Ex-Valve Engineer's VR Glasses: We Can Outperform Oculus

[medv4380]

About the last part: I always saw it the other way around, it's easier to get used to a new thing like a moving image on a still object when you're young the first time you experience. I seriously doubt anyone who was a kid when Doom came out, and has been playing games the whole time, experiences motion sickness with FPS games, or will start to as they get older. Someone who was middle aged when Doom came out, however, likely experienced it at the time and still does when they have occasion to try out an FPS. I honestly think the same thing is true with stereoscopic 3D -- the older generation has issues with it because it's totally new to them and they aren't as adaptable as they were when they were younger. Kids and people who experienced similar things at a young age[footnote]magic eye books, older 3D stuff, heck, even just having grown up with 3d (but displayed in 2D) videogames might make a difference[/footnote] can adapt to it no problem.

Not to be offensive, but your line of thinking is why people like me keep laughing.

The issue with age has little to do with being used to it as a kid. Lots of adults who enjoyed action movies as a kid, and start to get motion sick when they hit their 60's. It has more to do with eye site getting weaker so the eyes can't focus as fast as they used to, and weakening of the inner ear due to infections.

Same goes for people who enjoyed the tea cups at a theme park, but now in their 40's that just makes them want to hurl. Like my father in law. Heck, my Mother gets motion sickness just from having little kids running around. She has a huge blind spot and people popping in and out of her field of vision is disorientation, and she's had that since she was a kid. There is no getting used to motion sickness.

And then 3D has been around since the 40's. It's always had the same issues it has today. The only difference is this last time ONE movie was so big and popular that it gain a little momentum before people remembered that it just makes them sick.

So keep your nieve view that you can just get "used" to it. I'll just keep laughing.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

About the last part: I always saw it the other way around, it's easier to get used to a new thing like a moving image on a still object when you're young the first time you experience. I seriously doubt anyone who was a kid when Doom came out, and has been playing games the whole time, experiences motion sickness with FPS games, or will start to as they get older. Someone who was middle aged when Doom came out, however, likely experienced it at the time and still does when they have occasion to try out an FPS. I honestly think the same thing is true with stereoscopic 3D -- the older generation has issues with it because it's totally new to them and they aren't as adaptable as they were when they were younger. Kids and people who experienced similar things at a young age[footnote]magic eye books, older 3D stuff, heck, even just having grown up with 3d (but displayed in 2D) videogames might make a difference[/footnote] can adapt to it no problem.

Not to be offensive, but your line of thinking is why people like me keep laughing.

The issue with age has little to do with being used to it as a kid. Lots of adults who enjoyed action movies as a kid, and start to get motion sick when they hit their 60's. It has more to do with eye site getting weaker so the eyes can't focus as fast as they used to, and weakening of the inner ear due to infections.

Same goes for people who enjoyed the tea cups at a theme park, but now in their 40's that just makes them want to hurl. Like my father in law. Heck, my Mother gets motion sickness just from having little kids running around. She has a huge blind spot and people popping in and out of her field of vision is disorientation, and she's had that since she was a kid. There is no getting used to motion sickness.

And then 3D has been around since the 40's. It's always had the same issues it has today. The only difference is this last time ONE movie was so big and popular that it gain a little momentum before people remembered that it just makes them sick.

So keep your nieve view that you can just get "used" to it. I'll just keep laughing.

So we have your anecdotal evidence, backed up so far only by you, vs. mine, backed up by Pyrian up there. Sure, I'm "nieve." Or isn't that "naive?

Also, 3D of the 40's had a totally different set of issues from what we have today, most of it having to do with how physically unreliable the projection hardware was. The ignorance coming from people with your view would make me laugh, if there weren't so danged many of them.

 

[Somebloke]

Why is she comparing this to the Rift? They serve two fundamentally different purposes. This is augmented reality, and the Rift is totally virtual reality. One supplements what's already there, the other totally replaces it. Seems like a cheap publicity ploy, more than anything else.

P.S. Thanks

It's paraphrasing, and out of context, like always.

It is usually well worth trying to get hold of the source material, before it has passed through several stages of forum chinese whispers and ends up abridged in one publication, quoted and reformulated from another publication, as well as given a misleading clickbait article title.

 

[Sol_HSA]

I don't think these VR headsets are going to really compete with each other.

Well, their claim is that it does everything oculus does ("true vr"), plus "true ar", projected ar, etc. And being much lighter on your head than oculus weights a lot too. =)

How well those "true xx" parts work remain to be seen; I've only seen videos where they demo the projected ar stuff.

No, they say true AR. Not true VR. This is augmented reality, not virtual reality. Fairly significant difference between you being in a world and you projecting a world into the real one.

Perhaps you should watch their presentations? If you're too busy for that, they even have this handy graphic explaining it for you:

 

[tzimize]

Why is she comparing this to the Rift? They serve two fundamentally different purposes. This is augmented reality, and the Rift is totally virtual reality. One supplements what's already there, the other totally replaces it. Seems like a cheap publicity ploy, more than anything else.

P.S. Thanks

This is what I was thinking too. How exactly can they outperform the oculus? Bad article is bad.

 

[thewatergamer]

Talk is cheap, If she can outperform good for her, but I'll judge when I see it

 

[Lightknight]

Why is she comparing this to the Rift? They serve two fundamentally different purposes. This is augmented reality, and the Rift is totally virtual reality. One supplements what's already there, the other totally replaces it. Seems like a cheap publicity ploy, more than anything else.

P.S. Thanks

This is what I was thinking too. How exactly can they outperform the oculus? Bad article is bad.

I think the Rift is so popular that tying these to the Rift makes it more popular. That's all I can think of.

At no time does the company claim that this is VR, just AR. So there has been a slip up somewhere.