Hands On With Virtual Reality's Greatest Hope

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hands On With Virtual Reality's Greatest Hope

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday January 9, 2013 @12:08PM from the eye-on-the-prize dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "Oculus VR Rift is a one of the seventeen kickstarter projects to raise more than a million dollars in 2012 and a recently published hands-on shows exactly why it was so successful. Using Oculus VR Rift with the upcoming Infinity Blade and a modified version of Unreal Tournament 3, the analyst found that the 3D effect and head tracking provided a great sense of immersion. At one point while playing Infinity Blade, the analyst describes walking around the guards and watching their swords shift as he stepped, seeming like they were inches from cutting him. While he felt that the demo was impressive, he found that the software limitations made the whole experience a bit unrealistic. Needless to say that Oculus Rift is a long way from hitting stores but Oculus VR is getting ready to ship developer kits."

64 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Still no eye tracking? by Kenja · 2013-01-09 12:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Back in the 90s I worked a bit in VR & 3D video/movies. The big hope was always a way to track eye movement to vary the interocular distance based on what you where trying to focus on. There where some prototypes that where able to do this using infrared cameras to track your eyes and adjusting the software accordingly, but I have never seen a production system that did it. Until they get this working, VR will always feels forced because the software is deciding what you are looking at rather then your eyes.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
1. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  I think this will be like the 3D movies. They're in 3D, but you don't get to choose what to focus on, as a result many parts of it are blurry 3D. Some people don't like this, but many others don't care. If it gets as successful as 3D movies were then it will easily be a commercial success.
2. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Kenja · 2013-01-09 12:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You mean the 3D movies they had in the 50s and now again? They've not really changed that much, and people do get very tired of them, just like they do every decade. What's more, unlike a movie, in a VR game or environment you have control. The scene changes based on your actions, including tracking your head movement. No not change the focus based on what you are looking at makes it fairly unusable. In a game for example, you turn your head to look at an enemy, but its out of focus. You strain your eyes trying to focus on it, but it wont happen and you get a headache.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
3. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Osgeld · 2013-01-09 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  I have had helmets in the past, and yes this is the number one annoying thing that instantly pops out (headaches and neck-aches come later). Locking your eyes dead forward and moving your head an exaggerated amount to "look" at something that should only be an eye flick away is something not easily remembered in the moment.
4. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Stormwatch · 2013-01-09 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Let's not mix things: we can get depth perception without shit going out of focus, right? So there is a very simple solution: developers must stop using focus effects.
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
5. Re:Still no eye tracking? by timeOday · 2013-01-09 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  If that's the main problem, why haven't goggles for 2d information caught on? No variation in focal distance there. People sit for hours on the airplane crouched over the tiny 2d screen on their cellphone watching a movie, or smashing the screen of their laptop up against the guy reclining his chair into them. Goggle screens are available but do not seem very popular, but why? (I haven't tried them).
6. Re:Still no eye tracking? by dpidcoe · 2013-01-09 12:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  As a trackIR user, I can say that when using these sorts of devices it's helpful to think of your head as controlling a joystick that's moving your view, rather than being directly linked (most people set their trackIR profiles up to amplify movement on a curve, which also helps break that illusion). You don't get annoyed at having to move your hand a little bit to see something in an FPS when you could have just flicked your eyes instead because your brain understands that the mouse is a controller. It doesn't need to be any different for your head.
  Also, one of the features of the rift that makes it different is that it has a wide FOV, so there's much less of the looking through a straw feeling that happens with current gen VR headsets.
7. Re:Still no eye tracking? by JakeBurn · 2013-01-09 12:54 · Score: 2
  
  If you could track a person's eyes you could solve many hardware limitations you might have. I read this paper on only making a certain sized circle directly where you're looking in focus and high def, A slightly larger circle around that is less sharp but still decent, then everything outside of that was low rez and blurry. Seemed like a decent idea to make what you're looking at seem much higher def than normal.
8. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 13:30 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  This can lead to a very unsettling uncanny effect. I remember watching a video for a photorealism mod for GTA4, and feeling confused over everything being in focus.
9. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Jesus_666 · 2013-01-09 13:34 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, focus is one of the cues we use to determine the relative depth of objects we see. Most of what you see at any given time is not in focus. Rendering everything in focus (which many video games with stereoscopy support do) is confusing to some people as the focus suggests that all objects are on a plane while the difference in perception between the eyes suggests otherwise.
  
  There's a simpler solution: Developers stop using stereoscopy until we have consumer-ready volumetric displays. (Or, alternatively, developers stop using stereoscopy until 2025 when the current fad is forgotten and they can sell it to us as a "brand new" technology.)
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
10. Re:Still no eye tracking? by kelemvor4 · 2013-01-09 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  I've looked at them before. For me it's this:
  Resolution 480*240(WQVGA)
  Viewing Size 72inches virtual screen16:9
  
  Not a good combination.
11. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Osgeld · 2013-01-09 14:21 · Score: 2
  
  its cute for the first few moments, when you slowly gaze around the demo disk, but you hit it, my hand, which can do all sorts of stuff out of sight only has to make a slight movement, my head doesnt, and is not nearly as quick
12. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Scytheford · 2013-01-09 15:33 · Score: 2
  
  These don't need eyeball tracking. The field of view of the image is such that your eyes can roam around the visible cone of the world to your heart's content, as with reality. The headset has accelerometers and gyros in it so it can track your head's orientation. You have the same five degrees of movement available (3 head rotation, 2 eye rotation) as you do without the goggles. The lower resolution, and the way the rift's optics are designed, means objects far from the centre of the FoV have fewer pixels comprising their image. The only meaningful limitations are the resolution of the screen, and the field of view of the optics. The lower FoV means that you might need to move your head to look at something you would've just moved your eyes toward in meatspace.
  The only thing you lose is a true depth of field, because the system can't read the focal plane of your eyes. The result is that everything is in focus at all times, without your eyes having to adjust their focus. It will be the cause of discomfort for some, but I find that I adjust quickly enough after taking off my (non-rift) goggles.
13. Re:Still no eye tracking? by jensen404 · 2013-01-09 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  With the low resolution of the Ocular Rift, and small aperature of the human eye, I doubt focus will be an issue unless you are simulating something within arm's reach. Even then, I doubt it will be a huge issue if you don't spend to much time looking at things up close.
  It can later be fixed by gaze tracking, refocusing the hardware lens on the device and rendering the focus blur in software.
14. Re:Still no eye tracking? by gl4ss · 2013-01-09 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think this will be like the 3D movies. They're in 3D, but you don't get to choose what to focus on, as a result many parts of it are blurry 3D. Some people don't like this, but many others don't care. If it gets as successful as 3D movies were then it will easily be a commercial success.
  the right way is that everything is in focus. 3d games and movies today use focal blurring because they can then skip using resources on the backgrounds.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
15. Re:Still no eye tracking? by gl4ss · 2013-01-09 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you could track a person's eyes you could solve many hardware limitations you might have. I read this paper on only making a certain sized circle directly where you're looking in focus and high def, A slightly larger circle around that is less sharp but still decent, then everything outside of that was low rez and blurry. Seemed like a decent idea to make what you're looking at seem much higher def than normal.
  rift does this thing where more of the display resolution is used for the straight ahead and less on the edges of the viewport. of course this means you should keep your eyes focused in front though and move your head to look around. think of it as if wearing night goggles I suppose.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
16. Re:Still no eye tracking? by lxs · 2013-01-09 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  Then again, human stereoscopic vision works best for objects within arm's reach so that will be the situation where 3D displays have the most impact.
17. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  It's not that we can't see depth without depth blur. The problem is that wrong depth blur is a cue that the scene isn't real, and that cue is strong enough to even move from unconscious to conscious perception. When you look at something, your eyes individually focus on the object, but they also move such that the object of interest is in both eyes' centers. Objects which are closer or further away then end up unaligned, which in reality is masked by the depth blur. If the entire scene is in focus, this misalignment jumps out and ruins the immersion. For this reason, depth blur is important, but unfortunately it's very difficult to do right.
18. Re:Still no eye tracking? by drinkypoo · 2013-01-10 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  These don't need eyeball tracking. The field of view of the image is such that your eyes can roam around the visible cone of the world to your heart's content, as with reality [...] The only thing you lose is a true depth of field, because the system can't read the focal plane of your eyes.
  Well, no. When I turn my head my eyes move. And they are in different places. The view near my peripheral vision should change more significantly than it will. And that's only one of the many effects...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  What exactly do you mean by "to vary the interocular distance"? Isn't that the distance between both eyes in the head? How and why would you adjust that?
20. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes and no.
  The technology is more or less the same, but there are movies now which actually make good use of the 3D experience ( for example Step Up 3D, where you can see they actually created the movie with 3D effects in mind ).
  Granted, there are a lot of movies where this is done poorly or totally at the wrong time ( making it harder for you to enjoy the movie ).
  However, even though I like good 3D movies, the problem is I already wear glasses, so now I have to wear an additional pair of '3D' glasses on top of it, which doesn't always work out well.
21. Re:Still no eye tracking? by grumbel · 2013-01-10 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly is that confusing in GTA4? Focus only matters when you are close to objects, when you however look at something that is 5-10 meter away, everything else beyond that threshold will be in focus as well. In a third person game like GTA4 that essentially means everything should always be in focus, as you are never really up close to anything unless you make some camera acrobatics and force the camera into a wall.
22. Re:Still no eye tracking? by jensen404 · 2013-01-10 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Stereoscopic vision is effective at a distance of [distance between pupils / diameter of pupils] times that of focus.
  3D on movie screens is effective, even when not simulating something super close.
  3D is only one of the benefits of the device, anyway. The wide field of view and head tracking are what makes it special.
23. Re:Still no eye tracking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Oculus Rift wants to fix current VR implementations by using cheap parts to provide a 1000hz head tracking sample rate. This will allow for in-game viewing that is indistinguishable from real life.
  Also the lenses let your eyes focus and converge at infinity which will help prevent many headaches that modern 3D viewing create.
Until... by bmo · 2013-01-09 12:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

...someone cracks a cure for VR Motion Sickness (TM) where the inner ear conflicts with what the eye is seeing, you're not going to see a lot of VR uptake.
--
BMO
1. Re:Until... by Xenkar · 2013-01-09 12:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This condition is actually called simulator sickness and a good portion of the population suffers from it. Basically your mind thinks it has been poisoned due to the conflicting messages and tries to induce vomiting to expel your lunch to correct the problem. There is no cure for it. The only solution is to have the VR helmet also hijack the inner-ear.
2. Re:Until... by History's+Coming+To · 2013-01-09 12:36 · Score: 2
  
  Or a system which places the "outside world" correctly as you move around, which either needs a large amount of space to move around in, or a moving/tilting floor.
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
3. Re:Until... by HornWumpus · 2013-01-09 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Pick you sim carefully. Helicopter sims are better then fixed wing. Fixed wing is generally better then free space (e.g. Descent). Down generally stays down.
  Also having solidly mounted controls in your hands helps me. Not sure why.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
4. Re:Until... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently Oculus has already done some experiments with the ear-fix:
  "“One of my favourite things that’s probably never going to hit the market: galvanic vestibular stimulation. It’s basically technology that allows you to stimulate your inner ear, to simulate orientation and acceleration... um... using electrical impulses. It’s really cool. I and I have some GVS systems I’ve put together myself,” he adds, and what he says next brings a broad laugh from his audience. "It's not particularly safe... There's no proof that long-term use causes permanent harm.""
  So maaaybe in the 2017 Rift we'll see GVS.. but it does sound a little scary.
5. Re:Until... by chispito · 2013-01-09 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Not familiar with this. Does it affect people playing normal FPS games as well?
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
6. Re:Until... by Immerman · 2013-01-09 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the phenomena is not well understood or even (so far as I can tell) well researched - your explanation is only the current working theory. And it doesn't require a VR helmet to experience, though it likely intensifies the effect.
  From my brief review of the subject it seems like it tends to be most closely associated with FPS games and combat flight simulators - both of which tend to subject your avatar to very violent accelerations (just try to run, jump, or turn anywhere near as fast as your avatar is doing) an/or gimballed motion unlike what we normally experience - basically the sort of motion that would likely induce at least some motion sickness in real life. It's hardly surprising that having your senses also disagree as to what exactly is going on would make the effect worse. A simple solution might be to just limit in-game accelerations to a more realistic range.
  There's also another factor to consider - frame rate. I've long been mildly susceptible to both motion and simulator sickness, and notice that the effects get much worse if the framerate drops to the point where it starts becoming noticeable. It's quite possible that it continues beyond the level of conscious awareness as well - pushing frame rates up to a stable 60 FPS or higher might well reduce the effects dramatically.
  At any rate in all the reviews of the Occulus Rift, I've yet to hear any complaints of motion sickness
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
7. Re:Until... by bmo · 2013-01-09 14:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There is a kind of vertigo where your semi-circular canals get infected or otherwise screwed up. You basically can't walk and are bedridden until it clears up. A friend of mine suffered from this and it wasn't fun.
  Any time you mess with a biological function like this, it's safer to go slow. Permanently mess up someone's inner ear and you'll condemn him to a hell that you would wish on anyone.
  Animal testing. Lots and lots of animal testing are needed for this before it's considered safe.
  --
  BMO
8. Re:Until... by marcosdumay · 2013-01-09 14:26 · Score: 2
  
  It's the same situation that causes sickness in boats and planes.
  It may be possible to have while playing a FPS, but I've never heard of anybody that sensible. (Yet, some people have sickness while whatching TV, so it may just be due to a small sample.)
  
  --
  Rethinking email
9. Re:Until... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 14:41 · Score: 0
  
  Read the following IGN review http://www.ign.com/blogs/winzen_tween/2012/10/03/hands-on-with-the-oculus-rift-and-talking-heads/
  He reckoned that 4 in 10 of the journalists trying it at the same time as him suffered motion sickness.
10. Re:Until... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  It happens to me. I can't play FPS games. Takes 2-3 minutes and I'm nauseous.
11. Re:Until... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  Not sure if the frame rates have anything to do with my case as my PC is under-specs for newer games which I do not have issues with. It can barely do 30 fps if I turn down the settings as it only has A6-3650 IGP. I do not have motion sickness.
  I seem to have motion sickness especially for older games. Now these games can run at high frame rates on my CRT as they are less demanding on the GPU. Some of these games make me dizzy and my stomach feel sick after playing them for a couple of hours.
  Played one just today and it turns out that they intentionally have a setting that shakes the "camera" during action. Had to turn that effect off and increase mouse filtering. Even then I still feel dizzy, so I gave up.
12. Re:Until... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  I designed neural implants. This is *NOT* safe. external electrodes require significant voltage, and current, to get the current to go into the cochlear nerves. That means that, unless you surgically implant them, you're going to be overstimulating a lot of adjacent nerves in some strange, possibly destructive ways.
  Now, *implanted* electrodes might be a lot more effective, but any facial surgery has very real risks. Look into cochlear implants, used for artificial hearing, for some idea of the potential risks. There's nothing quite like needing an MRI for an injury or looking for a subtle brain tissue problem and having a receiver, powered by a coil wrapped around a magnet implanted next to your ear, to make MRI's really, really, really dangerous.
13. Re:Until... by Jmc23 · 2013-01-09 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  Easy, they just have to learn which way is up in reality. The brain compensates suprisingly quickly after a bit of time with a fixed horizon. I prescribe juggling. Fixed me up.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
14. Re:Until... by Jmc23 · 2013-01-09 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, there's my description of the phenomena as well, bonus that it's testable (not easily) and practical enough to have rid me of that horridness.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
15. Re:Until... by drkim · 2013-01-09 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  ...The only solution is to have the VR helmet also hijack the inner-ear.
  A simpler solution is to just reduce the latency of the tracker/display refresh.
  This issue was more significant in the past because tracers were sluggish and displays were slow.
  With today's graphics card running at 60+FPS and fast optical trackers it's much less of an issue.
  Of course, just as some people are prone to car-sickness and sea-sickness, the same people are vulnerable to nausea in VR.
  I've been gaming with a stereo HMD VR rig with magnetic tracking for 11 years. Some of my friends enjoy it, a few get queasy.
16. Re:Until... by drkim · 2013-01-09 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually well understood.
  It's also called sea-sickness.
  To sense our position in space, we combine data from our visual cortex with data from our inner-ear.
  If the data do not correspond, we get nauseous.
  Imagine you're below-deck on a ship. Your visual cortex is saying everything is standing still. Your inner-ear says things are rocking back and forth.
  This is also why you might get car-sick if you are looking down reading, instead of looking at the horizon.
  There is actually a useful reason for getting sick, too. As evolving animals (without ships or planes or cars) we were never in a situation where the visual cortex and the inner-ear disagreed; except when we ate something bad. (Like rotten food.)
  Ever been really, really drunk? Hanging onto the spinning ground? Puking? Same thing.
  If the visual cortex and inner-ear data disagree, the body 'knows' you've eaten something bad, and starts getting rid of it.
  You are correct in identifying frame-rate as being part of the problem/solution.
  The solution is reducing latency, the amount of time between turning your head and the display refreshing with the correct perspective. Ultimately, you need to reduce the amount of time to resolve the head-tracker's position, and quickly update the display.
  I can't wait to try out the Rift!
17. Re:Until... by Vernes · 2013-01-09 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  With all that news about plastic semiconductors giving us plastic chips, you'd think we have plastic neural implants as well.
  What gives?
18. Re:Until... by RivenAleem · 2013-01-09 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe, just maybe it's good old fasioned motion sickness? When you are in a bouncy car and you are focussed on something inside, your eyes are telling you that you are not bouncing, while your ears are telling you you are bouncing. This conflict if sensory inputs is what makes you sick. Why do you think it happens to children more than adults? They are often too small, or not interested in looking outside the car and are busy watching/playing with something inside it.
  If I'm ever on a long bus journey, and am reading a book, I can feel it coming on, though simply looking outside for 5 minutes in ever 20-30 of reading cures it. This is also why you never get motion sickness when you sleep on a journey.
  There's no need to make up new things when the problem is easily solved. Attaching an accelerometer to the headset and making the picture shift and 'bounce' as you move your head will fix this.
  Someone using a simulator like this one here will likely get sick as when the 'car' banks to the left or right, the horizon in the screen doesn't adjust, so the eyes will see one reality, and the ears will feel another. Just another case of standard motion sickness, easily fixed with an accelerometer.
19. Re:Until... by grumbel · 2013-01-10 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  There is Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation, if that however will ever be able to give detailed enough feedback and be easy enough to use in a consumer device is another question. Till then we can always take ginger pills to cure the motion sickness.
20. Re:Until... by MobyDisk · 2013-01-10 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Fortunately humans are animals!
21. Re:Until... by bmo · 2013-01-10 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Because induction coils still need to be made of metals. Because physics.
  --
  BMO
22. Re:Until... by PantherSE · 2013-01-10 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, as a pilot I experience this sometimes--especially when flying when visibility is not so great. The feel on the seat of my pants is not agreeing with what I'm seeing outside and in my instruments. When I was in flight school my instructor always told me to prioritize what I'm seeing, not what I'm feeling in the seat of my pants. I wonder if the same technique can be used to prevent simulator sickness?
23. Re:Until... by bmo · 2013-01-10 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  >Till then we can always take ginger pills to cure the motion sickness.
  I did know that gingers had no souls but I didn't know we ground them up into pills.
  --
  BMO
Suggestion. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 12:37 · Score: 0

Hook it up to a Fleshlight, or even better yet, a RealDoll.
1. Re:Suggestion. by loufoque · 2013-01-09 12:39 · Score: 2
  
  a hooker might end up cheaper than all this tech.
2. Re:Suggestion. by qwak23 · 2013-01-09 13:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  A hooker? maybe.
  20 hookers? probably not.
  Look at it as an investment.
3. Re:Suggestion. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  or vagina.
hands on, virtual reality by slick7 · 2013-01-09 12:42 · Score: 1

how demented

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
I threw them some cash.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 12:51 · Score: 0

I'm waiting for the arrival of the unit as well as a t-shirt and poster. Personally I'm excited to see what kind of interesting things that I'll be able to do with this. Should be fun.
Re:Not everybody wants to play soldier by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-09 14:46 · Score: 0

You have obviously not played Amnesia then. That version of the game should come with diapers, because you will probably shit yourself real fast.
Re:Not everybody wants to play soldier by gl4ss · 2013-01-09 19:14 · Score: 1

driving games I think will be big with this.
and maybe you should try playing fallout3 with a non aggressive character who tries to stay out of trouble.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
limits of the Unreal Engine? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-10 00:32 · Score: 0

From TFA:
"It wasn't quite realistic, but that was only because of the limits of the Unreal Engine and not the Oculus VR itself."
That's a bold claim considering UE3 is one of the most advanced engines out there.
"This is where the seams in the demo showed, because the textures of things like the stone walls and wooden shutters appear completely flat without advanced bump making, pixel shading, and other effects, so it looked more like I was staring at a house that was wallpapered to look like it was made of stone and wood."
Sounds like they're using the mobile version of the engine? Especially since Citadel and Infinity Blade are mentioned, which are mobile apps.
I would speculate they used the mobile renderer since it uses OpenGL and they have the distortion shader written only for that. Still not the best choice to show off the tech using an inferior version of the engine...
Is the focus adjustable by Sigg3.net · 2013-01-10 01:53 · Score: 1

for the many (majority?) of people with bad eyesight and different sight on each eye?
I remember going to SEGA world 15 years ago. The VR rides were popular, but the helmets could not fit the glasses inside, so it was a blurry experience to say the least.
+ a few years, ditto with Avatar, but at least I could get through the film wearing two glasses.

--
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Unrealistic? by Scragglykat · 2013-01-10 02:54 · Score: 1

Of course it's unrealistic! It's Unreal!
Discount Nike shox shoes,Air max shoes sale by ronusiah · 2013-01-15 02:43 · Score: 0

Hello!!! everybody, Fashion,low price,the good shoping place, click in. ===== ( http://www.sheptrade.com/ ) ===== Discount Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35, Air max shoes (TN LTD BW 90 180) $36, Nike/shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35, Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $36, T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $20, Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$35, Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach,Armaini )$16, Watches(Rolex BREITLING IWC) New era cap $12, Discount (NFL MLB NBA NHL) jerseys, free shipping, Accept credit card payment! ===== ( http://www.sheptrade.com/ ) =====