[QUOTE=sarge997;40752278]Holy fucking shit, imagine multiplayer dog fights like this.
I have always wanted a huge open world [B][I]WORLD [/I][/B]simulator like this.
This could be the next Gmod.[/QUOTE]
It's super promising, but it hasn't gone anywhere for a while from what I've seen.
ArmA 2 does the same, except the world isn't the entire world, which might be a good thing.
[QUOTE=joost1120;40752457]ArmA 2 does the same, except the world isn't the entire world, which might be a good thing.[/QUOTE]
Does it have TERRAIN DEFORMATION? (which by the way, works extremely well and doesn't lag a bit!)
[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRpkj4HXF40[/video]
This coupled with a homemade cockpit would be the best.
Sim games all day erry day.
I've figured out a viable workaround for doing cross-eye viewing of rift videos, since [b]people need reminding[/b] a bunch that you can't normally cross-eye a raw video, due to the eyes being flipped.
Simply enough, dump the video into YouTube Doubler. THERE IS AN ISSUE that requires bypassing, since if you simply dump it in it will just start playing the videos as they load (and it loads weird so it'll never sync). it ususally works for me if I change the 'start time' to 1 second for each vid, so it allows both videos to load then pops to the second mark. You may still have to refresh the page a dozen times for it to work so keep trying
then cross-eye the center two videos, (creating a huge array of 5 videos across your vision)
here's that mig video from the last page- [url]http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D2LPPdV2Md1c&start1=1&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D2LPPdV2Md1c&start2=1&authorName=AAAHHHHH[/url]
if you have trouble crossing, hold a hand up and form a circle with your fingers, like this
[t]http://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/obama-o.jpg[/t]
thanks obama
then hold your hand up exactly between you and the screen, so it's centered between the videos. Look at your hand, and move it forward or backward til the two video frames line up inside your hand. If you brain latches onto the videos, it should re-focus if you try looking, without un-crossing.
that would explain why when I go crosseyed it never looks right aside form the obvious distortion
[QUOTE=Protocol7;40753571]that would explain why when I go crosseyed it never looks right aside form the obvious distortion[/QUOTE]
if you cross with the wrong eyes, everything farther away becomes super close. Looking through a window at trees in the distance becomes a giant flat square of trees floating in front of a window, which doesn't make any sense to your brain, [i]especially[/i] when you start moving around
one sec I'll find a good example
[editline]23rd May 2013[/editline]
here's an image I did at work, which is formatted for a special 3D viewing software that displays on a 3D TV. This is like the oculus, in which the right eye is on the right side, left on left. The problem with crossing your eyes is that your left eye looks at the rightside panel, which if it's the view from the right eye, you're getting the wrong info and it becomes disorienting and causes even more headache on top of the headache you get from crossing your eyes at a screen. (PS: Sit far back to view)
[t]http://i.imgur.com/nRDPkBX.jpg[/t]
I want you to look mostly at the corner of the "our story" sign, where you can see the logo cutout in the wall farther back. When viewing it [i]wrong[/i] here, it becomes a confusing jumble of foreground and background, especially since you know the cutout is far behind the sign.
here's the same scene, reversed so that the left eye's view is on the right, etc-
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Ga5NfCk.jpg[/t]
yay it looks like a tiny diorama
again, sit back and don't view for very long. viewing cross-eye from too close gets pretty painful after a minute or two. it also becomes harder to focus because your eyes re-adjust their 'natural' focal point to be where the view was allegedly converging, halfway between you and the screen, BUT the focus was double that distance. converging at the actual screen causes the focus to adjust way behind it til you readjust
here's another scene to check just because it's neat-
[t]http://i.imgur.com/2DfG5ke.jpg[/t]
think about how the surfaces appear, check out one of the frames by itself. [i]Then[/i] pay attention to how the same details look in 3D. Things like the wood looks way overly glossy in a single shot, but when you have two eyes viewing the surface from slightly different angles your brain just kind of accepts the amount as being more realistic. Alternatively, the brick on the left goes from looking like brick to looking like flat wallpaper with a brick pattern. The texture will require normal mapping to gain that detail, and that wasn't planned out at first. Attention to the realism of normal mapping will make a huuuuge difference when developing environments, given you now have the ability to discern depth much more intimately
well now that you've laid it out it's pretty obvious that the second way you did it is noticeably better
I've been doing magic eye books for awhile so I'm good at pretty much every stereoscopy method
Man, the Oculus, or at least the concept of it has never seemed that amazing to me (though I've always been looking forward to its potential success). But now thinking about it, this is a really incredible breakthrough. It's going to change everything. I believe that once the consumer version comes out, games will never be the same. The new standard [B]will[/B] become virtual reality once the commercials start coming out. And I'm not talking about the Kinect or anything like that because that's not virtual reality. It's just another type of controller for the Xbox. No, this is going to be incredible...I just can't wait for the consumer version.
To be honest, I don't view the Oculus Rift as a VR kind of thing. To me, it just seems more like a monitor, a very cool monitor at that. Although I just personally don't feel the VR part.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;40753464]
if you have trouble crossing, hold a hand up and form a circle with your fingers, like this
[t]http://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/obama-o.jpg[/t]
thanks obama
[/QUOTE]
god dammit
[QUOTE=Tinter;40756589]To be honest, I don't view the Oculus Rift as a VR kind of thing. To me, it just seems more like a monitor, a very cool monitor at that. Although I just personally don't feel the VR part.[/QUOTE]
It covers your entire field of view, monitors don't.
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;40757141]It covers your entire field of view, monitors don't.[/QUOTE]
I do believe I covered this under "very cool monitor".
[editline]23rd May 2013[/editline]
Like it's really cool.
[QUOTE=Tinter;40757428]I do believe I covered this under "very cool monitor".
[editline]23rd May 2013[/editline]
Like it's really cool.[/QUOTE]
head tracking...
[QUOTE=Tinter;40756589]To be honest, I don't view the Oculus Rift as a VR kind of thing. To me, it just seems more like a monitor, a very cool monitor at that. Although I just personally don't feel the VR part.[/QUOTE]
That's one way of looking at it. But to me it is the beginning of 'true' VR. It is triggering that feeling of being present in a virtual world.
In other news, Gamasutra just posted a great article on [url=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/192810/creating_virtual_reality_games_.php]VR game design fundamentals[/url].
[QUOTE=Clavus;40758537]That's one way of looking at it. But to me it is the beginning of 'true' VR. It is triggering that feeling of being present in a virtual world.[/QUOTE]
The Rift is, in my mind, the first step towards a convincing consumer-grade VR experience. It's only going to get better from here on out, and that excites me.
[url]http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/15/aquos-pad-sh-08e-7-inch-high-res-igzo-display-quad-core-snapdragon-600/[/url]
New phablet with a 7 inch 1200p display (1920x1200)
In a few years man, we'll be rolling with high res headsets. That'd be 960x1200 per eye compared to the 640x800 the devkit has.
[editline]24th May 2013[/editline]
~dramatic ~trailer for the Omni kickstarter
[hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOYklm_C7Ks[/hd]
[QUOTE=Orkel;40759660][url]http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/15/aquos-pad-sh-08e-7-inch-high-res-igzo-display-quad-core-snapdragon-600/[/url]
New phablet with a 7 inch 1200p display (1920x1200)
In a few years man, we'll be rolling with high res headsets. That'd be 960x1200 per eye compared to the 640x800 the devkit has.[/QUOTE]
Shit, my phone with a 5 inch screen is 1080p. It won't be long until we start seeing 4K displays in our pockets.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;40759741]Shit, my phone with a 5 inch screen is 1080p. It won't be long until we start seeing 4K displays in our pockets.[/QUOTE]
That person who rated you funny is gonna have so much egg on his/her face in five years :v:
Also, this is my first time really looking into the Rift, I don't know why I never really took it seriously before, but now I have seen the light and am prepping the cryostasis chamber as we speak.
[QUOTE=Orkel;40759660][URL]http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/15/aquos-pad-sh-08e-7-inch-high-res-igzo-display-quad-core-snapdragon-600/[/URL]
New phablet with a 7 inch 1200p display (1920x1200)
In a few years man, we'll be rolling with high res headsets. That'd be 960x1200 per eye compared to the 640x800 the devkit has.
[editline]24th May 2013[/editline]
~dramatic ~trailer for the Omni kickstarter
[/QUOTE]
How much would an Omni cost anyway?
[editline]24th May 2013[/editline]
Hm. As of April 23rd, this is how much they are aiming for:
"Virtuix hopes to launch a Kickstarter campaign in May to get the Omni into production and told The Verge it is aiming for a US$400 to $600 price tag."
[URL]http://www.gizmag.com/virtuix-omni-treadmill-vr/27214/[/URL]
But I'm sure it'll be at least $700. So, tallying the Rift, Razer Hydra, and Omni together, it would cost about $1200 altogether. I wonder if it's worth it.
[QUOTE=John Egbert;40760492]How much would an Omni cost anyway?
[editline]24th May 2013[/editline]
Hm. As of April 23rd, this is how much they are aiming for:
"Virtuix hopes to launch a Kickstarter campaign in May to get the Omni into production and told The Verge it is aiming for a US$400 to $600 price tag."
[URL]http://www.gizmag.com/virtuix-omni-treadmill-vr/27214/[/URL]
But I'm sure it'll be at least $700. So, tallying the Rift, Razer Hydra, and Omni together, it would cost about $1200 altogether. I wonder if it's worth it.[/QUOTE]
Well that's a couple hundred more than an actual treadmill, but I would sure as shit use this.
I'm personally not convinced by the Omni just yet. It's too bulky and unwieldy for the average consumer. Plus I'm not sold by the experience it's supposed to give. I'd have to try it before I'd throw money at it.
How fucking stupid do you look using that thing.
Honestly.
[QUOTE=Beacon;40764621]How fucking stupid do you look using that thing.
Honestly.[/QUOTE]
who cares
also really looking forward to DCS with this thing. i already use a wiimote headtracker.
[QUOTE=Beacon;40764621]How fucking stupid do you look using that thing.
Honestly.[/QUOTE]
Not as stupid as this:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5VCppk07LQ[/media]
[QUOTE=Kenneth;40765248]Not as stupid as this:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5VCppk07LQ[/media][/QUOTE]
Considering all the videos of the Rift users losing their balance and falling over when using it standing, I don't think this is the greatest of ideas. Simple yeah, and could be made really cheap, but in terms of immersion (fucking sliding man) and safety it just doesn't compare to the Omni.
Powered shoes intrigue me. Seems like the most space efficient walking simulation. But I really like some of the prototypes I've seen which work essentially like a giant mouse, where you are inside the ball and XY movement is picked up by two rollers
Really impractical but I think it would be a pretty good approximation of the real thing and doesn't rely on camera tracking.
[QUOTE=Orkel;40765392](fucking sliding man)[/QUOTE]
elderly person in a grocery store simulator 2014
[editline]24th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kenneth;40765703]Powered shoes intrigue me. Seems like the most space efficient walking simulation. But I really like some of the prototypes I've seen which work essentially like a giant mouse, where you are inside the ball and XY movement is picked up by two rollers
Really impractical but I think it would be a pretty good approximation of the real thing and doesn't rely on camera tracking.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sold on what it would bring. Sure it'd be neat to actually walk instead of floating about whilst physically sitting down, but the range of motion is too limited for what you'd physically want to do in a lot of situations, and it'd wear you down pretty fast unless a game is designed with it in mind.
[QUOTE=Orkel;40759660][url]http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/15/aquos-pad-sh-08e-7-inch-high-res-igzo-display-quad-core-snapdragon-600/[/url]
New phablet with a 7 inch 1200p display (1920x1200)
In a few years man, we'll be rolling with high res headsets. That'd be 960x1200 per eye compared to the 640x800 the devkit has.
[editline]24th May 2013[/editline]
~dramatic ~trailer for the Omni kickstarter[/QUOTE]
If you could point the gun anywhere, would you be able to shoot yourself in-game?
[QUOTE=Derposaurus;40773177]If you could point the gun anywhere, would you be able to shoot yourself in-game?[/QUOTE]
Obligitory
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH7BlBb8Oxg[/media]
I don't think a lot of games support the ability to shoot yourself, HL2 included.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
