| Author | Message | ||
     VRone Rating: N/A |
What would you like to see in a new consumer HMD? There's at least one new consumer level HMD in the oven and with cheap hardware acceleration, more affordable tracking and display systems on the horizon and no Holodeck(sorry for the Trek reference-- I'm not a big fan of the show) technology in sight perhaps a discussion on what we as the VR savvy enthusiasts and or professional would like to see in a new HMD would be valuable to companies that will be making them. So please throw in your input, and please let's make as few references to existing products as possible and talk about design elements and technology. Issues: Price Visual Quality: FOV Resolution Optics Tracking Shell Design Glasses vs Wrap vs Helmut Mount And ideas to make them cheaper New technology applications to consumer HMDs etc... | ||
| Michal Husak Rating: N/A |
O.K. Price range: 600-1000 $ Res: at least 640x480, preferably 800x400 FOV: about 50 dg. Stereoscopy: compatibilty with interlaced image, HW page fliped image, above/below format, VESA min-DIN 3 conctor sync as a option + able to sync to monitor signal and able to do internal line blanking. Compatible with both NTSC and PAL stereo and mono video Tracking: the quality of the 3DOF tracking in VFX3D is sufficient. Aditonal cheap XYZ tracking based on ultrasocin time of flight navigation as a option for aditinal fee Helm montage Wireles conection or at least longer cable than the VFX3D one ... Microphone for voice recognition commands (IBM ViaVoice is probably the first code witch realy works for this purpose) Make cheper: maybe 2 point ultrasonic navigation instead of the solid sensor one. It will give 6 DOF | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
Okay, my input on the subject: Issues: Overall consensus seems to point to the weight issue. relocating components outside the HMD, into cases connected by the cables you need to use anyways could be a solution. only components that REQUIRE connection to the users head should be integrated. non-critical components , such as driver circuits and such, should be externally housed. It may not be nessesary to encase the entire head, so long as the display and audio are immersive and the weight evenly balanced on the user's head. Real-world pass-thru display would be nice, but could be overlooked if price were an issue. Price: an acceptable range would be about $500-$1500, pricier models should include extra features (like improved optics or tracking). Visual Quality: It should be able to handle stereo with only one video connection. support for page-flipping and interlace modes are a must! this is to maintain the widest software support available. FOV: you NEED peripheral vision for good VR. Michal's suggestion of 50° is okay, but the wider the FOV, the better. Resolution: 640x480 bare minimum (the lowest RES supported by most software running in hi-color) Maybe the display can be upgradable to higher-res model at a later date to keep costs down. 1024x768 res would look incredible in a HMD, but then again, so would 800x600, but, I'm trying to be realistic here in terms of cost. Optics: Use of mirror/Prisims or frensel optics, to keep the weight down and focus sharp. traditional optical lenses distort the image too much. Frensel lenses can have a curvature put on them. Frensel lenses are cheap. go Frensel to keep the costs down. Tracking: 3DOF initally, but add an upgrade jack to add additional trackers (3DOF upgradable to 6DOF) this would allow the HMD to be cheap for entry-level stuff, but give it room to grow for the advanced users. Shell Design Glasses vs Wrap vs Helmut Mount Wrap design is okay, if the weight is balanced. Helmets distribute the weight better, but if the optics seal against the face well, and the sound system is good, wrap-around HMD's ate still viable. Perhaps a hybrid of the two technologies is in order here. ideas to make them cheaper Have most of the chores controlled by software rather than hardware. PC's keep getting faster, and extra hardware adds cost and weight; two things that are trying to be eliminated. Look into software alternatives for specialized hardware scemes. LCD displays have gotten better and cheaper, tracking options have expanded. I would suggest looking into TFT (thin film transitor) displays. perhaps making them reflective rather than backlit (add a translucent window to the top of the unit to allow surrounding light to illuminate the display. just an idea, it worked with the gameboy!) Making the HMD a bare-bones stereo viewer would be good for this, but make it expandable. PC's don't often incorporate all the features one desires, but can be upgraded to meet their needs. HMD tech needs the same qualities. Lastly, make it only VGA compatible! Adding scan convertors to make it work with NTSC/PAL isn't that big a deal. HMD's are for serious VR, not watching movies on a VCR. If someone wants to do this, they can buy a seperate scan convertor to handle that chore. New technology applications to consumer HMDs etc... Hmm... Force feedback! little "vibration" motors, like are in pagers or FF mouse. Yeah, that'd be neat. Also, a pass-thru display setup to allow for MR experimentaion/application, or as a wearable PC display. The technology is begining to head in that direction a bit anyway, and the product will get a wider consumer base. -Eric L. | ||
| Patrick Rating: N/A |
Pretty much resolution + fov = immersiveness It'd be nice to see HMDs with a minimum 1024x768 by 90+ degrees fov (per eye) as a baseline. And it's very do'able with todays tech. For instance DLP technoloy could be used to scan images onto slightly curved 2" screens to provide high resolution, high contrast images with high degrees of fov. In fact because of the high refresh rate of DLP; one chip could handle alternativly scanning images onto both left and right eyes, although the screens would have to be flat and it would reduce resolution and fov. So far companies have relied on old technologies (lcd and crt) as components of new technology displays (HMDs). I believe that VR will remain a hobbyist distraction and will only go mainstream when companies begin to truly take the technology seriously. Remember when Apple and IBM sold computers for $1500 that had less than 2MHz processors with 48k of RAM? We now laugh at the fact that we payed so much and thought so much of them. HMDs are at that point now. I prefer to skip the future embaressment of saying I paid so much for so little. | ||
| Patrick Rating: N/A |
Pretty much resolution + fov = immersiveness It'd be nice to see HMDs with a minimum 1024x768 by 90+ degrees fov (per eye) as a baseline. And it's very do'able with todays tech. For instance DLP technoloy could be used to scan images onto slightly curved 2" screens to provide high resolution, high contrast images with high degrees of fov. In fact because of the high refresh rate of DLP; one chip could handle alternativly scanning images onto both left and right eyes, although the screens would have to be flat and it would reduce resolution and fov. So far companies have relied on old technologies (lcd and crt) as components of new technology displays (HMDs). I believe that VR will remain a hobbyist distraction and will only go mainstream when companies begin to truly take the technology seriously. Remember when Apple and IBM sold computers for $1500 that had less than 2MHz processors with 48k of RAM? We now laugh at the fact that we payed so much and thought so much of them. HMDs are at that point now. I prefer to skip the future embaressment of saying I paid so much for so little. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Bluetooth for WIRELESS helmuts with most of the hardware elsewhere than the head, I can't belive that some helmuts needs to be hung from the roof to be wearable for longer the 5 mins... WIRELESS is KING! | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
As one of the developers of the i-glasses! product my opinion is: Consumers won't buy it in sufficient quantity unless the price is around $99. The VR hype days of Jaron Lanier and VPL when people would actually buy a VictorMaxx for $300 are over. $50 shutter glasses provide excellent stereo3D, yet still barely sell in the consumer market. Given that the consumer market is not going to be profitable, spend whatever it takes to build an HMD that works well: ergonomic, light, zero-lag tracking (yes, it's possible: the tracker has to be faster than the display refresh). Target government, research, and big corporations as customers. Charge $2000-5000 each. There aren't enough hobbyists to support cheaper HMD's and turn a profit to sustain any kind of growth. Build custom micro-thin optics with holographic wide angle lenses and holographic collimation (exists today). Use the new light-emitting plastic devices for the displays. Thus, you can have an HMD that looks like a pair of sunglasses. Wireless is a good idea if you didn't have to power the device. Lithium batteries are reasonably light, though, so wireless with a charging station and rapid swap batteries would be useful. Tracker has to be inertial (gyros+accelerometers), with an EM (electro-magnetoresistor) reference cal (probably patented by InterSense; we thought of this while developing the tracker for the i-glasses! in 1995; it's pretty obvious and easy to do). Make it look cool. Get someone with $100M to burn to develop it correctly, and can fend off Sony, etc., when it becomes a viable consumer product. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
One more thing, to implement wireless, you'll need to compress and stream the video digitally within FCC spectrum guidelines. Using 802.11b, you've got 11Mbps (about 5.5Mbps in practice) to work with. Need more bandwidth, use more channels (using 10 channels would provide 111Mbps). You then run into power and radiation issues. BTW, $100M is probably not enough. Perhaps get Sony to fund it and skip the defense step. The reality here is that as soon as materials exist to mass produce quality HMD's, everyone will build them (Sony, Matsushita, Microsoft ("SideWinder Eyes")). They'll still have to deal with the "Pickle Factor" (consumers are Picky and Fickle). | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
While all good thoughts and ideas, some of the above defeats the purpose of this discussion. the goal here is to voice to the public at large what we want in a consumer-level HMD. discussing pricey configurations is not an option here, as it defeats the purpose of the entire exercise. The above scenario is good if you're Disney, and you are charging people $50+ a pop to play with your hardware, but for a consuming and developing public, it is unacceptable. High prices on technology causes it to stagnate. Example: IBM used to be the king of the hill when it came to computer technology. as soon some small-time geeks got into the buisness (Jobs, the Woz and Bill Gates) the consumer market had cheaper, better alternatives. If IBM still ran the show, the PC wouldn't exist, and neither would this forum. A technology made available to the consumer public for a fair price makes that technology flourish. The same thing happened with the automobile when Henry Ford got involved. Also, remember, Windows PC's are the most prevailant technology today, and Microsoft used to do only software! Software support is the deciding factor in any technology. As for customers being fickle, that's the price of getting into the consumer market. If a company is getting nothing but negative criticizm for their product, manufacturers should look at a reason other than the end-user, after all, that's where the money comes from. If someone ran a restaraunt, and everybody who tried their food thought it sucked (this eatery exists, it's called Monocle's Pizza!) then it would stand to reason that this was because the food tasted bad, not because the customers had no tastebuds. People complain about PC problems regularly, due to the fact they don't fully understand the technology behind it, but this argument only goes so far when defending an inferior (or over-priced) piece of hardware. Common sense and discretion should always come into play here. perhaps the consumer market isn't truly ready for a real HMD. However, if the procut were good enough, and the price within reach, not to mention software support being in place as well, then the consumer market would buy it. Sony was on the right track for a while, but they gave it up to play with robotic dogs! (just think, they are barely selling ANY of those wacky do-dads!) It stands to reason that any attempt to "decide" what the public wants is a corporate kamikaze mission. Sure, Aibo is cute, but I'd rather have a stereo glasstron. -Eric L. Another deciding factor is standardization. the standards of HMD tech are too loose, leaving holes and incompatibilities in available products. industry standarization in VR tech would help the market become diverse and let it flourish. Wireless is a nice idea, but only one step at a time. When the technology gets better and cheaper, it will probably become standard. Hell, most desktop mice are still wired. I would suggest that the proponents of wireless aspects give it time to develop further. | ||
| Michal Husak Rating: N/A |
My opinion is, that in the near future will come a combined wearable device: MobilePhone,PC,HMD,TV,mp3 player, disctaphone, maybe video camera in one ... The displays on existing Mobil Phones are just so small ... I just do not know what will be the best way of interaction with souch device ... Probaly the voice recognition in some advanced form ... | ||
| VRone Rating: N/A |
The i-glass developer poster makes some good input, but I respectfully disagree with the i-glass developer on one point, the main one, that is "[the public will not be interested in an affordable and for lack of a better word "cheap" HMD-- as evidence look at past consumer level HMD success.]" I think that's not accurate. The fact is that (with all due respect to the developers of both) the VFX1 and I-glasses had enormous flaws in their original design which could have been easily avoided and led to poor sales; even someone willing to fork out the bucks is going to expect a comfortable easy to integrate HMD. Neither the VFX1 or the i-glasses was that. (The Stuntmaster and the likes of other lowend HMDs were torture devices disguised as HMDs --all rushed to market. They weren't even close-- never in the game. ) The VFX1 had the VIP card-- which was almost impossible to get to work with someone's existing graphic card. (And it can't work with hardware accelerated machines.) Also, you had to OPEN up your computer to install it-- okay for many devices-- but not for a "game" device. The clever (I mean that sincerely (hard to tell when writing)) engineers at Forte made a big mistake that cost them the company, and IIS picked up what was left and made it right (at a price too high for consumers-- but they never said that was their market, eh). Now , again with all due respect to anyone who worked on the i-glasses, it was uncomfortable to wear (especially with tracker attached) and was not designed as an "immersive entertainment consumer HMD." The target market for this device was the likes of the high tech minded/game enthusiast and VR enthusiast but instead it was marketed as a personal TV viewer-- a product that had NO references-- the public didn't know what this was. (VR at least had movies.) A big effort was made to pitch these to dentists-- perhaps this was a good idea but it resulted in too much educating effort being placed in marketing. I know of at least one person who thinks this device is comfortable, but most people I knew couldn't wear it for more than 10 minutes-- couldn't endure for a movie or a game. And a minor point, the name-- i-glasses-- like it or not in our sports oriented America "glasses" have a negative connotation. It appears almost that the companies rushed the products to market without getting feedback from a focus group. Is this comfortable to wear? Would you be willing to purchase and install a new graphic card for a $1200 HMD? What do you think we should call it? The VFX1 got very good reviews when it came out, but they all cited a difficult install and issues over price. The i-glasses was more about comfort, but also had price issues. Mouse emulation software for the trackers on both devices could have helped with game compatibility. For me, I like the idea of the VFX1 recreated with a little better display/optics, ditch the i-glass optics and display for something with better FOV and less flicker, get back the mic and bring affordable/perhaps less accurate tracking for a realistic $500. I'd be there with my check book. Again, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think the industry's perception of what happened in the 90s was. "You can't make a buck in VR, look what happened to Forte and I-glasses." However, what is closer to the truth is that the companies made some mistakes that could have been avoided. I suppose the best evidence of this is the existence of the somewhat successful VFX3D-- which combines the best elements of both devices. It's comfortable, easy to install, has good software-- it's just the price. (Okay it's not perfect...but let's not go there.) Look at the point, it's a combination of the two...perhaps if either company had made something closer to the VFX3D they would have made it. Also, your advice for companies to develop an "expensive" HMD...well...the companies that have done that also have had trouble making a buck from a limited market. And I apologize right now for writing about existing products , but I did so because I think it's important to offer the argument that a consumer level HMD effort by a small company HAS BEEN and still is a valid one from a business perspective. | ||
| Chris Rating: N/A |
I disagree with Vrone. I think that the vfx3d is too big and bulky to be the answer for today. The i-glasses have been redone and work rather well. You do not have a resolution increase with the vfx3d and by surrounding the optics with the vfx1 shell you are not more immersed, just uncomfortable. I can wear my i-glasses for hours without neck or eye strain. Chris | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Virtual i-O had an excellent team of designers, electrical engineers, optics experts, software developers, an ON SITE SLA machine for building rapid prototypes, lot's of testing on focus groups, and millions of dollars of funding. Given the available technology at the time, i-glasses! were pretty much optimized to what was available, and are still the best selling device of their type today. Designing devices in the direction of the i-glasses! (smaller, lighter) is the correct path. Designing in the direction of helmets (bigger, heavier) is non-optimal. Personally, I didn't like the vice style clamping of the i-glasses!, but it was the best compromise for the time. | ||
| VRone Rating: N/A |
Anon (Virtual IO developer) the main point that I disagree with you is that the legions of PS2 addicts will pay for the next generation of consumer HMDs-- and pay more than $99. I don't think it's the [folly of hobbyist] anymore. And also, again with all due respect, I think that the fellows of Forte and Virtual IO made some SERIOUS mistakes that have misled some to think that it can't be done because it hasn't been done yet. It's dead reckoning reason-- where you have been and where we are is an indication of where you will be. In this case there is exception to the rule. Most of what I write about is a factual reference about reviews of the products in question. I assure you, I realize you guys did a good job-- the i-glasses were easy to install and use. (I think one of the greatest errors in the i-glasses was marketing-- marketing them as a personal viewer not a VR device. Remember "It's like watching a x size TV from x feet away." Who wants to sit close to a big TV? What? Also, I've been in complex development situations. I know from experience that regardless of the resources in a company that a decision to make a product one way or another can have more to do with the CEO's or a certain engineer's personal "feelings" rather than hard core research or the opinions of a target market. (Even when the research contradicts the feeling.) I'm not saying this happened, but it happens all the time. Also, I think VIO tried to make a personal viewer that would double as an HMD, and just like an enduro cycle is neither best for the road or best for the trails the i-glass fell in between being a personal viewer and an HMD. IIS recognized the opportunity to hammer it into a real dedicated VR device. About the mount: Everybody wants an immersive display along with great audio and tracking. My question is-- can u do that with the glasses style. Good big headphones that cover the ear, viewing elements that shout out the outside environmet, a mic, the tracker, adjustable optics, upgradable display element, wires yada yada yada; however, someone pointed out that having a large mass actually helps the tracker keep up with movement. I don't know, don't get upset about what I write. What do I know? The market and engineers will decide the mount and the price soon enough, and any small company that finds success will either be purchased and assimilated into a large company or pounded (via monopolistic noncompetition) into non existance. I suppose we'll know whether you or I are right about consumer acceptance of a $500 hmd in the next several months. If I've offended with my criticsm of hardware that you worked on as a Virtual IO developer, consider this an apology. We all appreciate the input of people in the know, but I have to be honest in my opinion. Back to the topic: The glasses vs big mount conflict continues. | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
Alright, I'm getting pissed off at the I/O people, now. They complain about their competition, non stop! they barge into this forum and start the same old arguments that killed the last thread. they piss off the industry professionals, and drive them to leave the threads out of frustration. Don't get me wrong, some of you have intelligent, thought provoking additions for this thread, but the majority (or possibly just one) of the I-glasses fans are out of line. Some advice for all the I-glasses fans: Shut up about your HMD in this thread! The reason for this thread is to discuss future technology for consumer-level HMD products, not pre-existing stuff. This goes for VFX people, too. Drop the discussion of brand names altogether from now on in this thread. this thread isn't about the VFX1, VFX3D or any of the I-glasses models! we are discussing the things we want in future HMD designs! If you cite your hardware as an example, or to reference a current design flaw, that is acceptable, within reason. This thread is about furthering the technology, not arguing about pre-existing hardware! Furthermore, I think it's about time that name & valid email addresses should be REQUIRED by this forum. the anonymous posting system is letting too many obnoxious posters get away with murdering the threads with endless waves of spam/flames/"shit-talking". If you have nothing new or innovative to add to this discussion, I would suggest you find another forum, since you are wasting the time of myself, and all the others who started this thread with an actual goal in mind. If you can't say anything intelligent, don't say anything at all. -Eric L. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Id save/fork out 400-600 for a quality long lasting product. I'd like SVGA 800x600 (1.44m) or VGA 640x480 (922k), with stereo scopic support for a wide varity of video cards (especially consumer cards from NVidia, 3dfx, ATI, etc). FOV would probably be 45 deg, its kind of popular right now to only do 31 deg, but that is like sitting in front of a monitor, not that immersive. I think those are whats really key to me, and currently I dont see them doing this. Everything else is kind of optional in my opinion, I can buy extra equip/add-ons for tracking and audio io. Then again, im not your typical consumer, im a programmer as well and I would probably do something more with it then watch movies, play games. Even still I dont see the big deal on high prices, if for example its thought of like a TV or monitor, then it sort of contrasts the cost of it. People dont go out and buy TV and monitors every day. I dont own an HMD currently, Ive been thinking about getting one for a long time now, but it seems the quality and price ratio are just to far apart. That ought to tell you something, even someone like me who would use it to develope specialized software for it, would hold back in purchasing it, plus you dont hear someone like John Carmack or Tim Sweeny getting excited about this technology. A resolution of 263x230 is worse then VGA, brings things back to the DOS days. Id be willing to fork out the cash above and beyond what the average consumer would buy if the quality was right. I think the price is strongly dependant on the technology, and there is little to nothing hobbiest can do, although early adopters may get them to bring down their price. Another factor to this is market saturation. There is a market out there for this, with people who can not afford it currently but would definetly jump on it if the price and quality was right. If someone does release it for a cheap price there is also the possibility that people will buy it once and not buy another for years. Just like buying a monitor. That 90 deg at 1024x768, sounds like it would be expensive. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Regarding the verbotten brand names and their success/failure in the market: hindsight is always 20/20. Learn from their mistakes and improve as best you can, given current technology and resources. If you can do better, show us what you've got. It's not a matter of you or I being "right". The market will decide if you have succeeded. My prediction is that anyone building a bulky headset will fail at a higher rate than anyone building a lighter smaller device. In either case, I predict both product types will fail until certain technologies and materials become avaiable at a low cost. If these comments fire anyone up to go out and build a novel, commercially succesful product to prove such opinions wrong, then we all win. If someone does not take these warnings seriously, and spends millions of dollars building a commercially unviable product, then a big loss has occured that could have been avoided. Regarding my comments about the i-glasses!: I was there, I helped develop the product, and these are my opinions based on my experience. Opinion should be taken as opinion, and not fact. I am not offended at all by VROne's comments regarding the i-glasses; VROne is entitled to his opinion. My comments were designed to force anyone thinking about building another HMD to consider some cold hard facts about this market. Again, it is my opinion that it is still too soon to release a consumer HMD. We found that most people really don't like wearing *anything* on their head to use computers, for any reason. Therefore, if the average person is to overcome this basic resistance, there will have to be a very compelling reason for them to "suffer" the inconvience of head gear. The visual quality will have to exceed the normal experience of typical displays. All games will have to be supported via a general method. Solutions to get you part of the way there: Since NVidia and Metabyte have been providing some basic general stereo3D shutter drivers, you can build an HMD that takes a field-sequential video signal and de-mux's it to L/R views (it's been done and is easy to do). Now you've got full game support. Next, you'll have to use very hi-res display elements with no diffusers. The display must appear as sharp as viewing a 1024x768 display at ~2 feet. The optics will need to minimize distortion; otherwise, you'll need to write special low-level graphics drivers (a la Metabyte) to perform final-stage image pre-warping to account for the warped optics. The original LEEP optics had 120 FOV in VPL's EyePhones, with massive heavy optics. You can create very sophisticated lenses using holography, and these lenses can be very thin and light. Regarding certain unprofessional comments on these forums: if it were not possible to post anonymously, I would not post here. It's OK to have a differing opinion, and to post counter opinions. It is highly unprofessional to use ad hominims (personal attacks) just because you disagree with an opinion. Attack the comments with counter points and move on. Using ad hominims makes one's arguments (of merit) exceptionally weak. Furthermore, it will minimize the likelihood of an intelligent person spending the time to make posts here. | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
Sorry if this is off topic, But I will be brief. I have decided to dicontinue all participation in the threads on this board. I apologize to those in advance who have gained something from my input. for a thourough explanation as to why I am doing this, please read my post in the news ans announcements section of the webboard, entitled: Calling it quits... Thanks for all the help, folks. It was an enlightening experience. -Eric L. | ||
| i-glasses! developer Rating: N/A |
I just took a look at the thread, "IISVR Actually updated thier website!?" There were quiet a few flames back and forth. If trollers/flamers make worthless posts, the solution is simple: don't respond to them. The other solution is forum moderation, where certain inflammatory posts are deleted by the moderator(s), who are not necessarily the board operator. Such forums are marked as moderated, and users are warned that their posts may be deleted if they violate the guidelines of the forum. This is not limiting free speech. This is the opposite of anarchy. The moderator(s) are the judge(s), and the users are subject to the rules of law of the forum. Trollers generally won't post there as their posts will be immediately deleted. Foul language, etc., posts will also be deleted. Opinions, as long as they follow board etiquette, are allowed and "free speech" is not stiffled. Other HMD issues: Heat and sweat. Full HMD's leave people hot and sweaty (most people don't like this effect :-)). Wrap-around glasses style (with eye-cup style light blockers, covering minimal skin area, and perhaps made out of a breathable fabric that blocks light) with a baseball cap style support would be a decent design compromise. I've bolted shutter glasses to baseball caps to provide a comfortable viewing experience: it takes all weight off of the nose (a must), makes room for people with glasses, and distributes weight around and over the top of the head. Furthermore, the user won't be sweating, and it's very light. | ||
| pdq72 Rating: N/A |
I had received email from i-O Display saying they will be releasing their "next generation" of i-glasses in May, that will feature true 800x600 resolution, be 3D capable and be priced between $600-$800. How is that for near future consumer VR? pdq72 | ||
| Michal Husak Rating: N/A |
i-glasses developer: I am realy happy that I heve heard a realy profesional opinion. The geame drivers could be a problem - current graphic cards are not designed for wide angle output ... Another problem with games - standard interface for headtracking input. Nothing like that exist now, the joystick-input emulation is not the optimal soultion ... According to optic - could you, please, post some limks with description of the holographic optic for the LEEP optic replacement ? It sounds interesting .. | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
Well, I've defintely settled on the fact that I'm done posting here, still, I just wanted to add a single point to this thread, it's the last thing I'm going to do here, Since I've been getting rather nasty lately in the threads. I don't want to risk another outburst. Anyways, Here we go. I got a interesting idea yesterday, while i was sketching some ideas for LUCID into My PDA. Prisms are normally used to bend the light passing through it along an angle, so the display can reach the eye, right? check this idea out... lets say you use traditional frensel optics to focus the display output to the eye, what about adding a prism, vertically justified, to the outside edge of the frensel lens. something like this: ----------- |/| Frensel lens | | | |------- |/ I know, Bad ASCII, still, this would bend the light from the image around the eye, filling the peripheral vision. the prism might blur the image a bit in that area, but that shouldn't matter all that much, since Peripheral vision isn't that crisp to begin with. It'd definetely make the image more immersive, without increasing the FOV all that much. this would get around the "skinny FOV" problem. Just an Idea. I'm out! ^_^ -Eric L. Props to Michal on his ideas, I would say, though, that Mouse support is present in most games these days. Just have the tracking emulate the mouse, like current systems do. | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
Sorry! one last point! cheap, wireless headtracking idea! Buy a wireless, Gyropoint mouse and attatch it to the top of your head. these things aren't all that expensive (around $75 US) more info on this item can be found at http://www.gyration.com/kore/catalog/home/content.html Now, let's say, you are playing Quake II or something like that, invert the mouse's Y axis and turn mouselook on in the options menu. you may have to adjust the mouse sensetivity settings to get it just right. Using a Gyropoint mouse as the head tracker, you can simply look around your environment. take a cheap joystick, and map the fire, jump button, etc to the buttons on the joystick. Viola! you have the gun in your hand, your head will control where you look. Gyropoint mouse is also rechargable. This will work. -Eric L. | ||
| VRone Rating: N/A |
I think we all have to practice a degree of thick-skinned tolerance in a "new" forum like this. I would encourage anyone who's been flamed on any board to laugh it off. I think about 50% of individuals will disagree with any successful idea-- history proves that point. So, if everyone is saying "hats off, great job" to all your posts/ideas/accomplishments-- something's wrong. Group dynamics dictate many devils advocates-- it is the nature of people to disagree-- a survival trait meant to evolve ideas through a sort of Darwinist process. I've noticed that outlandish ideas and insults are tempered by responses from others who might not feel passionate about their own position to make a post otherwise, and often a new angle is found in the discussion as a result....so we should all take the good with the bad. A moderator will by design have a bias...perhaps a vested interest in certain commercial products-- so maybe it's best as is = people write what they want...and everyone sift through the chaff to get to the wheat. And, a lot of individuals make posts anonymously to be able to speak freely about issues without fear of how their peers will feel-- for example, without fear of being quoted on a controversial point in a future job interview. The freedom to say something that you want to to so many people so easily is valuable to everyone. "Let's just all get along." Virtual IO developer, "Hindsight's 20/20-- I agree. It's easy for me to write opinions about what went wrong-- much harder if I were in the driver's seat. But, again I just wrote that to make a point about the feasibility of what can be done on today's market-- a point we disagree on. Onward: One thing that got me thinking from the Virtual IO developer's post was [no body wants anything on their head]. I recall someone making a post sometime ago-- they wrote that they opted for an LCD projector instead of an HMD. The poster then went on to say that the level of immersion playing games projected on a wall was good. I did this once with a co. projector w/ a driving game-- and I agree it was fun and immersive. There is something about playing with an HMD-- it being strapped to your head-- by design reduces the level of immersion. A brainstorm on the future of personal immersive displays would be interesting-- without restraining thoughts to current technology. | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
In case you didn't know, My outbursts were a setup for an April Fools prank. I apoligize if this threw anyone off. My apologies ^_^ April Fools everyone! -Eric L. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Yeah right! You have successfully proven yourself to be mentally off!!! A prank - my ass! I will personally not read or reply to anything you post here or anywhere else! You are one sick puppy and in need of some SERIOUS HELP! ANONYMOUS | ||
| Stee1Hed Rating: N/A |
IF it was an Aprils Fools setup, kudos to you. I am laughing my ass off. What's really important in life? Not this. Sometimes people need to take a step back, chill and get some perspective. Awesome April Fools Eric. I agree with the peripheral vision idea quality wise, it doesn't need to be a quality image. I just think it would be nice to have some representation of what was there though so you could key off any movement and react to it. Anyways, I'm looking forward to May to see what i-glasses has in store. I hope it's XBox compatible. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
SteelHed is Eric, how sick can you be? | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
Actually, I am not Steelhead. I always post using my own name. I swear on my grandfathers grave. People seem to be too uptight about the whole thing, But forget it. Let's move on. I played a prank, and possibly tought some people a lesson in the process. Everyone should just get over it and move on in this regard. As I have said, if some of you still hold a grudge, you can get back at me next April. to quote from above: Yeah right! You have successfully proven yourself to be mentally off!!! A prank - my ass! I will personally not read or reply to anything you post here or anywhere else! You are one sick puppy and in need of some SERIOUS HELP! ANONYMOUS This identical post was also put into the "calling it Quits" thread I started. Merely more social engineering. This does not bother me, as I am a master in the art. some people just can't deal with it when they get suckered into a scam. Don't feel bad, I've got years of grifting experience! Anyways, to continue with the subject at hand, VROne, After contemplating the many posts in the folowing thread, I realized that it may be possible to accomplish your original goal; to build a HMD from off-shelf parts for under $500, but the only missing factor is converting the display panel for stereo viewing. I'm exploring options at this point. If I have a breakthrough idea, I may attempt to actualy build one, and will post my procedure if I do. VR lives! -Eric L. | ||
| i-glasses! developer Rating: N/A |
Michal, One of the interesting properties of holography is that if you image a lense with the holographic process, the resulting hologram is that lens. Do some searches on www.google.com for holographic lens and holographic collimation for more info. Collimation is important to increase viewing comfort and much farther perceiveable stereoscopic depth. With sufficient collimation, you can comfortably perceive 300+ feet of stereoscopic depth (effectively infinity). In general, As for wireless trackers, there's no advantage to having a wireless tracker if you've still got a wire for video and power. The tracker must be very accurate with no drift. "Compass" based trackers suffer from magnetic field distortion (and noise), causing non-sherical position generation (most of the time looking like a lumpy egg) but they have zero drift. Gryo and accelerometer based trackers suffer from drift and quantization loss, but can generate very smooth linear-spherical position-fields (when plotted makes a nice sphere). The biggest problem with the i-glasses! tracker was not the magnetoresistors (the "compass" component). It was the fluid-based tilt sensors (you need at least two (non-collinear) vectors to form an orthonormal orientation basis). There was nothing we could do about the fluid slosh. High filtering resulted in increased lag. With enough accuracy, it is possible to use 12 magnetoresistors (instead of 3), arranged in a perfect tetrahedron to compute orientation. Perhaps this has already been done (it's fairly obvious, but more expensive than fluid-based tilt sensors). It would require very high accuracy A/D convertors. If the trackers have much appreciable error, "VR" motion sickness can ensue (although you can get used to it somewhat). It has been speculated that the reason this occurs is that any time there is a disconnection of the inner ear and the visual system, the body reads this state as a "poisoned" state, and attempts to rid the poison through vomitting. So, unless one can make a highly accurate and fast tracker, they might as well not build one at all. Most people will not pay $500 for induced vomitting. Syrum of ipecac is much cheaper. | ||
| VRone Rating: N/A |
Maybe a mechanical tracker would be better/cheaper= no lag. Also I'm curious about any danger of having a "magnetoresistor" so close to the head-- electromagnetic radiation a' la cell phone???-- a mechanical tracker would mitigate that. VIO developer you're writing is a bit cynical-- don't forget about VR pornography. People will ignore the lower resolution and poor tracking as long as their new orgasmatronic HMD will get them off. Heads up everyone. I picture someone vomiting all over themselves and taking off their vr glasses saying..."Man, that was great!"...........that's sick. Sorry for that. I suppose having something strapped to the head...I saw a program about Sony once-- and their decision to make the Walkman. Many in the company feared that no one would wear one in public. (Of course the Glasstron didn't take off like they wanted.) VRone | ||
| Rob Rating: N/A |
As an owner of a VFX3D,here's my opinion:if you look closely at the way the VFX3D's optics are connected to the shell(one locknut holding on the flip-up visor,and one plug connecting the optics to the shell)they appear very easy to replace/upgrade.how about a replacement set of optics for it using higher rez and a bigger FOV?the tracking is very good and so is the audio.the biggest complaint(other than price)that people have is the optics.so what do you think? | ||
| Rob Rating: N/A |
oh,yea....and how bout a wireless option.that cable gets in the way | ||
| i-glasses! developer Rating: N/A |
Magnetoresistors are a type of magnetometer: they output variable resistance based on the presence of a magnetic field. They are used as sensors of the earth's magnetic field, and are passive devices. It is my opinion that shipping a product with a tracker that induces any kind of discomfort will actually reduce sales over not shipping a tracker at all. VROne, if you have access to any statistics supporting your arguments that the adult industry is a viable market for low quality VR, please post such information. 3D Video with shutter glasses provides excellent stereo3D for adult material, yet that market has not flourished. In order to use a tracker, you'll need to shoot (at least) panoramic 3D video (or even panoramic 2D video). The result would be a sort of streaming QuickTime VR, etc. Therefore, material must be shot in this new format. Given no market, this is unlikely to happen. Chicken & the egg problem. Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate. Come up with product ideas that cannot be shot down and you have a potential winner. The first order of the day must be quality first. Build a product that provides a net experience that is not available anywhere else, and it will sell. Image resolution, optics, and tracker must sum up to an experience that exceeds the normal computer viewing experience. If test-group users complain about the product, consumers will probably not buy it once word gets out about the product's problems. As soon as it's possible to build a hi-res, relatively distortion free and clear optics display, with lightweight and comfortable to wear head gear, it's time to release another consumer HMD. Until that point, it's best to wait for the cost to come down on components to allow such a device to be created. The same goes for a tracker: until one can be created with near-zero lag and does not induce VR sickness, it's best to wait until the cost comes down on components to build such a device for consumers. Back to my original arguments: build high-end vertical market devices for $2000-5000 and at least provide a quality experience at that level. If even at $2000-5000 this is not possible, then be patient and wait. Or, work with component manufacturers to accelerate the development of needed low-cost components. | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
In regards to the topic of holographic collimation; I was curious if anyone has heard of the 3D display that a government contractor was working on. I saw it in, I believe, Popular Mechanics a while back (over a year ago for sure). It kind of resembled a crystal ball, and had several lasers arrayed around the sphere at various points. It looked as though the display was monochrome, it had a blue-green cube displayed in the sphere, with letters on each face of the cube. there was no projected date for an actual application of the technology, but it looked interesting. I personaly have no clue as to just how it worked, however, I have a friend, Pete, who took a few holography courses at Triton College (From what he told me, they have a nice laser lab). He actually made a couple holographic prints on glass plates in the course, pretty neat stuff. Currently, he's in the Navy working in communications. He'd know more about this stuff than I would. Still, it's an option that isn't looked into enough, and with the dropping cost on lasers in general, it stands to reason this could become viable soon. As for building devices for the high-end market, Why bother? High end devices are already being produces by companies like KEO. their HMD's range anywhere from $5,000 - $20,000 So I think that order's already been filled. I think the problem in the real-world situation is that the consumer-level isn't seeing much trickle-down from the Heavy-industry sector. Most technological leaps in the private sector originate from government contractors. Still, I'm beginnig to see what I-glass developer means, If there is more demand for HMD technology in Heavy industry/military, the price, in turn, will drop some in the private sector as well. Sort of like how the economy in the US boomed after World War II. Cars, appliances, etc.. All became cheaper after the war; this was due to the massive industrialization brought on by the war effort. Now, I'm not saying we need a war, only a greater demand for the technology in more industries. This will make a demand for the products, and in turn, make them less costly to produce overall. Am I right on this, or am I still confusing the meaning? -Eric L. | ||
| Michal Husak Rating: N/A |
According motion sicknes trouble: it is partialy software probleme. The human head does not have zero weight - it have some inertial motion. You can not stop or change the movement of your head with infinte speed = the position of your head in near future could be predicted. Modified Kalman algoritm based filtering could be used for this purpose ... The position prediction could be utilized for the motion sicnes cousing delay compensation ... According the HMD market: What aboud alternative displays for mobil phone ? | ||
| VRone Rating: N/A |
I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one, developer. I can name at least a half a dozen companies who have tried to make it or are giving it a go in the high end market. I'll bet that what IIS or any other company brings to market next will be a hit as long as it is cheap, immersive, comfortable and works with the PS2, XBox and PC. About the pornography issue--- though you disagree with me it's refreshing to see a serious post on that. The subject has come up before-- drawing parallels to it's effect on VCR sales. There is a Quicktime VR technology in the works that allows the use of an HMD to explore running video "in the round"....(you'd mentioned Quicktime) I imagine that coupled with "teledildonic" (that word will never catch on)/(force feedback sexual) devices would do the trick. There is also a technology that uses an HMD to create interactive virtual 3D elements that appear superimposed over a real world environment (have to look up the links on this stuff)-- probably applicable. It would make for some messy product development. The time for this stuff could be now; enabling technologies often exist 100s of years b4 one person/group of people put(s) them together to make something new and "useful". The people who make sexual toys, optics, display, sim tech, and tracking probably aren't doing much research in each others fields. (Funny to put sex toys in that line up-- I picture several fellows in lab coats inspecting a sex toy attached to a computer-- perhaps robotics or force feedback tech would be more appropriate.) And the cutting edge research institutions rarely want to get involved in pornography. So there are natural forces (beyond display and tracking quality) that are against the development in this field-- perhaps a very lucrative one. Using a Quicktime "pre-render" technology would free up plenty of processor speed for good tracking on a lower level device? The only statistical info that I have on a low level VR/porno device being accepted is that we fellows think about sex once every x (fill in your own individual time here.) Onward with the argument of high-end vertical market HMDs vs an affordable consumer-level $500 HMD with tracking. I think that you would agree that the latter will make it as long as the quality is there. I think points we disagree on are what quality the user will accept and when the right quality will be available at the right price. I say the market for a relatively low level device has been there and is there now more than ever. Also remember that the generation of PS2 owners and the like have grown up on a steady diet of VR movies(Matrix)/anime/realtime 3D games...their enthusiasm for any type of low-level HMD marketed TO THEM as a VR device has never been tested. They need less educating than past markets and already will possess 3D horsepower and software far beyond what existed at the start of the consumer HMD releases. One more thing, consider other markets...beta vs VHS. Beta is better, but VHS won. Consider the handheld console market. Even Nintendo would agree that the game boy is a substandard piece of hardware. The Sega Nomad, NeoGeo, Atari Lynx, Sega Game Gear, Portable Turbo Grafx(can't remember the name) and a few others were all better and had better software-- but the Game Boy beat them all. Why? Regardless of the reason, it's evidence in a similar market that the public will accept lower quality. Also now HMD companies have the benefit of hindsight. I suppose we would both agree that larger corporations are the real players and that smaller companies better have a lot of unique and useful intellectual property if they want to play, too. | ||
| Michal Husak Rating: N/A |
VRone: pre-rendered VR movie scenes in Quicktime format is a nice idea, unfortunately this technology is now in realy low stage of development. The main reason is , that panoramatic VR movie need significanly more data than even DVD for enought good quality. Another problem is that Quicktime is not well incorporated in Windows - it is unable to use 3D HW for the scene creation speed up. The existing solutions - BeHere http://www.behere.com/ Ipix http://www.ipix.com/ do not show enought good quality ... They do not give a SDK for this format as well - I have trouble to implement headtracking for thid movies from this reason ... For standard Quicktime VR movies, the headtracking is available now: http://mysak.umbr.cas.cz/~husakm/Public/VFX3D_headtracking/Headtracking.html | ||
| i-glasses! developer Rating: N/A |
Organic Light Emitting Diode displays (OLED) can be useful for HMDs. Here's a recent article: http://www.technologyreview.com/magazine/apr01/johnstone.asp | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
I-G! developer, Thanks for the link, a truly awesome read! I've been hearing about those polymer displays for a while. Way cool. Heck, you wouldn't even need two display panels with this because: 1)They don't require polarizers. 2)They refresh ultra-fast 3)they are bright and high-contrast 4)they will be chaper to produce than LCDs once commercially available. One Polymer display panel coupled with standard shutterglasses in a HMD shell would be sufficient for an effective stereo HMD, a new leap in the technology is just around the corner. However this application woul not be as good for MR or AR applications, since the displays are light-producing, and would be unable to pass-through the real world scenes beyond the display(s). However, reflecting the display off, say, a piece of glass or a lens would accomplish this goal. -Eric L. |
