• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Whatever happened to Virtual Reality?

Ashles

Pith Artist
Ashles
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
8,694
Location
The '80s
Split off from this thread.

Whatever did happen to Virtual Reality - I remember playing a version of it (with the rubbish pterodactyls and the chess board surface) back in about 1991.

In at least 16 years the technology does not seemed to have moved forward (at least with regard to the entertainment industry).

This just seems simply weird. It's not even like any major games manufacturers seem to be announcing it as likely to come any time soon.

Surely the processing power is easily there these days, even if it has to process 2 different images at once.

Is there a simple reason for VR's non appearance?

Yours, perplexed of Brighton.
 
Ashles said:
Is there a simple reason for VR's non appearance?
Click to expand...



You took the blue pill and the story ended. You woke in your bed and you believed whatever you wanted to believe.

I know what you're thinking, 'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing. Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I became a member here. Why, oh why didn't I take the red pill?
 
Depending on how you define Virtual Reality, I think it's already here.

I think that technologies such as Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games, Second Life and Playstation Home are really the next step in VR. Even though they may seem like a step backwards since they don't rely on VR goggles, they are certainly more immersive and interactive than those blocky ugly VR games from the 90's.

Consumers now have cheap 7.1 surround sound systems, and modestly priced LCD and Plasma displays; maybe there's just no market for VR goggles as a display mechanism.

3D engines already have all of the information required to render in a 'true' 3D environment (Although most engines 'cheat' by simply not rendering objects that are obstructed by others in a 2D space).

It seems that it would make sense to have Virtual Reality goggles that could could plug into a PC, and have the ability to re-render any Direct3D or OpenGL program in Virtual Reality. The hardware requirements would still be extremely high, but it certainly should be possible!
 
I have a VR program running on this computer right now. It is for CAD work.

As for what people think of as VR, well the kinisthetic feedback gloves have never really worked well, and 3d displays have generaly not been of sufficient use to be used. BUt they are used in certain situations.

Also look at the Wii, and such, it would count as some sort of VR.
 
In every technology show I have attented there is always one renegade with their 3D glasses. I can tell you, technology is not there yet.

What we need? A projector that uses the retina as screen, and a set of glasses that are like domes.

Another one (which is actually almost possible, Im first in line to buy it as soon as its available). A capsule with a concave screen (all the top of the egg shaped body) with pneumatic movements. I want it to race cars and shoot the dead star.
 
Last edited:
They are mostly utilized in simulator training, NASA and some military training.

The good ones are too expensive and delicate to be used by the masses.

It looks like they are putting all those research bucks into console games.
 
money said:
Yes, IIRC, nausea is a problem as well.
Click to expand...

I've never had a nausea problem playing a game, and for the life of me I never got why some people say things make them dizzy. At first I thought it was poetic liscense until someone took the time to explain to me that they actually felt like they were going to throw up playing certain FPS games. That's just weird! I mean I get my sense of balance from my inner ear and I had assumed others did too. I guess eyes play a part, but maybe the fact that I've been playing video games since I was like 5 has something to do with it.

On a possibly related note, those tunnels with spinning walls never messed with my head either. I even remember as a kid wondering why everyone around me was freaking out. I just thought it was boring.

As soon as some hacker uses photoepilepsy to create a buffer overrun based virus for the human brain, those goggles and a popular MMO will result in a very awkward situation.
 
Dark Jaguar said:
I've never had a nausea problem playing a game, and for the life of me I never got why some people say things make them dizzy. At first I thought it was poetic liscense until someone took the time to explain to me that they actually felt like they were going to throw up playing certain FPS games. That's just weird! I mean I get my sense of balance from my inner ear and I had assumed others did too. I guess eyes play a part, but maybe the fact that I've been playing video games since I was like 5 has something to do with it.

On a possibly related note, those tunnels with spinning walls never messed with my head either. I even remember as a kid wondering why everyone around me was freaking out. I just thought it was boring.

As soon as some hacker uses photoepilepsy to create a buffer overrun based virus for the human brain, those goggles and a popular MMO will result in a very awkward situation.
Click to expand...

Motion sickness does not come specificaly from the inner ear. It comes from the inner ear and the eyes getting conflicting information about motion and the brain not liking it.
 
In many cases VR is simply not wanted. If I'm playing a computer game I really don't want to jump around the place pretending I'm really there, I want to sit down and relax for a bit. If I want to run around shooting aliens I don't want to have to keep diving behind my sofa. When I want to hit people with sticks I'll go to a Jitsu session. When it comes down to it, true VR games simply aren't practical for anyone who doesn't have a huge basement with padded walls, while partial VR isn't really any better than none at all.

In fact, now I think about it I don't think VR is really possible. The trouble is, it's an all or nothing situation. If something doesn't seem completely real, then it won't be acceptable because we already have things that don't seem quite real. However, your actions can never be completely real while in VR because you would just end up walking in to walls. It's a choice between full VR with bulky, expensive equipment to make it seem as if you really are in a cockpit or some kind of treadmill to make it seem as though you're walking a long way, or it is some kind of half-assed VR that might make it look nice but actually has very little R involved at all. People want the former but can't afford it and wouoldn't have anywhere to put it, and they simply don't want the latter.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Motion sickness does not come specificaly from the inner ear. It comes from the inner ear and the eyes getting conflicting information about motion and the brain not liking it.
Click to expand...

Very true. For me it's 5 minutes of Half Life 2 (that's the worst so far) and I'm on the verge of throwing up :(. Bumping into things AND vomiting - sounds like fun!
 
It's not an idle question. Not VR pe se, but goggles as a vewing device. For example, I'm surprised people rather watch movies on a tiny ipod screen than video goggles. I assume they're around, but just not popularized yet. Still the purview of hobbyists, like household and toy robots. I'm a betting man, and my bet is VR goggles will become popular when Steve Jobs makes the igog.
 
Dave1001 said:
I'm a betting man, and my bet is VR goggles will become popular when Steve Jobs makes the igog.
Click to expand...

Not unless you can fit the iGog in your pocket.

One technology I thought was really neat but never took off was 3D glasses which worked with your computer monitor. They were essentially like sun glasses, with each lens having an LCD that could be turned opaque independently. Your graphics card would display alternate frames intended for your left and right eyes, and a small wire from the glasses to your video card would send a signal to blank out the appropriate lens for that frame. So you're wearing what amount to just sun glasses which don't prevent you from viewing your surroundings at the same time, and taking advantage of your computer monitor for the expensive high-resolution display aspect. The incremental cost for the extra capability is fairly low, so you're not wasting much money when it comes to non-VR content.
 
Ziggurat said:
They were essentially like sun glasses, with each lens having an LCD that could be turned opaque independently. Your graphics card would display alternate frames intended for your left and right eyes, and a small wire from the glasses to your video card would send a signal to blank out the appropriate lens for that frame.
Click to expand...
I remember those. I would have thought that would be groovy.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not unless you can fit the iGog in your pocket.

One technology I thought was really neat but never took off was 3D glasses which worked with your computer monitor. They were essentially like sun glasses, with each lens having an LCD that could be turned opaque independently. Your graphics card would display alternate frames intended for your left and right eyes, and a small wire from the glasses to your video card would send a signal to blank out the appropriate lens for that frame. So you're wearing what amount to just sun glasses which don't prevent you from viewing your surroundings at the same time, and taking advantage of your computer monitor for the expensive high-resolution display aspect. The incremental cost for the extra capability is fairly low, so you're not wasting much money when it comes to non-VR content.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about these? I used to have a pair, and they worked quite well.. Unfortunately besides Space Spuds and the other software that came with them, they just died out. Too bad.
 
Ashles said:
Whatever did happen to Virtual Reality - I remember playing a version of it (with the rubbish pterodactyls and the chess board surface) back in about 1991.

In at least 16 years the technology does not seemed to have moved forward (at least with regard to the entertainment industry).

This just seems simply weird. It's not even like any major games manufacturers seem to be announcing it as likely to come any time soon.

Surely the processing power is easily there these days, even if it has to process 2 different images at once.

Is there a simple reason for VR's non appearance?

Yours, perplexed of Brighton.
Click to expand...

Ha!

I frequently bring up exactly this subject - it looked so promising all those years ago. While the graphics in that game were crap, it did show the potential and I also believed that we'd all be chasing each other around virtual worlds. I'd always expected the porn industry to jump on the idea and refine it, but it looks as though cheap, on-demand computer access is where they went instead. (Although Japan may be developing something along those lines)

It's always been led by Japan - maybe the growth of Wii will assist in moving VR forward. Toshiba is working on it.

It's over ten years since VR weddings started, but it looks athough no impetus was given there, either. That again was mooted as the way of the future - get married in the Sistine Chapel while still at home.

It seems to me as though VR is one of those technologies which will languish until somone realises the potential of it.

As I recall, the problems in developing VR were all to do with the processing speed required for the massive graphics. Computers are a hell of a lot faster than they were 10 years ago, but the VR never arrived.

Good thought, Ashles!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom