There, with that out of the way let's talk the rift and VR in general.
I could go on for ages about the story of Palmer Luckey and his rise to the tech stratosphere... And if it interests you at all I highly encourage you to Google it and read up. But I want to skip to the end.
90fps + (< 5ms delay) + low_persistence_high_resolution_display = ability to fuck with your brain to the point it will interpret what it is seeing as you being somewhere else.
This is the "equation" of VR presence. Achieving presence is the difference between seeing a picture of the coliseum and something of the sense you are standing next to it on the streets of Rome. A palpable sense of presence is what is now being achieved with these headsets. Is it perfect? Hell no. Vision is only one piece of the puzzle of the way the human brain interprets its surroundings. But there is something to the adage seeing is believing. Once you believe your eyes are telling you you are somewhere else the rest of your cognition seems to follow to a certain extent.
This is the "equation" of VR presence. Achieving presence is the difference between seeing a picture of the coliseum and something of the sense you are standing next to it on the streets of Rome. A palpable sense of presence is what is now being achieved with these headsets. Is it perfect? Hell no. Vision is only one piece of the puzzle of the way the human brain interprets its surroundings. But there is something to the adage seeing is believing. Once you believe your eyes are telling you you are somewhere else the rest of your cognition seems to follow to a certain extent.
What does this mean in practical terms? It is one of those rare transformative things for which there is no wide spread understanding upon which to communicate a common understanding. Or put another way.... It's something you need to experience to fully grasp what folks are talking about. I have imagined what it would be like ever since I first wanted to turn my head in a flight sim on a computer more than 20 years ago and even so I was still surprised by what I experienced from my initial experience with the rift.
The good:
Presence. When it works the mind trickery is magic. I could go on in explicative laden hyperbolic bombast... and if you have had any interest in VR news you have likely read many statements along those lines. But really, this is one you need to experience to understand. Don't let the sheer volume of things I have in the other sections distract from this singular point.
Fit. While nowhere near "stylish" this is light years down the road from the monstrosities of the last VR craze. You can wear it comfortably for a long time and is very well balanced.
The So So:
Current crop of software/games for VR:
In solving presence and getting the tech to the point it is no longer an automatic vomit creation machine for a large majority of the population a new set of problems now need to be resolved.
Bottom line here... if you really are wanting to see where VR is headed keep an eye on the software store content levels along with the price of a decent entry level rig. More software (and I mean from established AAA content makers) means more sales means bigger market means lowering price of entry. If that cycle starts in earnest it is hard to predict where this tech ends up in 2-5 years. If it doesn't, then things are unlikely to change dramatically from its present state.
The resolution of the screens:
If not for the recent push to super high resolution displays you couldn't have VR.... but.... they have not yet gone far enough. While CV1 Rift and the Vive have largely gotten ride of the glaring "screen door" effect (seeing the space separating the individual LED pixels) of the earlier dev models, it is not gone. The end result is that despite the high resolution the graphics quality is actually a step back overall. It is a factor of how close your eyes are to the screen. The screens in use are the first round of purpose built VR tech... they will get better. But pressing forward in resolution comes with an inescapable need to push quite a few more pixels. That said, Nvidia's pascal line of video cards bodes well for the future of even higher resolution VR headsets. 2-3 generations of video cards designed for VR and screens designed for VR and we could be in some very interesting territory. For now the graphics are "good enough"... but not what they need to be in the long haul. Especially for non-gaming functions.
The So So:
Current crop of software/games for VR:
In solving presence and getting the tech to the point it is no longer an automatic vomit creation machine for a large majority of the population a new set of problems now need to be resolved.
- Movement in games independent of your physical movement still largely equals a trip to queasy town for a decent percentage of folks. Everything you have learned about moving in a virtual game world is null and void seems to be what the early games are figuring out and new methods that are VR centric are emerging. Probably the harshest criticism the Rift is rightfully getting is that while the "presence" is awesome.... just adding that to an otherwise standard 2d screen based game has limited appeal... it isn't going to keep driving sales of a ~$1500-2000 setup. Either VR has to get a lot cheaper or it is destined to remain fairly niche in its applications without a better solution in this area.
- Looking beyond games is the basic idea of doing work in software with a headset on. You are separated from your normal inputs. A mouse works ok, a keyboard is an advanced course in touch typing. Even the average touch typist still look for those less common hits. Fully navigating a modern OS and Software often requires more than 'typing' for odd button combos... and its a rare person that can hit ctrl-option-function key of choice without looking etc... A part of the solution is a dedicated VR interface device. Vive has the hand units, Rift has some on the way. However, the elephant in the room on both is still typing. This is where VR is at a serious disadvantage to AR tech like Microsofts holo lens. As things sit now AR seems to be a better bet for getting work done where full immersion is not the goal, VR seems better suited to more immersive but ultimately limited interaction gaming solutions.
Bottom line here... if you really are wanting to see where VR is headed keep an eye on the software store content levels along with the price of a decent entry level rig. More software (and I mean from established AAA content makers) means more sales means bigger market means lowering price of entry. If that cycle starts in earnest it is hard to predict where this tech ends up in 2-5 years. If it doesn't, then things are unlikely to change dramatically from its present state.
The resolution of the screens:
If not for the recent push to super high resolution displays you couldn't have VR.... but.... they have not yet gone far enough. While CV1 Rift and the Vive have largely gotten ride of the glaring "screen door" effect (seeing the space separating the individual LED pixels) of the earlier dev models, it is not gone. The end result is that despite the high resolution the graphics quality is actually a step back overall. It is a factor of how close your eyes are to the screen. The screens in use are the first round of purpose built VR tech... they will get better. But pressing forward in resolution comes with an inescapable need to push quite a few more pixels. That said, Nvidia's pascal line of video cards bodes well for the future of even higher resolution VR headsets. 2-3 generations of video cards designed for VR and screens designed for VR and we could be in some very interesting territory. For now the graphics are "good enough"... but not what they need to be in the long haul. Especially for non-gaming functions.
The bad:
VR sickness: I didn't choose the phrase "fucking with your brain" lightly. Make no mistake, VR is seriously fucking with one of your primary senses. When done poorly or irresponsibly this thing is a guaranteed chunder fest. Fooling your eye is not the same as fooling your inner ear. When those two senses get to disconnected you are in for a bad time. It does not take much of this for a large portion of the population of the world to revisit their last meal upon whoever or whatever is nearest in short order. It is also hard to predict. I play project cars... my Wife is a huge F1 fanatic and during the weekend for the Monaco Grand Prix I wanted to have her drive a lap around Monaco in VR because its awesome. What was awesome for me and had zero stomach flip factor made her dizzy and nauseous instantly and had her off kilter for the next hour or so.
Lack of optimized interface. Mouse and keyboard doesn't work well. Tracked controllers are still in their infancy. Very awkward to transition between the two modes in order to deal with more complex interactions like.... Typing.
Missing depth adjustment. You can adjust the IPD (distance between your eyes) but not back and forward. Doubt long term any headsets will not have both of these.
Think oculus goofed not launching with the touch controllers. without them you really are reliant on the controller (Xbox or Oculus puck) but they can be sorely lacking at times... and trying to blind find a keyboard while in VR is a BITCH. That goes back to the seeing is believing thing. Once your brain buys that you are somewhere else visually it is HARD to keep a separate physical map. IE reaching for a keyboard in reality when your VR world has no such thing causes a pretty weird disconnect. I almost have to shut my eyes and revert to other senses to determine my surroundings.
Conclusion:
Much as I hate to say it... VR does not have its "Killer App" at this time. I have little doubt some form of consumer level VR is here to stay but I think the jury is out on whether or not this is the 'iPhone' moment for the technology. By that I mean the thing that takes a tech from the geeky corners and into the mainstream. This may be more of a blackberry/palm pilot era for now. The focus until now has been on getting the graphics good enough to not make people sick... but the interface questions still loom large. This is still a good parallel to the early smart phones and PDAs where the capability of the pocket computer was undeniable... but it was all locked behind an impossible input conundrum that took capacitive touch and a firm break from desktop OS interface tropes to resolve. For anyone who has experienced the thrill a good 'presence' experience can provide it is fairly obvious there is something here to exploit. We just need to figure out how to actually harness it.
Do I regret my purchase? No.... make that... HELL no. But hindsight being what it is I am thinking a bit more patience may have been the better path if I had it to do over again. The only thing I am really frustrated at right now is being denied my high quality general aviation simulator with a VR headset experience. FSX hasn't been updated in a long time and doesn't support VR. Xplane worked with the Dev kits but does not work with CV1 that I can find. Oculus dropped OpenGL support for the time being. But there is DCS.... and they have a freebie P-51 mustang model :-) Landing a mustang is a real challenge.... and it is made harder by the headset in some key ways, and much easier in others. Visual cues and being able to look out the side easily as the nose obscures the runway is good. Interacting with all the special keys to do gear, flaps, mixture, throttle etc.... Not so much.
Misc:
Weirdest experience thus far:
The Apollo 11 VR experience starts you out sitting in a 60's living room watching a "film" projection on a wall. Two things happened in this. First, it finally clicked why there are so many skew morphic 2d screen concepts for VR (IE sitting in a movie theater, or a living room etc....). On a 2d screen skew morphic design has always fallen a bit flat for me. In VR it MAKES SENSE. seeing a 2d image projected onto a wall, or on a large screen tracks completely with your expectations and it fits. This was almost immediately followed by looking around and going "WHAT THE FUCK... WHERE IS MY BODY" when I looked down into an empty chair that I was "sitting" in. This is the level of brain screwing going on. No matter how cognizant I was of the fact I was not really there the basic level of my brains perception was and remains severely disturbed by not having a visual re-enforcement of my physical presence when doing things like moving an arm and feeling it move but not seeing it in the VR session.
Coolest experiences thus far:
Think oculus goofed not launching with the touch controllers. without them you really are reliant on the controller (Xbox or Oculus puck) but they can be sorely lacking at times... and trying to blind find a keyboard while in VR is a BITCH. That goes back to the seeing is believing thing. Once your brain buys that you are somewhere else visually it is HARD to keep a separate physical map. IE reaching for a keyboard in reality when your VR world has no such thing causes a pretty weird disconnect. I almost have to shut my eyes and revert to other senses to determine my surroundings.
Conclusion:
Much as I hate to say it... VR does not have its "Killer App" at this time. I have little doubt some form of consumer level VR is here to stay but I think the jury is out on whether or not this is the 'iPhone' moment for the technology. By that I mean the thing that takes a tech from the geeky corners and into the mainstream. This may be more of a blackberry/palm pilot era for now. The focus until now has been on getting the graphics good enough to not make people sick... but the interface questions still loom large. This is still a good parallel to the early smart phones and PDAs where the capability of the pocket computer was undeniable... but it was all locked behind an impossible input conundrum that took capacitive touch and a firm break from desktop OS interface tropes to resolve. For anyone who has experienced the thrill a good 'presence' experience can provide it is fairly obvious there is something here to exploit. We just need to figure out how to actually harness it.
Do I regret my purchase? No.... make that... HELL no. But hindsight being what it is I am thinking a bit more patience may have been the better path if I had it to do over again. The only thing I am really frustrated at right now is being denied my high quality general aviation simulator with a VR headset experience. FSX hasn't been updated in a long time and doesn't support VR. Xplane worked with the Dev kits but does not work with CV1 that I can find. Oculus dropped OpenGL support for the time being. But there is DCS.... and they have a freebie P-51 mustang model :-) Landing a mustang is a real challenge.... and it is made harder by the headset in some key ways, and much easier in others. Visual cues and being able to look out the side easily as the nose obscures the runway is good. Interacting with all the special keys to do gear, flaps, mixture, throttle etc.... Not so much.
Misc:
Weirdest experience thus far:
The Apollo 11 VR experience starts you out sitting in a 60's living room watching a "film" projection on a wall. Two things happened in this. First, it finally clicked why there are so many skew morphic 2d screen concepts for VR (IE sitting in a movie theater, or a living room etc....). On a 2d screen skew morphic design has always fallen a bit flat for me. In VR it MAKES SENSE. seeing a 2d image projected onto a wall, or on a large screen tracks completely with your expectations and it fits. This was almost immediately followed by looking around and going "WHAT THE FUCK... WHERE IS MY BODY" when I looked down into an empty chair that I was "sitting" in. This is the level of brain screwing going on. No matter how cognizant I was of the fact I was not really there the basic level of my brains perception was and remains severely disturbed by not having a visual re-enforcement of my physical presence when doing things like moving an arm and feeling it move but not seeing it in the VR session.
Coolest experiences thus far:
- When I was first plopped into the cockpit of a P-51D Mustang at altitude over Tibilisi in DCS.
- The shift from the 60's living room to a projection of the moon filling my field of view in the Apollo experience with the space ship coming into view to my side. 3d, stereoscopic rounded detailed moon... peripheral vision registering something and just turning my head to see the Apollo capsule and lunar lander coming by on its way to its date with history. Magic.. as is this whole thing. More than any other 'story' mode VR thing I have tried this one shows the promise of VR to reach people in a new an powerful way.
- Oculus dream deck has several cool factor shorts... T-Rex on the prowl in a museum, standing on the edge of a TALL building (serious vertigo just like if I had been there) where the two that registered the most. Another sampler has a Minecraft cathedral that is awesome.
- Project Cars sitting in a Mustang GT heading out onto the Nurburgring and FINALLY being able to really appreciate the elevation changes and road camber angles etc.... Close second is the corkscrew at Laguna Seca, driving a Bac Mono around Monaco.
- And of course can't leave out getting shot out of a launch tube Battlestar Galactica style in Eve Valkyrie.... absolute crying shame about the rest of the experience. They REALLY need a game/story there beyond the handful of multiplayer maps that it has. Glad it was included, id have hated it if I had paid full price for it.
Disappointments:
- Lucky's tale. It LOOKS SO COOL. And it is fun... right up to the point you get told you have to repeat the early levels getting bonus points etc... until you unlock the next one. Super Mario this is not. artificial game mechanic play time extensions are bad enough when the hook sets strong enough to keep you on the treadmill. When your level designs are heavily relying on the novelty of VR as opposed to a honed game mechanic its idiocy. Double so when instead of maybe forcing replays of the most challenging areas... you are forcing replays of the introductory areas. I was liking the build up of complexity and wanted to play the next level... had ZERO interest in repeating levels to get there. Haven't opened it since. Seriously disappointing.
- Virtual desktop. It is beta and it may well move out of this column. But right now its buggy and weird running this software through steam on the oculus. Biggest bummer was not being able to define multiple virtual desktops to arrange around me. You can only arrange what you have physically (IE if you only have one monitor attached you can only have one desktop. I get the underlying windows driver issue that forces this.... does not make it suck any less. Absolutley nuts a virtual environment requires real monitors you can't look at to be able to display them virtually. It isn't a physical processing limit... its a "we never thought anyone would ever do that" problem. Hopefully Microsoft releases an update that addresses this.
- Pricing of VR titles vs value. Many of the games are at best tech demos but a lot of them are charging AAA release rates. Project cars is the only thing I have seen thus far that rates full price. The Climb may also rate it... but haven't shelled out to try it yet.
- Adrift: again highly highly highly cool experience. But once that wears off, it is VERY slow and boring... and it can easily test the fortitude of your stomach in a hurry. Think I would like it more without the 'game'. IE just set me free on that station to explore.... both before and after the accident.... PLEASE.
- Farlands: again... the game is not the draw. The ability to pop around in a VR alien environment is and you are severely artificially limited in how freely you can do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment