Slashdot Mirror
Oculus Rift Virtual Reality Headset Blows Past Kickstarter Goal
Virtual reality headsets have historically been very disappointing. While the concept has been fun and interesting, the technological realities never quite lived up to expectations, and hardware developers largely gave up on research into this kind of device. However, it's been long enough that display technology has caught up to our ambitions. So, where are our VR headsets? Well, hobbyist Palmer Luckey asked that same question, and when he couldn't find a good answer, he decided to build one himself. He and his team have built a prototype, and they just launched a Kickstarter campaign to distribute developer kits. The campaign blew past its $250,000 goal in hours. What's interesting about this particular campaign is that Palmer took the Oculus Rift to various development studios and managed to get enthusiastic endorsements from some big names, including Cliff Bleszinski, Gabe Newell, and John Carmack.
No, thank you. Don't send me any ads. My eyes are my most precious thing, and i am not going to blow them just to show off.
that when you publish a kickstarter campaign on HN, Reddit and probably here, too, that it maxes out pretty quickly. Hmmm, who fucking thought?
when I see it. Too many times we've been promised the world with super cool VR goggles and helmets and appendages. Also, if I have to go buy a console first, no sale.
I would bet cash money that a lot of the people who pledged on that KS thought they were getting a Rift for their ten bucks. Oh dear.
field of vision seems awesome but the resolution for it is very low 1280x800 (640x800 per eye).
I guess it will be good for driving and flying simulators but not for looking or killing snipers in an FPS.
Who else isn't surprised that demand for a more effective reality-attenuator remains robust?
Carmack is deeply involved with Oculus. He posts on their forums with his ideas and Oculus runs Doom 3. The guys from the verge got to play with a prototype:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/30/3052191/doom-3-bfg-edition-announced-for-the-fall-we-try-it-with-john
This could be a game changer. VR headsets done right.
The most disappointing thing, looking back on the history of the technology, was that virtual reality software was all software rendering, which was obviously terrible, doubly so because stereoscopic 3D needed to render two viewpoints, and processors at the time could barely manage a decent frame rate with only one viewpoint. So people lost interest.Understandably so. The tragedy is that stereoscopic VR helmets faded from the marketplace less than a year (!) before the introduction of the first 3D accelerator cards, which would finally have delivered enough polygons per second to make the technology actually practical.
VR goggles have been promised to be the future of computers since the 90s. Since before the internet was a household term, even. And yet time and time again they fail to work. The reason is that our technology just isn't as sophisticated as our eyes. We have hundred megapixel vision, realtime depth perception, motion sensing, and they scan at around 200 frames per second. The amount of information our visual cortex processes and compresses for other parts of our brain make most supercomputers look stupid by comparison.
It took millions of years to develop Human Eyeball v1.0. It's pretty arrogant to assume we'll just write a business proposal and KAZAM! (-_-) But hey, keep trying guys. In another 50 years or so, they might have evolved to the point where people don't get headaches using them.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Seriously, do we need a Slashdot story about every piece of Kickstarter vaporware that meets its funding goal? Here's an idea, how about we start running Slashdot stories when something from Kickstarter goes from rendering to shipping actual products. That will cut down stories like these tenfold. Cool ideas are dime a dozen, and it's nice to see these guys met their goal, but going from vision to prototype to product is something Kickstarters have proven to be problematic, especially for people who have no experience in business, product development, sales, and manufacturing.
Virtual porn, its as simple as that. It does not matter how much this is if they get some decent virtual porn it will be successful.
Sad a bit but that's life.
Now we know what we should expect from the next generation. 3D-TV does not do it for me for so many reasons -- TV is expensive, it's not portable and I haven't seen one that really impresses me.
Everything I saw about the kickstart video makes sense. The components needed to make the thing have only recently matured to the point where doing this is not only possible, but easy enough to make it into a consumer product. (You know, "retina displays" low-power, high performance GPUs and all that?)
As far as I was concerned, there WAS to be no "next gen game console." There might have been "next version" devices, but none of the next game consoles would have been a next generation in the sense that they would have offered new technology or new styles of gaming. After the XBox360, the latest playstation and the Wii, anything without a real VR setup will simply be an incremental improvement or, worse, a new way for the console market players to drag in more cash with streaming media and all that.
I can say now, based on this new thing, if the console makers aren't planning to include this technology or technology like it, they will lose.
Let's put it this way: If Sony did this, I would buy a Sony device without hesitation. (Anyone who knows me, knows that I am saying I would betray my own principles to play with this stuff.)
I made the mistake of spending almost a grand on eMagin's HMD many years ago, which was rendered useless when Nvidia partnered with a new 3D display company and completely dropped support for existing 3D hardware the next year. It was awesome playing F.E.A.R. in 3D and being able to look around in-game, but a grand was a lot of money to play one game.
Oh...my...god.... Derek Smart endorses the thing: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game/comments . Its officially awesome now people!
Back in 1995, VR gaming had a brief surge.
I had a pair of Virtual i-o I-glasses that had a head tracker and resolution of 640x480 per eye, and cost less than $500 new.
What does Occulus bring to the table that wasnt already tried and failed back then? (in a much neater/lighter glasses-like package too I might add).
No gamer will take Occulus seriously with a resolution of only 640x800 per eye.
Even 17 years ago, my I-glasses with their similarly low res 640x480 seemed too crappy to use seriously, compared to the my monitor with its res of 1280x1024.
These days people are completely used to full HD 1920x1080. its become the defacto bare minimum spec for any kind of gaming display these days.
17 years later from I-glasses, still the best that can be done is 640x800 per eye? If so Occulus is dead in the water. To appeal to hardcore gamers, as a minimum it needs to be up around 1920x1080, if not better.
I'm not in any way associated with this auction but if you just wanna see what I-glasses look like:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/VIRTUAL-I-OS-IGLASSES-THESE-ARE-THE-ORIGINAL-1995-GLASSES-USED-ONLY-TWICE-/200799140740?pt=US_Video_Glasses&hash=item2ec08fbb84#ht_1314wt_1139
Other VR systems have come and gone, most without even registering on the radar.
For the more recent ones, its not because the systems themselves have been lacking. Rather it is the lack of software that utilizes the systems. Developers want people to buy their creations, so they work with what people already have in the way of hardware.
This latest attempt is focusing on getting game developers on board first, and seems to be pulling in some pretty big guns in the industry. If the plan works out, we'll see big name games that players want to play supporting this VR system. If that happens, many gamers will buy the headset.
My only critisism is that for it to be a trully gaming focused system, it needs headphones and microphone too.
You shall know him by his Sig
about the resolution specs. The specs that are for the pre-release, developer kit.
This is just a way for them to drum up hype and get input for the consumer model. If you get one and feel it's inadequate contact them. As of right now there will be 1,500+ dev kits out there in December and I'm sure the community will have something to say if something is horribly wrong with it, especially the larger names that are on board with it already.
Check out the resolution, 640x480 per eye and that's like two inches from your eye. You'll find more pixels on a iphone and that you hold two feet away from yourself.
Doesn't seem like something that would be worth it at that resolution. That's downright eye cancer waiting to happen.
Carmack is active in the development thread at the vr forum... The kickstater was just a means so he could give money anonymously and also motivate the guy.
since i dont see it mentioned.
However this unit sucks ass because, like all VR goggles that aren't ultra expensive, it is low rez. It is 640x800. Given the large image it will present to the viewer that translates to massive pixels. I've used VR headsets like that and it sucks.
They need to at least be talking resolutions on par with televisions, then there is something to talk about. No it won't be full human eye rez, but then you can give an experience that is "Better than a TV."
There will still be problems, focus being the big one (our 3D perception relies on separation, parallax and focus, these can only do the first two) but at least it'll be something worth looking at.
As it stands you'd probably get a better image just sitting close to a TV.
Low rez goggles are nothing new, I remember some company selling them for years as a "personal TV". Come and let me know when they've got HD at least.
I used to own a vfx-1. I have astigmatism really bad, and different levels of correction are required for each eye. As a consequence I could *NEVER* get a clear image through the HUD, and had eyestrain in under 5 minutes. (That and the 256 color palleted texture mode limitation of the VFC it used. Blech.)
This device looks like it will have similar focus issues.
Now for the stupid questions.
Google's project glass is an augmented reality system. Simply add an occulter in front of the eyes, ad IR illumination inside the occulter so that it can still track eye movements and focus, and use the augmented reality overly projection system to paint the whole image on each eye.
Why can't they do that instead of using LCD displays of such nasty resolutions, with fixed focus optics?
Why should I back occulus instead of waiting for project glass, and doing a fun hardware hack for fun and profit?
The project seems pretty cool and exciting but OT, I'm sure many of you feel the same - the kickstarter stuff supposed to be a grassroot project support platform. I'm not sure if many projects have the resource to script and produce such a super slick video that is almost like an info-mercial.
You've got it back to front.
640x800 isn't too bad when at arms' length because all those pixels are crammed into a small angular window in the visual field, so the angular equivalent to "DPI" (typically Dots Per Degree, or DPD) within that small field is quite high.
In contrast, when the field of view is a huge 110 degrees as in the Oculus Rift, those 640 horizontal pixels are spread out over a much larger angular field, perhaps 25 times larger or more, so the DPD is 25 times smaller than if those 640 pixels were on a small portable device screen held at arms' length.
The end result will inevitably be highly blocky, unless the consumer device has much higher resolution than these prototypes.
Carmack covered this, the latency on the HMZ-T1 is extraordinarily high. For movie playback and typical 3d gaming (the controls and results are so disconnected, we don't have such a strong physiological expectation of view moving with our controller input), no big deal. Problematic, however, for head tracking where our systems *really* expect the view and head movements to correlate closely and the lag is noticable.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I don't think 640x800 will be a problem. That's per eye for a start and not focusing on a single screen image. Plus this will work differently, it will wrap around your vision.
Really I'd like to see this paired with Tobii eye tracking http://www.tobii.com/ which looked amazing the last demo I saw on line. You could maybe boost the detail where ever the eye look,s like normal eyes work, but I was thinking more game interaction since you can react and interact faster with something on screen just by looking - they should have this in main stream gaming co op games would really take off - i.e highlight an area of interest to your partner, or attack an enemy, or block an incoming attack, trace a path to use with your eyes. [or look in a direction and press a button to move towards it, movement seem to be the biggest problem this would be quit novel] etc.
Second, paired with Leap http://leapmotion.com/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/05/gesture-controls-get-a-huge-boost-with-new-leap-interaction-system/ if one was placed on the headset facing down it could track arm and hand positions.
Then if you could track the headsets location in a room you could design games around an arena with real movement. Now that would be awesome.
You heard it here first.
http://oculusvr.com/
I'm afraid it might be Slashdotted soon
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The most popular VR headset caught on like wildfire, selling over 4 million units in Japan alone for the game The World...a game which resides inside the fake world created inside another game series called DOT HACK. Sorry, I had to, lol. Any DOT HACK fans out there?
The theory, however, is quite sounds and doesn't feel like some unrealistic projection of the future. I think it was only 2024 or something when even DOT HACK GU allegedly took place. They have fake news stories in the game about people being "public shut-ins" with the VR headsets on outside. They walk around and walk in front of cars and stuff, lol. It's just as good as any professional futurist's best guess (because they hired one) but more realistic seeming because they had to tell a story.
As a nerd who was heavily into consumer VR headsets and has been disappointed in the offerings available since the 90s, this excites me. Now consider that:
1. People here are highly interested in tech stuff (you know, stuff that matters)
2. Putting something here, to the attention of the 100s of thousands of Slashdot users increases the chances that a project such as this will reach its funding goal and you know, we get the story about it successfully shipping in the next year.
3. They already have a working prototype (must have missed the duct tape) and working software.
4. The developer units (you know if you pledge $300) ship in December.
5. Not all of us are cynical assholes and are willing to chip into other fellow geeks/techies/engineer's dreams.
So excuse us while we get excited over new tech and chip in any way we can to make it happen instead of bitching and moaning about it on a forum.
Now go check to see what things have been made possible via Kickstarter . Even things for all to enjoy .
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Even now there are relatively cheap ($800) FULL HD HMD, why the heck should people fund a low resolution (800x600) project? designed for gamers by gamers?! I guess, if these so called gamers are from the 90's and miss the EGA/VGA resolutions...
Waste of money if you ask me.
I was at Siggraph in 1998 (in Orlando) and a vendor there (no idea who) had a pretty cool setup: a set of off-the-shelf glasses that were totally reasonably sized, held onto your head with an elastic strap, and on the back was a gyro pack (that they made) that was about 1" x 2" maybe. They had it hooked up to a fast machine running GL Quake and it looked PERFECT. Or, at least, worlds better than some other crappy VR games I had seen where you had a thing the size of a bike helmet that ran at about 5-10 fps.
You could look and aim in Quake faster than you could with a mouse--literally, just as fast as you could (normally) move your head. I don't remember there being any lag at all. You would run and shoot with the keyboard and aim by looking. It was awesome. So why did they never take off? I'm sure they were expensive at the time but a year or two would have made them reasonable, especially back then when a computer that was even halfway decent for gaming started at well over a grand.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
some big developer/company already owns the patents.
Queue the patent trolls just as soon as it looks like it will work well.