If it's related to the camera, I don't think it would be too hard to get one that has a wider FOV.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;44370559]This is a very interesting talk on the Facebook/Oculus deal, but it's quite long.[/QUOTE]
The whole thing is v.good listen though, I recommend it.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;44371215]The issue is that it doesn't have the range, you'd need 3 IR cameras to do a 360.[/QUOTE]
This might be stupid, but why not add LEDs to the headband all around the head?
[QUOTE=nutcake;44371316]This might be stupid, but why not add LEDs to the headband all around the head?[/QUOTE]
Because the headband stretches, which changes the space between the LEDs
However they could add another piece of plastic over the headband, that gives enough room for even the biggest head, but it would make the headset look clunky and more like a helmet.
Also first post from my new laptop, hi world.
[editline]27th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;44369402]They're sort of already doing that with DK 2, the trouble is that it won't recognise it if you go out of range by turning too far.[/QUOTE]
Let's add a second camera, bam, doubled the FOV.
Hi Raptors!
[QUOTE=nutcake;44371316]This might be stupid, but why not add LEDs to the headband all around the head?[/QUOTE]
headbands are bands meaning elastic not static, do what sony did and put a plastic halo over the headband.
You know, Morpheus uses LEDs on the front and back of the headset. Maybe Oculus could do something like that?
[QUOTE=woolio1;44371635]You know, Morpheus uses LEDs on the front and back of the headset. Maybe Oculus could do something like that?[/QUOTE]
yep like what I said, however as long as they don't have the patent.
I'm sorry but did we need full 360? Don't movement controls still exist in Oculus games to the end that you don't have to spin around completely in your chair? Not that it wouldn't be nice to have but I just haven't really heard of a specific application that would require it. Please fill me in ;)
[QUOTE=Biscuit-Boy;44372846]I'm sorry but did we need full 360? Don't movement controls still exist in Oculus games to the end that you don't have to spin around completely in your chair? Not that it wouldn't be nice to have but I just haven't really heard of a specific application that would require it. Please fill me in ;)[/QUOTE]
Turning to look behind you in Eurotruck simulator would require at least 180 degrees of detection to be effective / realistic. If you get 180 degrees in hardware then you have 180 unless your software sucks.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;44366585]Except that would be completely pointless since there are already other competitors springing up. It would be like entering a race, tackling the guy in first place and then just sitting on his back while everyone else runs past you to the finish anyway, it serves absolutely no purpose.[/QUOTE]
It depends on the nature of the race. If the guy in the lead needs the right partner so they can both win the race, by tackling him you have effectively killed both their chances to win, which is to your benefit.
As far as pocket change, they've spent more on other acquisitions, a lot more. If VR never works out, never gets anywhere, this purchase will not hurt them. If Facebook has problems in the future it won't be because of 2billion getting flushed down the toilet, it'll take something far larger. This is why this is a move they can confidently make without needing a guaranteed profit to be made off of it.
Look at something like Flip video for a recent example of a corporation buying a tech product and then pulling the plug almost immediately. Just because a huge cost was incurred does not mean the buyer gives two shits about the product.
As far as what Zuckerberg says publically about this deal, yeah well of course he has to spin it positively for investors. He's not likely to give out his motives and strategies openly so his competitors can undercut his moves is he?
I think 360* positional headtracking would be pretty neat, but you'd need a solid construction like Morpheus where the dimensions of all the tracking points are known in advance. It wouldn't work if you'd attach it to a flexible headband.
Maybe have a headband, but with something like a thin, rigid halo around it on which LEDs are attached? Probably looks a bit silly.
You've literally just described what everyone has been saying about Morpheus. The last few posts have said Morpheus has a rigid band over the elastic.
DK2 screen zoomed in via the lenses (click to enlarge), also comparison with DK1 in the corner. Notice how the screen door is [I]much[/I] less pronounced, but there is still room for improvement (and that's why CV1 will improve resolution even further). This is a huge leap over the DK1 though.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/tyJT7tR.jpg[/t]
I like the nonsquare pixels more
[QUOTE=Orkel;44373908] Notice how the screen door is [I]much[/I] less pronounced, but there is still room for improvement (and that's why CV1 will improve resolution even further). This is a huge leap over the DK1 though.[/QUOTE]
What is this screen door effect ? Can you show it in the picture ?
[QUOTE=AntonioR;44374382]What is this screen door effect ? Can you show it in the picture ?[/QUOTE]
The lines between the pixels in the low res DK1.
[t]http://img1.lesnumeriques.com/test/81/8172/Oculus-Rift-Dev-Kit-1_05.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/pllSQFKF1k8/maxresdefault.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i0.wp.com/www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Oculus-Rift-1080p-comparison.jpg[/t]
(left devkit 1, right is 1080p prototype)
[QUOTE=AntonioR;44374382]What is this screen door effect ? Can you show it in the picture ?[/QUOTE]
Space between pixels creates a black grid which is similar to looking through a screen door.
[img]http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/231/5/b/Texture_2009_Screen_Door_by_petersonphotos.jpg[/img]
[video=youtube;UR1mH1qi2yQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR1mH1qi2yQ[/video]
So Satchbag made a video on the acquisition, and I think it's mostly worth watching.
Stupid video title, will skip.
Lol, "screen door" effect... never knew those doors with a net are called "screen doors", now it makes sense.
I'd love an image comparison of the same 3d render, same position and angles.
[QUOTE=SL128;44374554][video=youtube;UR1mH1qi2yQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR1mH1qi2yQ[/video]
So Satchbag made a video on the acquisition, and I think it's mostly worth watching.[/QUOTE]
I totally disagree. He's worried only about the money facet; this is not all about money. Facebook has a massively powerful global infrastructure that Oculus needs to leverage that only a handful of companies are capable of providing, that Oculus will never have been able to accomplish access to such resources on their own within a reasonable time-frame. He the says that "it will never be what it was supposed to be" because whatever "feasible timeline for a 'walled-garden' peripheral will never see the light of day," illustrating that he never truly understood what the Rift was about in the first place. Oculus doesn't want the Rift to be myopically contained to a small sect of enthusiasts, they want to see it change the world. And so does Facebook. The Rift's original plan wasn't compromised, it was galvanized.
[editline]27th March 2014[/editline]
Actually, the original plan was for the Oculus Rift to be sold as a make it yourself kit sold to maybe a few dozen people tops until Carmack came along. Is that the mythical "walled-garden" that we all truly want?
Well to be honest, I kind of liked the idea of the Rift being easily hackable, with all of the parts accessible and replaceable for better alternatives. By this, it would have meant you could take your DK1, and have personally modified it to reach a higher level of quality over the others, to the point that it would still be a viable system to continue using.
The Tested guys have a much better discussion:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWtfHiQx50U#t=39m12s[/url]
One of the main things they discuss is that a) an acquisition was inevitable, and b) Facebook is probably the best choice out of the handful of companies that could have done it. Plus some other interesting theories, such as Zuckerberg's motivation.
[editline]28th March 2014[/editline]
Oh and they slam pretty much all the haters.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;44375656]Well to be honest, I kind of liked the idea of the Rift being easily hackable, with all of the parts accessible and replaceable for better alternatives. By this, it would have meant you could take your DK1, and have personally modified it to reach a higher level of quality over the others, to the point that it would still be a viable system to continue using.[/QUOTE]
Are you implying that this won't be the case anymore?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/qhb22zU.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Clavus;44375903][img]http://i.imgur.com/qhb22zU.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Gonna be honest, don't appreciate the slight condescension in that post.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;44375930]Gonna be honest, don't appreciate the slight condescension in that post.[/QUOTE]
I think being a bit snarky about impulsive people that have been commenting "fuck you" at you for a whole day is warranted. Overall Palmer & co have handled the backlash like a boss, and struck back with well-targeted comments (like Palmer about Notch) where they could.
[QUOTE=Clavus;44375973]I think being a bit snarky about impulsive people that have been commenting "fuck you" at you for a whole day is warranted. Overall Palmer & co have handled the backlash like a boss, and struck back with well-targeted comments (like Palmer about Notch) where they could.[/QUOTE]
Well... seeing that oculus rift was kickstarter - project originally and people actually invested lots of money on it only ending up OR being sold to Facebook, i understand if those people are pissed.
They just feel that they got stabbed right in the back.
Wouldn't you have similar feelings, if you would have invested to OR on kickstarter?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
