Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3D Windowing System Developed Using Wayland, Oculus Rift

Posted by timothy on from the mind-the-vertigo dept.

An anonymous reader writes Developed as part of a university master thesis is this "truly 3D" windowing system environment. The 3D desktop was developed as a Qt Wayland compositor and output to an Oculus Rift display and then controlled using a high-precision Razer mouse. Overall, it's interesting research for bringing 2D windows into a 3D workspace using Wayland and the Oculus Rift. The code is hosted as the Motorcar Compositor. A video demonstration is on YouTube.

47 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. What I predict is by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    Less productiviy.

    Visually appealing stuff is nice, but the best way to use a word processor or a spreadsheet is still the good old flat desktop with no bells and whistles.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:What I predict is by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is meant to be used in a real world environment. Not yet at least.

      It's a nice proof of concept.

      What I've really wanted was a virtual desktop where if i turned my head left, I got a palette or brushes or debugging inspector or something and looking forward gave me my main workspace. Looking up gives me mail or something.

      I don't know if it'll work in reality, but...

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:What I predict is by deek · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you're entirely right. The 2D UI has evolved, in a way, as a metaphor to interactions with real world items. A 3D UI will do the same. Windows will still be needed in a 3D interface, much like how a book or notepad or projector screen is needed in our 3D reality. It's not an artifact of the older interface, but rather a natural way in which we parcel and digest information.

  2. Mechanism: check. Now policy by tepples · · Score: 2

    Now that we have the mechanism, the next step is policy. I'd suggest rules like these: windows aren't spawned too close to another window, menus and window-modal dialogs float at x distance above the parent window, the cursor leaves a faint glow on windows, windows and the cursor leave a shadow x pixels thick on a desktop plane, a window can't be "rolled" (positioned such that the local X axis isn't parallel to the ground plane) more than momentarily, etc.

    1. Re:Mechanism: check. Now policy by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Indeed. In fact while I can see value in occasionally having the ability to arbitrarily orient windows in 3-space, I suspect having them default to the surface of a head-centered sphere at roughly arms length, oriented parallel to lines of latitude, would probably be the optimal solution. Movement would default to polar translation, with the window plane automatically rotating to remain remain tangent to the sphere, with the addition of being able to adjust depth as well. There's likely not many reasons to have the window planes diverge much from tangent unless dealing with a truly massive number of windows, in which case being able to "teleport" between spheres is likely more useful (analogous to having multiple desktops)

      I could see how roll could be useful though, especially when working on graphics that will be seen from multiple orientations (floor decorations for example)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Mechanism: check. Now policy by nullchar · · Score: 1

      Working from the inside of a [virtual] sphere would be pretty sweet. Once you start sphere hopping though, you'll need a metaverse to navigate between them.

  3. What's old is new again by Dynedain · · Score: 4, Informative

    Everything cycles around.

    This tech existed 10-15 years ago. There were "popular" options for IRIX, and common in CAVE setups.

    I attended SIGGRAPH in 2000 or so on an exhibitor pass for a company that was producing a 3D window manager to do exactly this.

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    1. Re:What's old is new again by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But in theory each time it cycles its less expensive, more advanced, and more available.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:What's old is new again by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's this? A lack of cynicism in a post?

      Crucify him! Crucify him!

    3. Re:What's old is new again by nurb432 · · Score: 2

      It happens. Not often these days it seems, but it happens.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:What's old is new again by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      But in theory each time it cycles its less expensive, more advanced, and more available.

      And just as useless.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    5. Re:What's old is new again by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I will hold of judgement until i see the real thing. However, even if it is useless this cycle, every time something comes "back around" it gets more and more useful as it is refined. Plus all the collateral improvements in other related technology that happens is nothing to discount either.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:What's old is new again by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      That is what is said about a lot of technology in the beginning. Time and time again, that defeatist attitude is proven wrong, and those people who are short sighted, are just that and there is not basis on reality.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    7. Re:What's old is new again by exomondo · · Score: 1

      It would be defeatist if it were being dismissed on the failings of the implementation - like low resolution, low refresh rate or inaccurate head tracking - but it isn't defeatist to point out that even if perfectly implemented this idea still doesn't provide anything useful. With the low price of monitors and projectors these days it's not particularly difficult or expensive to build a physical implementation of this where you surround yourself with displays but it still isn't useful or beneficial for a desktop. CAVE setups were fantastic for things like CAVEquake but were useless for desktop applications/processes, not for any technological reason, just that the concept itself is awkward.

    8. Re:What's old is new again by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      even if perfectly implemented this idea still doesn't provide anything useful

      Again, i have heard that time and time again, from people with limited minds that cant see outside their own little box. If people like you had their way, we would still be living in caves "i dont see any need to go outside, its just fine in this here cave"

      Idiot.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    9. Re:What's old is new again by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Again, i have heard that time and time again, from people with limited minds that cant see outside their own little box.

      Wrong, this whole concept and usable implementations have been around for decades and people don't use them because they aren't useful, not because there is anything wrong with the implementation just that some people can't understand that the square peg doesn't fill the round hole no matter how many times you re-implement the same square peg.

      If people like you had their way, we would still be living in caves "i dont see any need to go outside, its just fine in this here cave"

      I'm perfectly open to new ideas and innovation, but this isn't new or innovative, this is just flogging the dead horse.

    10. Re:What's old is new again by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point, if one of these UI "innovations" was actually useful it would have had some measure of adoption by now.

      The absolute zero adoption of this concept in the 20+ years it's been around proves how pointless it is.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  4. Turn your head to switch documents by tepples · · Score: 2

    the best way to use a word processor or a spreadsheet is still the good old flat desktop with no bells and whistles

    Unless you want to quickly view more documents than your desk has monitors. This could let you have 180 degrees of documents surrounding you. A securities day trader would climax over this.

    1. Re:Turn your head to switch documents by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Does the warranty on a Bloomberg terminal cover...'fluid damage'?

    2. Re:Turn your head to switch documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "180 degrees of low-rez, headache-inducing documents might just make that hypothetical trader of yours shoot himself in the face"

      So, what you're saying is that this should be implemented immediately then?

    3. Re:Turn your head to switch documents by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The inherent problem here is that you really need more resolution than any of the current options are offering if you're going to do Real Work(tm) in 3d.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Turn your head to switch documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well then let's work on getting him and his colleagues those monitors right away!

    5. Re:Turn your head to switch documents by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the best way to use a word processor or a spreadsheet is still the good old flat desktop with no bells and whistles

      Unless you want to quickly view more documents than your desk has monitors. This could let you have 180 degrees of documents surrounding you. A securities day trader would climax over this.

      CTRL+TAB is faster than turning and focusing on a different monitor.
      Next challenger, please.

    6. Re:Turn your head to switch documents by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      History indicates that the resolution will increase rather quickly.

    7. Re:Turn your head to switch documents by strikethree · · Score: 1

      CTRL+TAB is faster than turning and focusing on a different monitor.
      Next challenger, please.

      Not really. Yes, if you are turning 180 degrees and trying to find something, then maybe. If I am just cocking my head 30 degrees or so in any direction, my eyes and neck are considerably faster. Anything in the generally forward area is going to MUCH faster than alt/ctrl tab.

      Tabbing requires me to refocus my attention and try to understand the new things being displayed to me. Moving my gaze about does not require rediscovery.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    8. Re:Turn your head to switch documents by fuzzywig · · Score: 1
      "A securities day trader would climax over this."

      Funny you should say that.

    9. Re:Turn your head to switch documents by tepples · · Score: 1

      Your link led to a "not found" page. What did you intend to paste?

  5. Apple patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think Apple was granted a patent on something similar to this recently (apple wins patents on 3d technology in desktop user interfaces).

    http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-wins-patents-on-3d-technology-in-desktop-user-interfaces/

    1. Re:Apple patent by armanox · · Score: 2

      And I think SGI might have prior art (I'd have to read Apple's patent to be sure).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  6. nauseating by kharchenko · · Score: 2

    I was looking forward to using rift at work, but this looks like a guy is desperately trying to type in a "deploy parachute" command into the terminal while tumbling through the air at horrible speeds.

  7. Re:The 90s called... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    Your comment brought to mind the dopest accessory ever for the NES, as immortalized in the epic film "The Wizard". Yes, I'm referring to the Power Glove.

    Those little shits won't stand a chance at Super Mario Bros. 3 now.

  8. Re:Reboot by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    /sarcasm: What, you don't like the constant reboot / remake / re-imaging / regurgitation of Hollywood recycling old movies? ;)

  9. No, God damn it! by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a reason I don't have 13 desks in my office, and a reason I have a three-wide monitor configuration. I want to see everything at once, not have to sift or "wander" through some 3D space to find what I'm looking for.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:No, God damn it! by strikethree · · Score: 1

      There's a reason I don't have 13 desks in my office, and a reason I have a three-wide monitor configuration. I want to see everything at once, not have to sift or "wander" through some 3D space to find what I'm looking for.

      That is the interesting thing about the Rift. You can have 3 monitors side by side by side in virtual space. You could surround yourself in an entire sphere of giant monitor. You do not have to walk down the hallway to another virtual office to access another virtual monitor. Just because someone else likes it that way, that does not mean it has to be that way for you.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  10. Needs a lot of work. by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this technology has a lot of potential. Right now it drives me nuts just looking at it. The windows jitter too much and make me want to take my glasses off and rub my eyes 5 seconds into it.

    --
    Finding God in a Dog
    1. Re:Needs a lot of work. by Tumalu · · Score: 2

      Most of the jittering in the video is due to the head movements of the user and is not actually noticable to the person wearing the goggles. In fact, if the jittering weren't present it would probably be a very uncomfortable experience for most people.

      It's kind of like when you're looking at a physical monitor: As your head moves around slightly, the position of the monitor's projection onto your retina would also jitter, but it doesn't feel like the monitor is moving because your brain subconciously compensates for these movements based on data from your vestibular system. At the same time, if you had a camera strapped to your forehead, the position of your monitor would look jittery to someone observing the video stream unless the camera or the playback device was compensating for it.

      Watching this video on YouTube is the equivilint of watching someone work at a computer from the perspective of a camera strapped to their forehead.

  11. But does it help the user understand faster? by tepples · · Score: 2

    Faster is not always better for human-computer interfaces if faster misses cues that the user uses to relate one piece of information to another. Ctrl+Tab, despite being technically faster, fails to take advantage of the brain's hardwired spatial relationship processing. It also fails to fill the peripheral vision.

    1. Re:But does it help the user understand faster? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Peripheral vision for document reading? LOL!
      Spatial relationship processing? LOL! LOL!

    2. Re:But does it help the user understand faster? by tepples · · Score: 1

      It's faster for a machine to update a tiny 8-character display like the one on a Speak & Spell. But how is it faster for people to read from such a display?

    3. Re:But does it help the user understand faster? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Faster isn't helpful when the brain is thinking "Where'd it go?". Otherwise, we'd be reading through lightning-fast terminals that display one word at once.

  12. I know this! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    It's UNIX!

    1. Re:I know this! by tepples · · Score: 1

      When SGI does it, it's called fsn. But when Microsoft does the same thing, it's called Bob.

    2. Re:I know this! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Did Jurrassic Park come out so long ago that nobody gets the reference anymore?

      I'm old! ;_;

  13. Virtual machines by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    I've always wanted a silly interface for virtual machines, where I can walk in a 3D game and there's computers on the table which are showing the picture of the actual virtual machines running on my computer.

  14. dumbass by Cammi · · Score: 1

    so a 2d object is required to navigate a "3d" environment? Someone turned stupid.

  15. Warning: incoming game. by tepples · · Score: 1

    Nope, just the all-CGI cartoon that Nintendo stole the name of its 2001 game console from. "When the user loads a game, a GameCube drops on a random location in Mainframe."

  16. Interesting by Warbothong · · Score: 1

    But if I had a headset strapped on, I'd rather be in an immersive world like OpenCroquet/Cobalt/Qwak[1] (which support VNC for accessing "legacy" applications) than a white space surrounded by floating rectangles.

    [1] https://code.google.com/p/open... https://virtual.wf/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...