[QUOTE=lilguy;51646480][media]https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/818495240789233664[/media]
Still not clear if this is for some given period of time (such as recent sales) or based on how many of an HMD is being used on UE (if they can get metrics of that somehow), but I can sort of believe it just by hearing him say "China". Asia in general has a [i]shit-ton[/i] of VR cafes/arcades using the Vive, given HTC's influence there. There's only a handful of Chinese developed games that find their way onto Steam, which I assume a large amount of them are made specifically for these VR cafe/arcade businesses. Not to mention, China has a lot of rich people that love having the next technological toy.[/QUOTE]
China is definitely Vive territory. I want to know the headset distribution for US, EU, Asia separately
[QUOTE=Elspin;51646701]The situation that the two major systems are very similar to develop for in Unity meaning it's not much work to do both does not in any way mean it's a good situation for the industry, that should be obvious. If anything it illustrates a complete misunderstanding of the entire problem: it's not about reducing the time that the developer takes to add support, it's about eliminating it completely so that future hardware developers don't have to request they do it. Future hardware developers cannot realistically compete if they need to have support manually added.
You're maybe half correct on it being more complicated to support than a monitor, it's true in some cases like the Touch's fancy hand tracking tacked on to a traditional controller, but that's why I say [i]within reason[/i]. It's understandable that some games will only work when designed with really specific hardware in mind but I don't think that's going to be the majority of games, developers will want to take advantage of more of the market unless they have an idea that absolutely needs the features. The biggest divide I see in the future for the VR ecosystem is tracked controllers or not, the microsoft ones that are upcoming don't seem to have them.[/QUOTE]
I understand your point but I think it's impossible for devs to future-proof at this stage. VR can, and probably will, change drastically in the coming years. If they add eye tracking with foveated rendering, that's not something the VR SDK layer can just do, that needs to be supported within the game engine too. We might end up with some titles being lost to the ages if no party steps up to update them.
And it doesn't really matter for hardware devs. The issue isn't really supporting older software titles, but making a good product in the first place. AMD and Nvidia are the only players on the consumer GPU market because GPUs are hugely complex devices with years of R&D behind it. I don't think VR HMDs have quite the same complexity, but to get a comfortable VR experience you have to create a high-quality device. You can't be the cheap BenQ monitor of VR HMDs and not have your customers vomit themselves out of the market.
[QUOTE=Clavus;51646783]I understand your point but I think it's impossible for devs to future-proof at this stage. VR can, and probably will, change drastically in the coming years. If they add eye tracking with foveated rendering, that's not something the VR SDK layer can just do, that needs to be supported within the game engine too.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but in the hands of a group like Khronos it might actually be able to be worked into the areas it needs to. The point though is it doesn't need to cover every single possible case to work wonders for the industry, it just needs to make it as easy as possible for [i]hmd developers[/i] to showcase their product and get a foothold in the industry instead of being instantly dead in the water. If I made a headset right now with one of the tracking systems our company has developed that support entire buildings, if developed for openvr it could run games like climbey, cloudlands minigolf, etc and have an actual advantage over the vive that could give us a foothold in the market. I think that's a really good thing, that could produce great things for the industry. Fundamentally the issue I'm talking about is not about rift vs vive, they're [i]going to be supported[/i], it's about industry giants vs potential challengers.
[QUOTE]And it doesn't really matter for hardware devs. The issue isn't really supporting older software titles, but making a good product in the first place. AMD and Nvidia are the only players on the consumer GPU market because GPUs are hugely complex devices with years of R&D behind it. I don't think VR HMDs have quite the same complexity, but to get a comfortable VR experience you have to create a high-quality device. You can't be the cheap BenQ monitor of VR HMDs and not have your customers vomit themselves out of the market.[/QUOTE]
This is just nonsense defeatism, of course it matters to hardware devs. It's probably the single most important thing for hardware devs. I don't expect really tiny companies to be able to produce something, no, but being able to run existing titles changes it from "completely impossible for anyone but the biggest industry giants" to "medium sized tech companies with manufacturing deals or capability could do it". Saying that no one can do it so it doesn't matter if 3rd parties can support existing games is going back to the craziest possible stance I could imagine, it's no good for the industry
Ah well now we finally know what your interest is in all this :P
But yeah, for hardware devs the deal is quite straightforward. Your hardware driver just has to map whatever input you provide to something that the VR SDK standard expects. If you have something novel that the standard doesn't include, you'll first have to make deals with developers to support that particular feature of your hardware. If it proves popular you can push for it to be included into the standard. That's how it always goes.
[QUOTE=Clavus;51646894]Ah well now we finally know what your interest is in all this :P[/QUOTE]
That was a hypothetical, we do have a lot of tracking technology (that part wasn't hypothetical) but our company has no interest in dealing with the consumer market. Closest we get is helping a company develop something that they sell to the consumer market. My interest personally is just wanting to be able to choose the hardware I want based on the hardware itself, not whether the developer of the headset can convince developers to make software for it.
[QUOTE]But yeah, for hardware devs the deal is quite straightforward. Your hardware driver just has to map whatever input you provide to something that the VR SDK standard expects. If you have something novel that the standard doesn't include, you'll first have to make individual deals with developers to support that particular feature of your hardware. If it proves popular you can push for it to be included into the standard. That's how it always goes.[/QUOTE]
That's why I think the standard at least supporting the most common use case is so important, there's loads of games even in the limited market right now that could work on pretty much any goofy shape of headset and controller as long as it's tracked, and that could at least give a consumer enough of a reason to buy the headset if it did cool things the others didn't
[QUOTE=Elspin;51646956]That's why I think the standard at least supporting the most common use case is so important, there's loads of games even in the limited market right now that could work on pretty much any goofy shape of headset and controller as long as it's tracked, and that could at least give a consumer enough of a reason to buy the headset if it did cool things the others didn't[/QUOTE]
Well I wouldn't worry about that. Whatever they write into that standard will probably be more feature rich than OpenVR or the Oculus SDK device driver, simply because that's what it's intended to replace. Generalising a tracking system isn't that hard, you have tracked positions, rotations and input options (axis and buttons). That pretty much covers it. Generalising the HMD might be trickier on the rendering side of things, because of the interplay with optics and things like eye tracking in the future, etc.
As long as your hardware can do the same thing, or map the same actions, as other hardware on the standard can, I don't see any problems.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-CWz8nAFgs[/media]
[quote]"Indistinguishable from the tethered experience."[/quote]
I am actually kind of astonished. I thought wireless would be a gen2 addition, something to convince people to move to new headsets, not a perfectly functional add-on less than a year after launch.
I'm quite amazed by how fast it went, but remember we had reports in early 2016 about a few companies or academic researchers saying they had functional wireless tech. Now we have actual products.
It'll be worth waiting for a bit and see what kind of products are going to hit the market, because TPCast does not appear to be the only one. I personally don't mind the cables as much given the space that I have, so I can wait for whatever solutions HTC / Oculus bring to gen 2.
I am so excited by how fast VR, in general, is taking off. One of my worries when I bought my Vive was that it might become a fad and die off after a year or two, but these new addons coming out are blowing my mind.
I've been holding out for a V2 from the Vive, but I'm itching to get all these things.
I wouldn't be surprised if a second gen Vive will be out in 2018/19, would be a real kick in the face to investors / owners if they brought out all these fancy new Extra's then dropped them for Gen 2 which has it all integrated.
I don't know if it should be integrated anyway, major bonus or not it will drive up the price (even if it's cheaper for them to integrate it) and I think in order to expand the industry the price really needs to come down, not up.
I would like to see them totally replace the old strap systems in the current gen HMDs with the vastly superior knob style straps, they're just better
[QUOTE=Clavus;51648213]I'm quite amazed by how fast it went, but remember we had reports in early 2016 about a few companies or academic researchers saying they had functional wireless tech. Now we have actual products.
It'll be worth waiting for a bit and see what kind of products are going to hit the market, because TPCast does not appear to be the only one. I personally don't mind the cables as much given the space that I have, so I can wait for whatever solutions HTC / Oculus bring to gen 2.[/QUOTE]
The reviews from the only other one going on the market seem to be quite bad. Issues of fuzzy or distorted images when moving fast and a noticable delay, something like 20-40ms at times.
[QUOTE=Elspin;51649765]I don't know if it should be integrated anyway, major bonus or not it will drive up the price (even if it's cheaper for them to integrate it) and I think in order to expand the industry the price really needs to come down, not up.
I would like to see them totally replace the old strap systems in the current gen HMDs with the vastly superior knob style straps, they're just better[/QUOTE]
I don't want to spend 800 dollars every few years for only minor improvements. If the headsets can continue adding new features like being wireless yet keep their current 800$ price tag, the overall cost for new buyers will still go down because the minimum computer requirement for VR will get cheaper.
[QUOTE=bitches;51650035]I don't want to spend 800 dollars every few years for only minor improvements. If the headsets can continue adding new features like being wireless yet keep their current 800$ price tag, the overall cost for new buyers will still go down because the minimum computer requirement for VR will get cheaper.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I didn't say there shouldn't be major improvements, just that if there's something that can be sold as an option (especially if you can then use it for the next gen as well) it might be better to keep it that way so that people can buy in cheaper. That way you're not spending any extra money on the next gen you don't have to, people who want the headset cheaper can get it cheaper if they don't care about or can't afford said feature yet, etc
I mean as an owner of a current gen headset wouldn't you want the option to get good wireless now if it was available without having to buy it again for the next generation or would you rather wait for an entirely new gen to get it and then pay a second time?
[editline]dd[/editline]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KnS3aESNk0[/media]
apparently this is a thing now, kinda figured it'd be along eventually
Procedurally generated virtual environments using Google Tango.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnJ9YErouZc[/media]
[QUOTE=Elspin;51650071]I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I didn't say there shouldn't be major improvements, just that if there's something that can be sold as an option (especially if you can then use it for the next gen as well) it might be better to keep it that way so that people can buy in cheaper. That way you're not spending any extra money on the next gen you don't have to, people who want the headset cheaper can get it cheaper if they don't care about or can't afford said feature yet, etc
I mean as an owner of a current gen headset wouldn't you want the option to get good wireless now if it was available without having to buy it again for the next generation or would you rather wait for an entirely new gen to get it and then pay a second time?
[editline]dd[/editline]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KnS3aESNk0[/media]
apparently this is a thing now, kinda figured it'd be along eventually[/QUOTE]
This looks safe.
(I wanna play Overload with it...)
[QUOTE=Elspin;51650071]I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I didn't say there shouldn't be major improvements, just that if there's something that can be sold as an option (especially if you can then use it for the next gen as well) it might be better to keep it that way so that people can buy in cheaper. That way you're not spending any extra money on the next gen you don't have to, people who want the headset cheaper can get it cheaper if they don't care about or can't afford said feature yet, etc
I mean as an owner of a current gen headset wouldn't you want the option to get good wireless now if it was available without having to buy it again for the next generation or would you rather wait for an entirely new gen to get it and then pay a second time?
[editline]dd[/editline]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KnS3aESNk0[/media]
apparently this is a thing now, kinda figured it'd be along eventually[/QUOTE]
The kind of thing that I honestly would really, really want, but would never, [I]ever[/I] buy, because it's way outside of my price range, and always will be.
reminds me of those flight sim things you see in museums and shit where the cockpit turns as you turn the aircraft and has full 360 degree movement
[editline]10th January 2017[/editline]
judging by the website it's obvious that it's not intended for consumers and rather for theme parks, arcades, and museums
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;51652038]The kind of thing that I honestly would really, really want, but would never, [I]ever[/I] buy, because it's way outside of my price range, and always will be.[/QUOTE]
It's always really upsetting when we have robot arms like that through our shop (had a few recently) and we can't dick around with them like that because of the million ways it could backfire :v:
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;51652038]The kind of thing that I honestly would really, really want, but would never, [I]ever[/I] buy, because it's way outside of my price range, and always will be.[/QUOTE]
I think it's pretty clearly not for people to use at home, but imagine this at an arcade or something? Run down to Dave & Busters, get plastered and play Trackmania doing backflips and all that? Sign me up please!
[QUOTE=srobins;51653038]I think it's pretty clearly not for people to use at home, but imagine this at an arcade or something? Run down to Dave & Busters, get plastered and play Trackmania doing backflips and all that? Sign me up please![/QUOTE]
Yeah it's definitely not meant for consumers. When you work with huge robot arms like that you often need a crane or at least a forklift to move them. Not only that, but one thing a lot of people don't think about with industrial robot arms is their center of mass is constantly moving around, they can just fall over. You have to like drill into the floor which is hopefully something sturdy as hell to lock the bases down v:v:v
[QUOTE=srobins;51653038]I think it's pretty clearly not for people to use at home, but imagine this at an arcade or something? Run down to Dave & Busters, get plastered and play Trackmania doing backflips and all that? Sign me up please![/QUOTE]
Yeah, but then I'd have time limits, and have to wait in lines and all that crap. :v:
Obviously this is needlessly whining nitpicking. Cool tech to see, though.
[QUOTE=Elspin;51653101]Yeah it's definitely not meant for consumers. When you work with huge robot arms like that you often need a crane or at least a forklift to move them. Not only that, but one thing a lot of people don't think about with industrial robot arms is their center of mass is constantly moving around, they can just fall over. You have to like drill into the floor which is hopefully something sturdy as hell to lock the bases down v:v:v[/QUOTE]
Also an incredibly large room & high ceiling :v:
Building a huge (person size, with a seat) motorized gimbal with a friend at the moment. We're using treadmill motors, about 1kW each. It's not for VR but it's surprisingly cheap these days to build machinery that can throw person-sized objects around!
[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;51655126] [B]It's not for VR[/B] but it's surprisingly cheap these days to build machinery that can throw person-sized objects around![/QUOTE]
Found the Amateur sex machine builders
[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;51655126]Building a huge (person size, with a seat) motorized gimbal with a friend at the moment. We're using treadmill motors, about 1kW each. It's not for VR but it's surprisingly cheap these days to build machinery that can throw person-sized objects around![/QUOTE]
Pics of this build? Sounds neat.
[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;51648389]I am so excited by how fast VR, in general, is taking off. One of my worries when I bought my Vive was that it might become a fad and die off after a year or two, but these new addons coming out are blowing my mind.[/QUOTE]
At the moment it's mostly bolstered by internal contracts, the sale of the headsets comes largely from companies making VR installations installations get profits, companies developing it do too. Games are still rarely profitable in the VR space, games are 2nd in the VR space.
Not a bad thing, it's exactly what VR's niche is at the moment, and it's filling it well.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiQJS8ir9sQ[/media]
This guy build a pretty comprehensive set of VR movement mechanics. It's a fun presentation, though maybe a bit overoptimistic about these systems being used.
I particularly like the anti-boundary rules, seems like there's not much of that at the moment.
Do we have any other solid articles/videos on VR movement schemes?
I'm trying to think up a blink system in my head, which allows you to switch between first/third-person perspectives. First-person for detailed interaction, combat, but limited movement, third-person for full movement.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Virtual Reality General V3 - You've got the Touch
