against a clear screen.
program it so that the GPS tells a shoe to vibrate when you need to make a turn in that direction. And suddenly you get AR.
That's a leading question. You can accomplish AR and VR without the use of vision altogether.
For example, take an empty apartment building, fill it with synthetic sweet smells and play noises of rustling people. Put someone in there with a blindfold. And bam, you have artificially created an environment from which a person can feel "presence" of being in a candy shop. VR. (Badly thought out example but I really need to sleep, so it will have to do to convey my general thought).
On the other hand, take a pair of shoes and put a vibrator in each. Connect them to a GPS, and program it so that the GPS tells a shoe to vibrate when you need to make a turn in that direction. And suddenly you get AR. No screens involved.
"Ok, students. Today's assignment is to go to Ancient Egypt and bring back 10 sheets of Papyrus"
Hey, I just invented field trips without leaving the classroom. I could make a business out of this idea...