Google announces Daydream VR: Luxury Cardboard for 79$ + will only work with Pixel phones for now - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Elspin;51156448]From an engineering perspective it's not likely to happen without a new generation of hardware, though I guess not impossible. Calibrating a positional tracking system to a device is extremely difficult. The reason they can do semi-absolute position tracking of the headset is by using SLAM to map the environment and try and position yourself based on your understanding of the environment. I work with the HoloLens on a daily basis, and I can tell you right now although the HoloLens is several magnitudes of order better than something Daydream could *ever* do, with dual wide angle stereo camera rigs and a wide angle depth camera, it's still not as good as lighthouse tracking for a big list of reasons.[/QUOTE] Lighthouse tracking has been done on GearVR in the past. It could just as easily come to Cardboard/Daydream. My video is only an example that the experience doesn't have to be what you're first given.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;51156515]Lighthouse tracking has been done on GearVR in the past. It could just as easily come to Cardboard/Daydream. My video is only an example that the experience doesn't have to be what you're first given.[/QUOTE] Yeah my point is more that it gets messy and awkward without hardware being integrated, there's likely going to need to be some calibration process (which there was with the gear vr setup, I've checked that out before). The daydream controller is also much too small for constellation or lighthouse tracking, the reason the vive controller has a ring on the top is to give open surface area for the light sensors that won't be covered up by hands. Daydream would need a big stick out the top or bottom clamped on to give space for the tracking rings :v:

[QUOTE=Shadaez;51155908]do you know anything about daydream? this isn't low end VR at all[/QUOTE] What makes this different from any of the other phone VR headsets?

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;51156354]So by that logic, the Oculus Rift DK1 wasn't a VR headset? It only had rotational tracking as well.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I guess I would agree with that. "Low end VR", at the very least. [QUOTE]Virtual Reality is about tricking the mind into believing that it is occupying a virtual space. With positional tracking you have an almost seamless experience. But when you have no positional tracking, only rotational tracking, do you lose that experience? Well of course, but not entirely, you will only lose the experience when it comes time to translate your position. You will retain that immersion as long as you are in one position, and you are free to look around as it only requires rotation. To the person in the headset, it is all a seamless experience, and will continue to feel seamless until (like I said before) the experience requires translation. Now if we step even further back, and remove rotation? The mind is still (at least subconsciously) convinced that it is occupying the virtual space as long as there is no rotation or translation. To me, that is still VR, even if it is just a stereoscope.[/QUOTE] I agree, I think. But it does bring me to the conclusion that VR is either an undefined or poorly defined gradient where we have to consider any media as some level of VR. Either that, or we decide on very clear, specific requirements that define virtual reality - which is what that article I wanted to post did. But then we'd be arguing about, agreeing with, disagreeing with, the validity of a number of those requirements and then maybe it is best to leave it undefined after all. Doing that, we get that VR with positional tracking is the highest level of VR we have, but where VR without it is simply lower quality VR [I](and in my opinion, remarkably lower quality)[/I]. And then you can go all the way down the chain through stereoscopic 3D on a screen, regular screen games, 2D screen games, text based role playing games, movies, books, board games... And then we could probably still have a debate about which things rank higher than others based on which VR-trait we find most important; does the visual reality of a movie rank higher than the immersion of a good book? And so on. I personally think this is an interesting discussion, but I understand and apologize if you think this is meaningless banter.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;51156354]So by that logic, the Oculus Rift DK1 wasn't a VR headset? It only had rotational tracking as well. I realize we are arguing semantics, but I'd like to add my take on it anyway. Virtual Reality is about tricking the mind into believing that it is occupying a virtual space. With positional tracking you have an almost seamless experience. But when you have no positional tracking, only rotational tracking, do you lose that experience? Well of course, but not entirely, you will only lose the experience when it comes time to translate your position. You will retain that immersion as long as you are in one position, and you are free to look around as it only requires rotation. To the person in the headset, it is all a seamless experience, and will continue to feel seamless until (like I said before) the experience requires translation. Now if we step even further back, and remove rotation? The mind is still (at least subconsciously) convinced that it is occupying the virtual space as long as there is no rotation or translation. To me, that is still VR, even if it is just a stereoscope.[/QUOTE] Except positional tracking plays a huge part in convincing the mind that it's occupying the virtual space, even in "fixed" situation, because your head is always moving a little anyway. When I lose positional tracking with the DK2, I feel it instantly because my head's small movements aren't translated anymore and I lose immersion instantly.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51156687]Yeah, I guess I would agree with that. "Low end VR", at the very least. I agree, I think. But it does bring me to the conclusion that VR is either an undefined or poorly defined gradient where we have to consider any media as some level of VR. Either that, or we decide on very clear, specific requirements that define virtual reality - which is what that article I wanted to post did. But then we'd be arguing about, agreeing with, disagreeing with, the validity of a number of those requirements and then maybe it is best to leave it undefined after all. Doing that, we get that VR with positional tracking is the highest level of VR we have, but where VR without it is simply lower quality VR [I](and in my opinion, remarkably lower quality)[/I]. And then you can go all the way down the chain through stereoscopic 3D on a screen, regular screen games, 2D screen games, text based role playing games, movies, books, board games... And then we could probably still have a debate about which things rank higher than others based on which VR-trait we find most important; does the visual reality of a movie rank higher than the immersion of a good book? And so on. I personally think this is an interesting discussion, but I understand and apologize if you think this is meaningless banter.[/QUOTE] I think it would be safe to say that to some extent VR is a gradient. I mean a flat monitor strapped to your head with only rotational non-absolute tracking will give you some sense of a virtual space, and even really good headsets like the rift feel much less immersive without the ability to interact with your hands in some way. I feel like being able to see your body somewhat contacting the ground would be another big step.

I can't tell if it reminds me more of a sweatshirt or a sofa. Though, the name is fitting, the design does make me sleepy.

I went to a talk on VR by Noah Falstein (Chief game designer at Google) and he's very excited about this. To be honest, so am I, but the 3 degrees of freedom is realistic but at the same time slightly disappointing.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51156687]Yeah, I guess I would agree with that. "Low end VR", at the very least. I agree, I think. But it does bring me to the conclusion that VR is either an undefined or poorly defined gradient where we have to consider any media as some level of VR. Either that, or we decide on very clear, specific requirements that define virtual reality - which is what that article I wanted to post did. But then we'd be arguing about, agreeing with, disagreeing with, the validity of a number of those requirements and then maybe it is best to leave it undefined after all. Doing that, we get that VR with positional tracking is the highest level of VR we have, but where VR without it is simply lower quality VR [I](and in my opinion, remarkably lower quality)[/I]. And then you can go all the way down the chain through stereoscopic 3D on a screen, regular screen games, 2D screen games, text based role playing games, movies, books, board games... And then we could probably still have a debate about which things rank higher than others based on which VR-trait we find most important; does the visual reality of a movie rank higher than the immersion of a good book? And so on. I personally think this is an interesting discussion, but I understand and apologize if you think this is meaningless banter.[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.google.ca/search?q=define%3A+virtual+reality&oq=define%3A+virtual+reality]Google[/url] has a nice definition for VR, which is what I agree with mostly. Something without positional tracking is - I agree - remarkably low quality in this day and age, but an abacus is still a calculator, no? 3D screens aren't meant to try and convince your brain that it's occupying the virtual space. 3D screens are meant to convince your brain that the screen is a window, that there is a space with depth beyond the screen. Text-based roleplaying games and board games (etc) aren't trying to convince you of anything, you can simply get lost in the immersion due to the extensive detail. I also find the discussion quite interesting, quite frankly I mostly want to see if my take on the matter is agreeable, so no worries.

i hope it does tilt brush that's my favorite vr thing ever but i can't justify a vive just for one app

Would have been cool if they partnered with Leap Motion to do hand tracking instead of the little controller. [I]That[/I] would have seriously sold me.

that headstrap looks atrocious, can't wait for even the slightest movements to cause the headset to shift or wobble and ruin the effect

[QUOTE=Elspin;51156117]Not 100% sure everything that's inside the headset but a comfortable, light, and secure mount for your phone that tells it to automatically enter daydream, and comes with a controller is probably worth the $ over buying a $10 cardboard if you're into mobile VR, not to mention what the tech on the phone itself does for mobile VR.[/QUOTE] I got a pretty high quality headset, an unofficial wired PS3 controller, and an OTG cable to use the controller for around $30. If you're planning on spending $10 on a cardboard, you might as well save up an extra $20 and get more out of it.

[QUOTE=Ezhik;51157402]i hope it does tilt brush that's my favorite vr thing ever but i can't justify a vive just for one app[/QUOTE] Tilt brush is owned by Google so the answer is a strong probably