One thing I've noticed last E3 is that the people watching really didn't like the VR games section. They just don't care about games that have requirements this high.
I've been seeing similar reactions to popular franchises having a VR exclusive title or popular developers focusing on VR rather than regular games. It's not really catching on well.
I think a whole heap of what he said is bullshit, but I actually mostly agree.
I've had my Vive since May, and have a creeping feeling that VR as a whole is much better fitted for an arcade than in a living room. I hardly use mine, and most of the games that are coming out look dull. Of course, what looks like ass in 2D is enhanced by VR, but it isn't necessarily made fantastic by it.
VR game developers need to get very creative, very soon. In my opinion, I feel that too much goes into [I]solving problems[/I] rather than [I]embracing strengths[/I] in VR. I believe that is a problem. It sometimes feels like developers are trying to replicate the gaming we know from our screens in VR, which is simply not possible when we're restricted to a room, motion causes motion sickness, etc. It's difficult to imagine alternatives since they don't exist yet, but I think VR needs to delve more into storytelling, empathy, tactile close-range interactions, creation... The first steps of this is what you see in games like Hover Junkers and H3VR; [I]handling[/I] guns becomes gameplay, almost to a higher degree than shooting with them. In any case, VR needs new solutions for gameplay, and if they don't show up, VR will quietly become a failure. And even with games that are highly suited for and only possible with VR, I still feel like it might not make it because of how expensive, complicated, niche, etc. it is.
Don't bother with VR unless you plan to use it... ALOT.
I use my Oculus Rift for a couple of hours every day (if I can), for [B][I][U]FLIGHT SIMS[/U][/I][/B] is has replaced my OpenTrack setup for head movement. And it's great, the resolution and optics are "good enough" for what I use it for, can't wait for future generation VR.
And that's what I'd recommend; wait another 5 years for the tech to mature.
I guess it takes a Jim to prove that a Vin is always right until proven wrong.
[sp]That's my way of saying I was right.[/sp]
I worry that VR isn't taking off because I truly think the technology is amazing. But even so I can't afford it myself, and honestly there aren't many titles out right now that justify the purchase.
One game I found super dissapointing was Job Simulator. I thought the concept was great, the writing was great, and the style was great. I really enjoyed it first playthrough for the novelty of it, but I soon realized that whta the game lacked (that most VR games do) was true interactivity and Gameplay.
Sure you could put different parts on the cars or mix up your own strange food. But there was no gameplay or consequence element behind anything. You couldn't really affect the game, maybe only a few visual gags.
The need REAL gameplay.
VR currently suffers from lack of customers loop. Not enough devs since not enough customers since not enough (good)games. The facebook funding kinda helps but not much. The investment to return ratio for an average consumer is just too steep. It's easier to buy a console/pc and play tons of fun games for the same price a VR device would cost you.
Everyone in the VR thread knows we aren't there yet. Jim seems to take tech blogger enthusiasm a bit too extreme to have some talking points. But I firmly believe it'll have a place in the future. It does have a high bar of entry right now, but it's getting lower every month. The tech has a clear path of progression ahead of it, it's not like 3D TV where it was practically the same from day one until now. The next wave of VR HMDs are going to blow the current offerings out of the water.
People seem to be worried it isn't taking off, but nobody in the industry expects it to go mainstream in the first generation. So sit back and watch it grow, step in when you feel like it.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51183314]VR currently suffers from lack of customers loop. Not enough devs since not enough customers since not enough (good)games.[/QUOTE]
Gee, I can only imagine what [i]that[/i] feels like...
Right now its shit, within a few decades it will be the biggest thing on earth.
Image being able to do anything you want to and it will feel 100% real.
Go to Mars, become a gas cloud shooting through space, fight as a Roman legionnaire or live a completely new life as a medieval peasant from birth to death.
Humans wont explore space, they will only explore the endless virtual universe.
I think people forget that these sort of technological advancements [I]are[/I] going to be expensive when they first come about, just like Computers, just like HD TV's, just like pretty much everything really.
Give it a few years down the road and we'll probably start to see more consumer friendly devices in both how it's used [B]and[/B] how much it costs.
[QUOTE=Mentran;51183422]Right now its shit, within a few decades it will be the biggest thing on earth.
Image being able to do anything you want to and it will feel 100% real.
Go to Mars, become a gas cloud shooting through space, fight as a Roman legionnaire or live a completely new life as a medieval peasant from birth to death.
Humans wont explore space, they will only explore the endless virtual universe.[/QUOTE]
It's far from shit right now. Hardware wise it's already pretty spectacular, the first time you try it with certain games, it's mind blowing and amazing, it's just that there isn't that much software out there that goes very far past that.
If the hardware required to run it at an okay fps wasn't so expensive along with the more popular choice, VIVE, it'd be a lot easier to get into something like this
As of right now the cost is way too steep for your average customer and it's really only going to die out in the long run at this rate
[QUOTE=Mentran;51183422]Right now its shit, within a few decades it will be the biggest thing on earth.
Image being able to do anything you want to and it will feel 100% real.
Go to Mars, become a gas cloud shooting through space, fight as a Roman legionnaire or live a completely new life as a medieval peasant from birth to death.
Humans wont explore space, they will only explore the endless virtual universe.[/QUOTE]
That's not VR, that's a fucking holodeck you are talking about.
VR in terms of the headset was never going to be any more than an expensive novelty - an [i]actual[/i] gimmick. The "new way to interact with virtual worlds" comes from the more advanced form of motion controls, which have always had potential even back when people were decrying them as "waggle". The Oculus Touch/Vive controller are basically suped-up Wiimotes and stuff like the Vive camera is a less functional Kinect. Hell, PSVR outright uses the Move - Sony's Wiimote knockoff from the PS3 days - along with the PSEye that they were so quick to ditch as a PS4 pack-in to get their "consumer hero" PR against the "Kinect NSA spy-camera" Xbone back in 2013, and now it's right back to being essential now that they wrapped it in something gamers are more willing to swallow. Honestly, how gullible...
But hey, at least now people are taking motion controls seriously. It's a shame we had to pair them up with what is essentially a smartphone in a helmet to get that to happen, but at least we got there. In terms of actual promising future display tech, AR always had the edge over VR. Being able to superimpose virtual elements into the real world actually opens up new avenues for gaming, where VR was always just "immersion" snake-oil. As Jim said, "Oh, you can look behind you now!" Big whoop.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51188237]VR in terms of the headset was never going to be any more than an expensive novelty. The "new way to interact with these worlds" comes from the more advanced form of motion controls, which always had potential even back when people were decrying them as "waggle". The Oculus Touch/Vive controller are basically suped-up Wiimotes and stuff like the Vive camera is a less functional Kinect. Hell, PSVR outright uses the PSMove - Sony's Wiimote knockoff from the PS3 days - along with the PSEye that they were so quick to ditch as a PS4 pack-in to get a PR one-up over the "Kinect NSA spy-camera" Xbone back in 2013, and now it's right back to being essential now that they wrapped it in something gamers are more willing to swallow.
But hey, at least now people are taking motion controls seriously. It's a shame we had to pair them up with what is essentially a smartphone in a helmet to get that to happen, but at least we got there.[/QUOTE]
Most of the things you just said are outright wrong. The VR motion controllers are pretty fucking far from being "just" better Wiimotes, Wiimote mostly just relied on tracking its position using an IR sensor and detecting some very primitive gestures. VR motion controllers are actual motion controllers as they are fully tracked in 3d space all the time. The Vive camera (which the fact that you called it a "camera" means you don't even have any idea what the Vive is) isn't even remotely similar to a Kinect, it's not a depth camera, they're laser sensors that track the position of the headset and controllers. And I don't even know what you're going on about the "smartphone in a helmet" unless you're talking about things like google cardboard or Gear VR which are entirely different thing altogether.
By any chance, how much do you know about various motion control technologies? In terms of the tech behind the Wiimote and other motion controllers?
Because I guarantee you I'm more right than you think I am.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51188284]By any chance, how much do you know about various motion control technologies? In terms of the tech behind the Wiimote and other motion controllers?
Because I guarantee you I'm more right than you think I am.[/QUOTE]
I know enough having used both of them and to know that they're barely comparable in how they actually work in practice.
Okay, that's not what I asked. What do you know about the tech behind them?
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51188305]Okay, that's not what I asked. What do you know about the tech behind them?[/QUOTE]
I don't see how that's relevant?
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51188305]Okay, that's not what I asked. What do you know about the tech behind them?[/QUOTE]
How about this? What do you know?
I know that wiimotes, and the vive remotes both work differently, and I'm pretty sure the oculous touch controllers have their own method of doing it as well
or are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the technology on which the wiimote is based, is more or less identical to everything else in that line of technology?
Have you used a Wiimote with MotionPlus, via either the attachment or an upgraded Wiimote Plus? Do you know what the MotionPlus adds to the Wiimote's original tracking tech, or what said original tracking tech even is? Have you used Sixense stuff, by any chance? Do you know the technology behind that? Do you know exactly [i]how[/i] the Vive and Oculus track their controllers? Or how the Kinect and such track depth?
Because I know all of that. I study this stuff. I have an interest in the tech behind motion controls, whereas I imagine most other people only have a passing knowledge in it, especially as far as the first-gen tech from the early Wii days is concerned. I actually know how [i]all[/i] these systems work. I want to know what you guys know, because you're probably wrong about a good deal of it and I can tell you what that is.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51188313]How about this? What do you know?
I know that wiimotes, and the vive remotes both work differently, and I'm pretty sure the oculous touch controllers have their own method of doing it as well
or are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the technology on which the wiimote is based, is more or less identical to everything else in that line of technology?[/QUOTE]
I mean, they call come from the same research performed by Defense Department.
The iPhone and Android are basically the same thing.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51188324]Have you used a Wiimote with MotionPlus, via either the attachment or an upgraded Wiimote Plus? Do you know what the MotionPlus adds to the Wiimote's original tracking tech, or what said original tracking tech even is? Have you used Sixense stuff, by any chance? Do you know the technology behind that? Do you know exactly [i]how[/i] the Vive and Oculus track their controllers? Or how the Kinect and such track depth?
Because I know all of that. I study this stuff. I have an interest in the tech behind motion controls, whereas I imagine most other people only have a passing knowledge in it, especially as far as the first-gen tech from the early Wii days is concerned. I actually know how [i]all[/i] these systems work.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter if the technology behind it is somewhat similar, what matters is that in practice they work completely differently. Wiimotes, even with Motion Plus, don't have the ability to be tracked fully in 3d space, it can only track its 2d position if its IR sensor sees the IR lights or it can detect basic gestures using an accelerometer and a gyroscope. The VR motion controls of today are tracked entirely in 3d space and they're able to know exactly where each of the controllers are in that 3d space, it's a completely different deal. It's like saying that a glider is basically the same as an airplane because they both have wings and fly in the air.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51188324]Have you used a Wiimote with MotionPlus, via either the attachment or an upgraded Wiimote Plus? Do you know what the MotionPlus adds to the Wiimote's original tracking tech, or what said original tracking tech even is? Have you used Sixense stuff, by any chance? Do you know the technology behind that? Do you know exactly [i]how[/i] the Vive and Oculus track their controllers? Or how the Kinect and such track depth?
Because I know all of that. I study this stuff. I have an interest in the tech behind motion controls, whereas I imagine most other people only have a passing knowledge in it, especially as far as the first-gen tech from the early Wii days is concerned. I actually know how [i]all[/i] these systems work. I want to know what you guys know, because you're probably wrong about a good deal of it and I can tell you what that is.[/QUOTE]
Okay then, cut the attitude and maybe I'll listen to you explain it in a way that isn't stupidly fucking condescending. Sure, you know what the tech is. That's fine.
Do they work in functionally identical ways or are there actual differences in how they work?
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51183255]
That's my way of saying I was right.[[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51188284]
Because I guarantee you I'm more right than you think I am.[/QUOTE]
god, no wonder I can't take this shit poster seriously, nor should anyone else
I really genuinely believe you don't belong on these forums if this is how you act lmao
[editline]11th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51183207]I think a whole heap of what he said is bullshit, but I actually mostly agree..[/QUOTE]
Most of the time Jim talks about VR he says he can't even use it because of his back
so I'm not even sure WHY he is bothering at all. he knows he can't use it but he tries to act like he can.
Alright, here's the deal. There are four major types of motion control technology: accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, and optical tracking. Any motion control device can use any number of these technologies to increase its fidelity and accuracy, and most use at least two.
[b]Accelerometers[/b] - as their name would suggest - measure acceleration. Basically, these guys measure how fast they're travelling in any particular direction without much regards for rotation. Internally, they're basically weights suspended on springs along each axis and how much those springs are compressed or stretched is how they measure their movement. Accelerometers are prone to drift where their measurements start to slightly skew over time.
[b]Gyroscopes[/b] measure rotation. Internally, gyroscope chips have actual minuscule gyroscopes (not necessarily the spinning kind) within them, and gyroscopes are resistant to having their orientation changed. Like accelerometers, the gyroscope is suspended by attachment points that can measure just how much resistance they're generating when the device is rotated, allowing the device to sense how it's rotated. Like accelerometers, gyroscopic measurements can be prone to drift.
[b]Magnetometers[/b] measure magnetic fields. Some work on the Earth's natural magnetic field (we'll call them "passive" here) and others work on electromagnetic fields generated by a companion device such as a base (likewise, "active"). Magnetometers' strength is that they resistant to drift, though active ones are more precise than passive ones. Devices with passive magnetometers (most of them) generally use them as a reference to keep their accelerometers/gyroscopes accurate, but a device with an active magnetometer (Sixense tech) can use it as the sole form of tracking and match or even exceed other methods' accuracy.
[b]Optical[/b] tracking uses cameras to track motion, and is also divided into two subtypes: visible light cameras and IR. Visible light cameras are just cameras. They see things via the light you and I see. IR cameras are used in conjunction with some sort of infrared light emitter so that there are clearly-defined reference points or patterns to track with less noise. Optical tracking has no drift, but it relies on line-of-sight and has a hard time measuring depth without two sensors tracking the same thing.
Now that those are out of the way, here's what each device uses.
[b]Wiimote[/b] by itself uses an accelerometer and IR tracking. There's a camera in the Wiimote that looks for two points of infrared light emitted by the sensor bar to find where your TV screen is and generate a pointer. While the accelerometer alone meant that the first-gen Wiimote was highly imprecise, MotionPlus adds a gyroscope into the mix and greatly increased its fidelity, even if it needs to see the sensor bar to keep a reference point and protect against drift. The [b]GamePad[/b] and [b]3DS[/b] have everything a Wiimote Plus has, though the GamePad has the addition of a passive magnetometer.
[b]Kinect[/b] uses optical tracking, both IR and visible light. The first-gen Kinect with the 360 has an IR projector on it, which shoots out a grid pattern that the IR sensor can pick up and stitch together with the data from the camera right next to it to get a full-color image with depth values. The Xbone version uses much of the same tech but captures at a wider angle and the IR camera now is a "time-of-flight" camera, which basically tracks [i]when[/i] the light gets back compared to when the projector sent it out with very high fidelity in order to get a better idea of depth.
[b]PSEye[/b] was the PS3's camera sensor, and was only a visible light camera. The PS4's [b]PSCamera[/b] has two visible light cameras in order to read depth. The [b]PSMove[/b] works with both of these by using the glowing ball as a tracking point, just with visible light whereas other "reference point" systems would use IR. Outside of that, the PSMove has a built in accelerometer, gyroscope, and passive magnetometer. The [b]DualShock3/SIXAXIS[/b] used an accelerometer/gyroscope combo, and the [b]DualShock4[/b] can use the PSCamera to complement that via the triangular "Move bar" light. [b]PSVR[/b] also has lights on it for this same purpose, on top of an internal accelerometer/gyroscope.
[b]Oculus[/b] uses an IR tracking system it calls "Constellation", which is basically attaching a bunch of LEDs to the headset and Touch controllers and using the external sensors to track them in 3D space. The headset has a gyroscope, accelerometer, and passive magnetometer. The [b]Vive[/b] uses much the same tech: a bunch of IR LEDs on the headset and controllers tracked by multiple sensors, whereas the headset has an internal gyroscope and accelerometer. In both cases, it's unclear whether either of them have any other motion tech in their controllers aside from the LEDs. [Correction: Vive in particular is closer to the Wiimote in that the [i]sensors[/i] are in the controllers and the base stations are merely IR emitters.]
[b]Sixense[/b] stuff uses an active magnetometer. The base station emits a high-frequency, low-power magnetic field along three axes that magnetic coils in the controllers can detect. As the field is emitted in a clear, artificial manner, the controllers can detect the base with very little noise. This is probably the best motion tech on the market at the moment because it's highly accurate, suffers no drift, and doesn't require line of sight. For more information on how this works, check out [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2pMfoyEiA]this[/url] video.
So yes, this is all based on the same tech and all these systems use it in similar if not identical ways. No matter how they dress it up, Vive's "special sensor" is ultimately just the same kind of camera that's in a Wiimote to track the sensor bar, which pretty much just make the VR controllers Wiimotes with the points of reference reversed and the IR tracking system suped-up. So yes, I stand by what I said, no matter how many boxes you guys throw at me.
That all being said, as someone who has used both a Wiimote Plus and Sixense tech for extended periods of time, there's little noticeable difference for consumer use.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51188653]Alright, here's the deal. There are four major types of motion control technology: accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, and optical tracking. Any motion control device can use any number of these technologies to increase its fidelity and accuracy, and most use at least two.
[b]Accelerometers[/b] - as their name would suggest - measure acceleration. Basically, these guys measure how fast they're travelling in any particular direction without much regards for rotation. Internally, they're basically weights suspended on springs along each axis and how much those springs are compressed or stretched is how they measure their movement. Accelerometers are prone to drift where their measurements start to slightly skew over time.
[b]Gyroscopes[/b] measure rotation. Internally, gyroscope chips have actual minuscule gyroscopes (not necessarily the spinning kind) within them, and gyroscopes are resistant to having their orientation changed. Like accelerometers, the gyroscope is suspended by attachment points that can measure just how much resistance they're generating when the device is rotated, allowing the device to sense how it's rotated. Like accelerometers, gyroscopic measurements can be prone to drift.
[b]Magnetometers[/b] measure magnetic fields. Some work on the Earth's natural magnetic field (we'll call them "passive" here) and others work on electromagnetic fields generated by a companion device such as a base (likewise, "active"). Magnetometers' strength is that they resistant to drift, though active ones are more precise than passive ones. Devices with passive magnetometers (most of them) generally use them as a reference to keep their accelerometers/gyroscopes accurate, but a device with an active magnetometer (Sixense tech) can use it as the sole form of tracking and match or even exceed other methods' accuracy.
[b]Optical[/b] tracking uses cameras to track motion, and is also divided into two subtypes: visible light cameras and IR. Visible light cameras are just cameras. They see things via the light you and I see. IR cameras are used in conjunction with some sort of infrared light emitter so that there are clearly-defined reference points or patterns to track with less noise. Optical tracking has no drift, but it relies on line-of-sight and has a hard time measuring depth without two sensors tracking the same thing.
Now that those are out of the way, here's what each device uses.
[b]Wiimote[/b] by itself uses an accelerometer and IR tracking. There's a camera in the Wiimote that looks for two points of infrared light emitted by the sensor bar to find where your TV screen is and generate a pointer. While the accelerometer alone meant that the first-gen Wiimote was highly imprecise, MotionPlus adds a gyroscope into the mix and greatly increased its fidelity, even if it needs to see the sensor bar to keep a reference point and protect against drift. The [b]GamePad[/b] and [b]3DS[/b] have everything a Wiimote Plus has, though the GamePad has the addition of a passive magnetometer.
[b]Kinect[/b] uses optical tracking, both IR and visible light. The first-gen Kinect with the 360 has an IR projector on it, which shoots out a grid pattern that the IR sensor can pick up and stitch together with the data from the camera right next to it to get a full-color image with depth values. The Xbone version uses much of the same tech but captures at a wider angle and the IR camera now is a "time-of-flight" camera, which basically tracks [i]when[/i] the light gets back with very high fidelity compared to when the projector sent it out in order to get a better idea of depth.
[b]PSEye[/b] was the PS3's camera sensor, and was only a visible light camera. The PS4's [b]PSCamera[/b] has two visible light cameras in order to read depth. The [b]PSMove[/b] works with both of these by using the glowing ball as a tracking point, just with visible light whereas other "reference point" systems would use IR. Outside of that, the PSMove has a built in accelerometer, gyroscope, and passive magnetometer. The [b]DualShock3/SIXAXIS[/b] used an accelerometer/gyroscope combo, and the [b]DualShock4[/b] can use the PSCamera to complement that via the triangular "Move bar" light. [b]PSVR[/b] also has lights on it for this same purpose, on top of an internal accelerometer/gyroscope.
[b]Oculus[/b] uses an IR tracking system it calls "Constellation", which is basically attaching a bunch of LEDs to the headset and Touch controllers and using the external sensors to track them in 3D space. The headset has a gyroscope, accelerometer, and passive magnetometer. The [b]Vive[/b] uses much the same tech: a bunch of IR LEDs on the headset and controllers tracked by multiple sensors, whereas the headset has an internal gyroscope and accelerometer. In both cases, it's unclear whether either of them have any other motion tech in their controllers aside from the LEDs.
[b]Sixense[/b] stuff uses an active magnetometer. The base station emits a high-frequency, low-power magnetic field along three axes that magnetic coils in the controllers can detect. As the field is emitted in a clear, artificial manner, the controllers can detect the base with very little noise. This is probably the best motion tech on the market at the moment because it's highly accurate, suffers no drift, and doesn't require line of sight. For more information on how this works, check out [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2pMfoyEiA]this[/url] video.
So yes, this is all based on the same tech. That all being said, as someone who has used both a Wiimote Plus and Sixense tech for extended periods of time, there's little noticeable difference for consumer use.[/QUOTE]
So what was your point again? None of what you said disproves that a Wiimote and a current gen VR motion controller are functionally (as in, when you use them, not what tech they use) entirely different and are barely comparable.
You got me before my edit. Check the second-to-last paragraph.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;51188682]You got me before my edit. Check the second-to-last paragraph.[/QUOTE]
So you pretty much just come in here you to boast your tech knowledge even though it bears no relevance to the discussion and doesn't bring up any points? Yeah, great job.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
