I would love to work on projects using this, in various ways that aren't strictly gaming related (like making apps or equipment that interfaces with the Rift to create a certain work environment or experience. Or work in an industrial design capacity directly for variations on the units themselves. I imagine it will only be a matter of time before multiple headset types, forms, colors, and such are offered; and frankly when I can buy a set of leather-clad WWII aviator Rifts, I will. I will maybe have to sell various relics or appendages to make it happen: so be it.
That will almost definitely suck with the current level of technology, and almost definitely be incredible with the eventual level some years from now.
Really can't wait to start playing some Star Citizen on the rift
Recently just left a company, managed to try one of their DK2s before then. The experience is still the same, with improvements in performance as you can imagine. The hardware looks like it's all there. Just needs content, games!
Hopefully there will be a final product by the end of this year. >_<
So, I've been playing around with my DK2 for about a week, and it's really fantastic, but there's still a few issues that need to be addressed by developers. The Rift itself and the software are coming along nicely, and the presence in some demos is AMAZING (The Chair is a fantastic example of this), but a lot of devs need to work on understanding the strengths and weaknesses of VR, and combating sim sickness more.
FPS games (and, really, any game where you're first person and where moving the mouse directly re-orients your head) really don't work well in VR, at least for me. As much as I like the aesthetic trappings of something like Technolust, I can barely stand to play five minutes of it. The movement feels deeply wrong, and the mouselook creates a huge disconnect between what I'm seeing and what my brain thinks is happening.
I think the core issue is that FPS movement mechanics are almost entirely divorced from reality. You glide along the ground at faster-than-normal speeds, and there's no acceleration curve in either movement or orientation. Games with a static frame (so called "cockpit" games) get around this by having acceleration curves for the vehicle (or space ship) you're piloting, which seems to reduce sim sickness almost entirely. As fun as they are, though, I'd really like FPS games to work in VR. So here's my hypothesis:
Sim sickness is decreased when you have a static frame of reference (cockpit, chair, etc). I'm not sure if that frame needs to be on screen and visible, though. I'd like to experiment (and encourage other devs to look at) decoupling FPS movement with head movement, and trying to create a static frame of reference out of your character/avatar's body. If we add acceleration curves (or even more natural walking mechanics in general) to the movement, and only shift the head/camera when turning the body past the point where the neck can twist, I think we'd be able to create first person experiences without sim sickness (or at least, have it be greatly decreased). Realistic mechanics are all about acceleration curves, since nothing goes from a complete stop to full speed instantly. I think that even an unseen reference frame (a body that reacts to movement and orientation naturally) would be enough to achieve presence in a VR environment and not make people violently ill in the process.
What do you think? I'm playing around with UE4 and trying to get a handle on it so I can make some test cases, but I'm sure there are people who have thought about this more than I have, and who will have more refined thoughts on the subject.
Hmm, interesting. One thing I'm excited for is Rift support in Arma 3 (whether natively or through something like VorpX). The game already has a good acceleration curve for avatar movement, and has code in place for decoupling gun-pointing-direction and looking-direction. I also recently got a TrackIR, and A3 works really well with it once you get into the hang of shooting/moving in one direction while glancing around in others.
(Of course, the caveat with A3 and the DK2 is that the resolution isn't really high enough for the somewhat far engagement distances you get in the game, but I think that'll be solved by higher-res HMDs in the future.)
EDIT: The fact that Arma is a much slower FPS also helps. I don't know if it's possible to make a fast/arcade-y FPS like Quake II or Tribes (or even Battlefield and Call of Duty) work in VR, at least until we have neurocannulae and full body simulation. Which is totally fine. Some games work better on PC monitors, some work better on consoles, and some work better on phones and tablets. We shouldn't try to cram certain types of games onto mediums that aren't suited for them.
I agree with the idea that ARMA and similar games (being perhaps that it aims more to be a combat simulator than, say, Quake...) would have a better starting point for OR-style VR. But whether that works out in practice any better or worse is hard to say.
Seems that aspect which makes piloted vehicle games work so much better with VR is simply that the body is feeling how it expects to feel. Is there a way to suspend or balance or float the body such that it becomes mostly 'neutral' and your mind could function in an FPS-type manner better as there's less cross-talk between what the brain is seeing and what it is feeling? I think this also has been addressed thoroughly in sci-fi at least, by putting VR operators into some kind of gel or liquid tank with hoses or what-not. But is there truth to that concept? Has anyone tried it?
Will we someday see sporting events where pro players are dunked into a neutrally bouyant vat of blue glowing goo with a scuba-like apparatus on for breathing and audio-visual cues? Sensors picking up and intercepting neural signals?
I think we might slowly see that emerge, and it sounds awesome yet, oddly, scary as shit to think it's not that far off.
Now that Microsoft owns Minecraft, and also owns about 15% of Facebook, and Facebook owns Oculus, does that means there will be Minecraft Oculus version? Because, and I'm in no way joking, that could be the killer app for pretty much everyone. Minecraft could easily become the new Facebook of VR.
There was a thing about that - notch was going to, then wasn't when facebook bought it, then got over it and it was rumored to be on again, but I don't really know for sure.
Comments
It is the future:
It is the future:
Seattle is where all the ex-valve guys are and they form a big component of our research team.
Samsung Gear VR powered by Oculus
Recently just left a company, managed to try one of their DK2s before then. The experience is still the same, with improvements in performance as you can imagine. The hardware looks like it's all there. Just needs content, games!
Hopefully there will be a final product by the end of this year. >_<
FPS games (and, really, any game where you're first person and where moving the mouse directly re-orients your head) really don't work well in VR, at least for me. As much as I like the aesthetic trappings of something like Technolust, I can barely stand to play five minutes of it. The movement feels deeply wrong, and the mouselook creates a huge disconnect between what I'm seeing and what my brain thinks is happening.
I think the core issue is that FPS movement mechanics are almost entirely divorced from reality. You glide along the ground at faster-than-normal speeds, and there's no acceleration curve in either movement or orientation. Games with a static frame (so called "cockpit" games) get around this by having acceleration curves for the vehicle (or space ship) you're piloting, which seems to reduce sim sickness almost entirely. As fun as they are, though, I'd really like FPS games to work in VR. So here's my hypothesis:
Sim sickness is decreased when you have a static frame of reference (cockpit, chair, etc). I'm not sure if that frame needs to be on screen and visible, though. I'd like to experiment (and encourage other devs to look at) decoupling FPS movement with head movement, and trying to create a static frame of reference out of your character/avatar's body. If we add acceleration curves (or even more natural walking mechanics in general) to the movement, and only shift the head/camera when turning the body past the point where the neck can twist, I think we'd be able to create first person experiences without sim sickness (or at least, have it be greatly decreased). Realistic mechanics are all about acceleration curves, since nothing goes from a complete stop to full speed instantly. I think that even an unseen reference frame (a body that reacts to movement and orientation naturally) would be enough to achieve presence in a VR environment and not make people violently ill in the process.
What do you think? I'm playing around with UE4 and trying to get a handle on it so I can make some test cases, but I'm sure there are people who have thought about this more than I have, and who will have more refined thoughts on the subject.
I think you'll enjoy this video, which takes a very unrealistic approach, but makes a lot of sense to me:
(Of course, the caveat with A3 and the DK2 is that the resolution isn't really high enough for the somewhat far engagement distances you get in the game, but I think that'll be solved by higher-res HMDs in the future.)
EDIT: The fact that Arma is a much slower FPS also helps. I don't know if it's possible to make a fast/arcade-y FPS like Quake II or Tribes (or even Battlefield and Call of Duty) work in VR, at least until we have neurocannulae and full body simulation. Which is totally fine. Some games work better on PC monitors, some work better on consoles, and some work better on phones and tablets. We shouldn't try to cram certain types of games onto mediums that aren't suited for them.
Seems that aspect which makes piloted vehicle games work so much better with VR is simply that the body is feeling how it expects to feel. Is there a way to suspend or balance or float the body such that it becomes mostly 'neutral' and your mind could function in an FPS-type manner better as there's less cross-talk between what the brain is seeing and what it is feeling? I think this also has been addressed thoroughly in sci-fi at least, by putting VR operators into some kind of gel or liquid tank with hoses or what-not. But is there truth to that concept? Has anyone tried it?
Will we someday see sporting events where pro players are dunked into a neutrally bouyant vat of blue glowing goo with a scuba-like apparatus on for breathing and audio-visual cues? Sensors picking up and intercepting neural signals?
I think we might slowly see that emerge, and it sounds awesome yet, oddly, scary as shit to think it's not that far off.
Wow that 360 degree tracking seems really cool. I wonder who made that possible...
I wonder if you'd need a Oculus compatible seat to go with this headset