[QUOTE=nutcake;44390088]That raises the question of whether or not CV1 will be able to deliver all the factors necessary for presence.
Great talk IMO.[/QUOTE]
From the talk;
Feasible 2015 consumer HMD according to valve/Michael Abrash
20ms motion-tp-last-photon latency
3 ms pixel persistence
95 Hz refresh
110-degree FOV
1k x 1k reso per eye
HQ, well-calibrated optics
tracking
In my mind thats a CV1 2015 release with these specs which gives presence. After all they did hire him and I believe its because they think he can help make this happen.
[QUOTE=Orkel;44390030][url]https://twitter.com/notch/status/449691527510786048[/url]
Oh Notch, you such a brat.[/QUOTE]
Here are his other tweets to Carmack.
[thumb]http://marlamin.com/u/2014-03-29_16-41-33_195466195253.png[/thumb]
[QUOTE=Clavus;44390002][img]http://i.imgur.com/eioxDEy.png[/img]
Hehe
(Gibson wrote Neuromancer, Stephenson wrote Snow Crash)
[editline]29th March 2014[/editline]
Bookshelf at Oculus:
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bj2EOXKCcAAbmJX.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Woah they got some sort of racist book in that collection.
Went to the sf area for an interview. Stopped at the computer history museum.
[Thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11517902/phone/20140327_161642.jpg[/Thumb]
[Thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11517902/phone/20140327_161649.jpg[/Thumb]
[QUOTE=Marlamin;44391389]Here are his other tweets to Carmack.
[thumb]http://marlamin.com/u/2014-03-29_16-41-33_195466195253.png[/thumb][/QUOTE]
So wait, he now trusts Oculus more but he still won't make Minecraft VR because "the mega corporations"
What a pretentious fuck.
Palmer on the negative reactions about the whole facebook thing:
[quote]We expected a negative reaction from people in the short term, [B]we did not expect to be getting so many death threats and harassing phone calls that extended to our families.[/B]
We know we will prove ourselves with actions and not words, but that kind of shit is unwarranted, especially since it is impacting people who have nothing to do with Oculus.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Durrsly;44393086]So wait, he now trusts Oculus more but he still won't make Minecraft VR because "the mega corporations"
What a pretentious fuck.[/QUOTE]
Notch is a manchild who can code for some weird reason.
Also, death threats? Jesus Christ.
Why am I not surprised they got death threats.
Gamers are horrid.
[QUOTE=triplej05;44390382]From the talk;
Feasible 2015 consumer HMD according to valve/Michael Abrash
20ms motion-tp-last-photon latency
3 ms pixel persistence
95 Hz refresh
110-degree FOV
1k x 1k reso per eye
HQ, well-calibrated optics
tracking
In my mind thats a CV1 2015 release with these specs which gives presence. After all they did hire him and I believe its because they think he can help make this happen.[/QUOTE]
Palmer says: CV1 is "well beyond" those specs.
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/21nmu9/any_chance_of_a_news_update_coming_to_clear_a_few/cgf3gwv?context=3[/url]
And it's coming in 2014, not 2015.
[QUOTE=Orkel;44393892]Palmer says: CV1 is "well beyond" those specs.
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/21nmu9/any_chance_of_a_news_update_coming_to_clear_a_few/cgf3gwv?context=3[/url]
And it's coming in 2014, not 2015.[/QUOTE]
Fuck. Yes.
Can I have the source on the 2014 release?
[editline]29th March 2014[/editline]
Also, retina lasers!
[quote]I have elaborated in several other posts. The short version: VRDs use a scanning point of coherent light (usually from a laser) to draw an image directly on your retina. The Glyph reflects incoherent light off a DLP chip from three different colored LEDs sequentially (a no-no for VR that Abrash has talked about at length on his blog, check out his post on color fringing artifacts). Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, but a true VRD is much further down the road, and one of the best potential display technologies for VR.
You are right that screens with big lenses in front of your eyes is essentially a brute force design, a design that relies on utilizing the scraps of the mobile phone industry to provide a good VR experience at the cost of performance and form factor. Doing better requires insane resources, which we now have.[/quote]
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/21lu33/introducing_michael_abrash_oculus_chief_scientist/cgeofkc[/url]
[QUOTE]: VRDs use a scanning point of coherent light (usually from a laser) to draw an image directly on your retina. [/QUOTE]
Sounds painful.
Yeah your retina isn't used to photons hitting it
[QUOTE=Uberslug;44394301]Yeah your retina isn't used to photons hitting it[/QUOTE]
I was joking. :I
[QUOTE=Raptors!;44394018]Fuck. Yes.
Can I have the source on the 2014 release?
[editline]29th March 2014[/editline]
Also, retina lasers!
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/21lu33/introducing_michael_abrash_oculus_chief_scientist/cgeofkc[/url][/QUOTE]
I too would like to see this source.
Aren't retinal laser displays capable of drawing on the [I]entire[/I] human field of view, at crazy resolutions? If they can use Facebook's billions to develop a retinal display version of the Rift, things will get crazy...
Is eye tracking that precise that it doesn't fuck up?
Looks like RETINAL SCANNERS have pretty much been confirmed. Zuckerburg is gonna get a nice paycheck from the NSA.
Open your eyes sheeple. (Or in this case, close them.)
[sp]oh god please dont take this seriously[/sp]
[QUOTE=Plint;44395373]Aren't retinal laser displays capable of drawing on the [I]entire[/I] human field of view, at crazy resolutions? If they can use Facebook's billions to develop a retinal display version of the Rift, things will get crazy...[/QUOTE]
VRDs are still some time away. FB's billions might give Oculus a ton more options, but I don't think they'll advance display technology itself at a faster rate (companies like Samsung, LG and Sony are probably putting a lot more into it). In the end it will be possible for Oculus to mix-and-match existing tech, and create their own custom hardware instead of being limited to pre-produced panels (a.k.a scraps of the mobile industry).
[QUOTE=Durrsly;44394185]Sounds painful.[/QUOTE]
You're making this sound like...
[t]http://www.myvirtuallife.net/Blog/image.axd?picture=2011%2F3%2FDead-Space-2-Eye-Surgery.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Clavus;44395604]VRDs are still some time away. FB's billions might give Oculus a ton more options, but I don't think they'll advance display technology itself at a faster rate (companies like Samsung, LG and Sony are probably putting a lot more into it). In the end it will be possible for Oculus to mix-and-match existing tech, and create their own custom hardware instead of being limited to pre-produced panels (a.k.a scraps of the mobile industry).[/QUOTE]
I see. The field of view that VRDs could potentially provide is one of the really big improvements, so maybe curved conventional displays are the best bet? If they're talking about custom hardware, that's probably as far as they could go with existing technology.
Edit: And speaking of that, what's the possibility of non-square displays? A sort of rounded rectangle or oval shape would probably utilize the limited space more efficiently. I don't know if I've ever seen one though, I imagine it'd do funny things to compatibility with games and programs assuming square/rectangular dimensions.
[QUOTE=Plint;44395757]I see. The field of view that VRDs could potentially provide is one of the really big improvements, so maybe curved conventional displays are the best bet? If they're talking about custom hardware, that's probably as far as they could go with existing technology.[/QUOTE]
Palmer already commented on curved displays and said they don't play nice with existing optics. I don't quite know the science behind it myself.
[QUOTE=Clavus;44395817]Palmer already commented on curved displays and said they don't play nice with existing optics. I don't quite know the science behind it myself.[/QUOTE]
Huh, I guess anything sleeker than "monitor for your face" really is still a ways away. The face-monitor look does have a sort of retro-futurist cyberpunk charm to it though.
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;44395678]You're making this sound like...
[t]http://www.myvirtuallife.net/Blog/image.axd?picture=2011%2F3%2FDead-Space-2-Eye-Surgery.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
That was actually the first thing thought of, and laser pointers.
[url]http://splitsider.com/2014/03/behold-conan360[/url]
Full 360* Cameras. Now make it 3D / Rift compatible, and you have a full Oculus compatible Movie.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;44396160][url]http://splitsider.com/2014/03/behold-conan360[/url]
Full 360* Cameras. Now make it 3D / Rift compatible, and you have a full Oculus compatible Movie.[/QUOTE]
Looks like complete shit, maybe just my bandwidth or something? But I'm so excited to see where all of this hokey-pokey sci-fi tech craze is going to take us. Mmmm it's good to be alive.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;44396160][url]http://splitsider.com/2014/03/behold-conan360[/url]
Full 360* Cameras. Now make it 3D / Rift compatible, and you have a full Oculus compatible Movie.[/QUOTE]
it'd be impossible to make a 360 degree thing rift compatible, in the sense that it'd feel like you were there.
if you'd put in rift support you'd just see something pretty odd, a sphere all around you mapped with the video feed
[QUOTE=Clavus;44395817]Palmer already commented on curved displays and said they don't play nice with existing optics. I don't quite know the science behind it myself.[/QUOTE]
[I]Existing[/I] optics. Oculus just got a whole lot of capital with which to experiment and make custom parts with. I feel like everything we once knew is subject to change.
Apparently /v/ wrote an open letter to Palmer.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/jhWYiuh.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Durrsly;44393086]So wait, he now trusts Oculus more but he still won't make Minecraft VR because "the mega corporations"
What a pretentious fuck.[/QUOTE]
I thought we already knew this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
