Lu 

The Big VR Thread

Recommended Posts

I tried two demos of the GearVR at the local Best Buy. It was really interesting to see how it differed from what I imagined it would be. I thought it would feel like I was in the room, but it didn't. It was still super cool and I'm very much excited about it. The two demos I tried were some Cirque du Soleil performance and some under-sea tour with mobile-phone-fidelity models for the fish and icebergs.

The Cirque du Soleil performance felt like a tech demo; something you would see playing on demo television sets in a store. The VR-aspect was that it was like I was inside a sphere in which the screen covered the inside (though it didn't distort as that visualization would imply). I didn't feel like I was actually on stage or anything, it was more like some sort of peep-hole themed Disney attraction. It was novel, but not especially exciting.

The under-sea tour with mid-fidelity fish models was much more interesting for me. Again, I didn't feel as if I was there...much. It felt more like I was operating a periscope that could look in any direction. Still, after the first minute or so, I did find myself becoming accustomed to it and I asked myself "How is this different from a typical screen-display?" It would just sound obvious to say it, that the sense of scale is much improved and the presentation surrounds you. It really was a you-have-to-try-it-to-understand kind of thing to me, but that description hypes it up too much. Imagine if you took a CRT-television and built the screen to fit the entire inside of a 2-foot diameter helmet; that's more like what this is like. It was still really exciting though. looking down gave me a surprising sense of the depth below me. Looking up was exciting to do in a different way than looking up when swimming under-water in a FarCry 3. Removing the borders from the screen has a profound effect on how I consumed the illusion. That demo starts with you in a fixed position and then starts to move you forward. When you begin to move forward, it was a very similar feeling to being on a Spaceship Earth style Disney ride. I'm excited. It was really novel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The VR-aspect was that it was like I was inside a sphere in which the screen covered the inside (though it didn't distort as that visualization would imply).

 

This is exactly what happens with 360 video - it's stitched in a spherical projection and then stored in (usually) equirectangular mapping (to make it rectangular). It can be quite good but, as you say, the limitations are obvious. You'll notice that if you look up and down you'll probably see some distortion too - think texture stretching on badly mapped 3D models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what happens with 360 video - it's stitched in a spherical projection and then stored in (usually) equirectangular mapping (to make it rectangular). It can be quite good but, as you say, the limitations are obvious. You'll notice that if you look up and down you'll probably see some distortion too - think texture stretching on badly mapped 3D models.

 

Interesting. I'm guessing that stuff generated with engines like Unity and Unreal are fundamentally different in how they are displayed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a great experience write-up Clyde, thanks! I have a Note4 and have been researching the Gear VR that it is compatible with, which is the Innovator Edition that is already out.

 

Do the 360 Videos have stereoscopic depth? If there's no separate unique image data for left and right eye, it's going to read as a flat image plastered on a wall. 

 

Games running realtime should almost certainly have stereoscopy, and therefore give all the illusions of depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time being confident that something is or is not 3d, but I'm thinking that the Cirque du Soleil was not ( especially after davej's comment) and that the under-sea demo was. I'm pretty sure this was the case.

 

edit: Thinking about it more, I think this has to do with the importance of positional tracking versus the importance of stereoscopy. If I close one eye and move my head everything looks more 3d to me than if I have two eyes open and keep my head still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only VR headset I've experienced so far is the "Game-of-Thrones Ride-the-Elevator up The-Wall VR Experience" on what I'm thinking was a Rift DK1. Super screen door, periscope vision, and a super simple demo. Still exciting!

 

 

There are a couple of great John Carmack presentations on youtube about developing for Gear VR and all its pitfalls and what applications could work well. Lots of swivel chair gaming.

 

I wonder if stereoscopic equirectangular videos exist, or is even possible? It's not exactly 'as easy' as doing two stitched 360 videos off-set from each other. That feels like it wouldn't work, it'd be like looking at a projected 3D movie sideways. Googled it a bit, yeah it's a whole different can of worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I'll get either an Oculus or Valve VR when they are available. What are the expectations for the pros/cons of each?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vive requires space.

 

Oculus doesn't.

 

Other than that, Vive is the clear winner, 100%. The feeling of actually physically being in a space is so much, so so so so much better than just being a floating head holding a controller.

 

But I guess it also depends on the kinds of games people make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vive requires space.

 

Oculus doesn't.

 

Other than that, Vive is the clear winner, 100%. The feeling of actually physically being in a space is so much, so so so so much better than just being a floating head holding a controller.

 

But I guess it also depends on the kinds of games people make.

Does the vive require space, or just require it for that camera feature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair question. Not sure, to be honest! I'd imagine only if you want to move around, but I don't know. Head movement tracking may be done with the camera and without any gyro sensors at all... Not sure. Don't know. Not sure!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vive requires space.

 

Oculus doesn't.

 

Other than that, Vive is the clear winner, 100%. The feeling of actually physically being in a space is so much, so so so so much better than just being a floating head holding a controller.

 

But I guess it also depends on the kinds of games people make.

I don't think that the Vive requires a space as such, but it sounds like that is the killer feature. However, if you are sitting down then apparently the experiences are very similar. For example, Elite Dangerous is compatible with Vive and OR; it was showing recently at the ED stand and also the VIve stand. People report that using the Oculus controllers results in a similarly engrosing experience to Vive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... My computer room is about 10 m2 (ca 100 feet2). It's possible for me to keep that room relatively empty and mostly available for VR-ing, at least for now, but I wonder if that would still be a bit small for Vive. But even if a little space enhances the feeling of presence that much, it might be worth it... But then maybe it will turn out to be a gimmick as I realize I don't want to play games standing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Vive doesn't require space if you're happy to use it sitting down. I suspect it'll be a lot better even for sitting experiences than the Oculus though - the way it does tracking means you don't have to worry about getting your head outside the camera's viewcone and messing everything up (potentially extremely disorienting)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valve stated a bunch of times that the large tracking volume is a feature of the Vive, but that it's not at all a requirement. I would suspect a lot of first wave VR will be about sitting down or just standing around looking at stuff. If only because a lot of the titles will be compatible with multiple headsets and the only major disparate feature is the larger tracking size of the Vive. Lowest common denominator maybe? 

 

I suppose the biggest differentiator will probably be price and default input device? Since Oculus Touch won't launch until some time after the headset is out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if stereoscopic equirectangular videos exist, or is even possible? It's not exactly 'as easy' as doing two stitched 360 videos off-set from each other. That feels like it wouldn't work, it'd be like looking at a projected 3D movie sideways. Googled it a bit, yeah it's a whole different can of worms.

 

Stereoscopic equirectangular does exist but is broken in some fundamental ways. Jaunt / Google / Milk VR all have done some stereoscopic 360. It's pretty decent when you're looking at the horizon but looking up and down won't work and tilting your head completely breaks it. If anyone wants a further explanation of why give me a shout!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vive requires space.

 

Oculus doesn't.

 

Both of these statements are untrue in some cases. If you don't want a huge play area the vive can be used seated, likewise if you want a large Oculus play area you need some space.

 

If you buy an Oculus with controllers you'll receive 2 tracking cameras that do the same job as the Vive reference lighthouse tech. I have both these units at work and, although the vive seems the most robust at the moment, the Oculus commercial product is shaping up to be pretty solid too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know, I'm not sure they have gone into specifics on the specs for the Rift tracking cameras, aside that you can hook up multiple cameras to solve for occlusion problems... But in the demos they've been showing off for the past months, the tracking volume is at least large enough you can walk around a bit, but not to the extent of the Vive tracking solution. Another thing is that the Rift cameras have to be plugged in via USB (I think??), whereas I'm pretty sure HTC/Valve said the Lighthouse tracking units would be wireless for the consumer version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oculus with the controllers has walkin-around VR? I was pretty sure that wasn't the case

 

As Lu notes, it's not quite the space that you can have with the Lighthouse/Laser technology from the Valve ref (and the HTC Vive) technology but it's big enough for /most/ people I'd wager, it's surprising how much you can do in a reasonably small space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a first (not kept up with the Vive too much), but the new betas for Elite Dangerous available right now are Vive compatible :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've only played with the Samsung GearVr. My conceptualization of why I would want an Oculus Rift have dramatically changed based off of my experiences with the Gear. It didn't matter how many times someone told me that player-movement isn't enjoyable in VR, I never believed it until I used the Gear and now I understand. So now, as we are approaching the ability to buy a consumer-model of the Oculus Rift, I'm asking myself, "Are there games I want to play in VR where the camera never lerps?" and I'm not sure there are. The reasons I want to play games in VR are largely the same reasons that I want my camera to lerp (a high-fidelity sense of exploring interesting places).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by 'lerp'? That word usually means linear interpolation, so you mean camera movement smoothing when you move your head or something?

 

I actually got to try DK2 the other day. We only had a laptop so it didn't really run well, but I tried the demo where you sit in a chair and have to keep looking around to make it go forward. Some notes:

1) that's the stupidest idea of progress ever (seems like the faster you move your head around the faster it goes).

2) I actually had to grab the chair when I was high up (in space). I really felt it! I'm kind of excited / scared about trying something like The Walk.

3) I also really felt it when in the end the chair did a see-saw motion, but stopped feeling it immediately when camera started rolling. It seems the body/brain can take small lies, but if you lie big there's an immediate disconnect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean moving over time rather than teleporting to a new spot (which could also be considered "moving" so I was trying to be clear).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I get it now. I think lerp usually means tiny correctional movement but you meant something bigger, like e.g. not jumping from a cliff to a castle, but moving there naturally?

 

This would mean rather limited space to explore though, wouldn't it? Or some sort of dream-like trickery like in the Oculus demo I mentioned, which changes what is behind you while you are looking in the other direction. I imagine a small empty space for e.g. Vive would already help, where you could lie to the player a bit about how much they are moving and turning compared to real life. But such lies would be tricky to maintain for longer experiences I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now