I do think AR would be better over VR, blends in the digital with the real world so it would cause a lot less nausea. Pokemon go is a smash hit just as using phones, the potential this app could have with something like Microsofts hololens could make this game really amazing. Stationary VR only seems good for a few genres, I'd like to be able to walk around and explore.
I don't think one is better then the other. AR and VR have very different uses. Just look at what the abbreviation stands for. One is for creating a different virtual reality, the other is for augmenting reality (so not replacing it, but adding to it).
Potentially (so not looking at current available technology), both can be incredibly powerful and useful (both for games and professional uses). But for certain applications you would want to use VR, for other applications AR.
Both could be wireless, but VR requires more advanced tech to make the experience convincing and less cumbersome (no awkward big helmets and gloves/suit).
Current tech is not really convinving me. Current VR tech is too expensive and limited, while AR atm is still too much about data mining, so both not really interesting for me atm.
Of course you could create an AR game with VR.. but again, the technology of a camera will never compete with your actual eyesight......
nor will an image projected with an abudance of natural light in the way.
What many people do not understand is that the latency problems of control vs display reaction is actually HARDER in AR but the problem still exist in both AR and VR. Latency is an issue, natural light is an issue, control mechanics is an issue. Its an issue in BOTH AR and VR and one has to ask. What is it about AR that technically makes it less of a barrier? is it the natural light interfering with the image? is it unpredictable objects in real life interfering with the experience?, is the the device trying to read your eye movement while you are outside on a bright sunny day? or is some quantum computing that exists no where other than on AR devices?
It's primarily the focus of AR and the architecture in the way it's designed. To be pretty concise with the technology is fairly simple for Microsoft because Kinect had some of the ideas inherent in it's ecosystem.
Watching a few Hololens demos you can see a lot of the hand signals are the way Kinect would request you do things. They make that inherent in the navigation in general for starters. If you consider what the kinect camera could actually do, and what the original surface could do, you really do start to see how this isn't just "AR out of nowhere". Microsoft has had a build over several years here.
As for natural light, again, it's just a problem with a fairly simple solution. It could be as simple as filtering the light with sunglasses. The images aren't actually out there in the sun, they're actually projected in the lens.
The difference between AR and VR when it comes to light is camera aperature responding to fluctuations.
You can watch Vive pass through camera videos, aside from it being somewhat monochrome, just watch as they get closer or further away from light sources. While the pixelation on all VR devices right now is apparent regardless of resolution, you can also see white washing. Even expensive cameras have this issue until they refocus. We're talking about cameras the price of the Vive itself.
Of course you could create an AR game with VR.. but again, the technology of a camera will never compete with your actual eyesight......
nor will an image projected with an abudance of natural light in the way.
What many people do not understand is that the latency problems of control vs display reaction is actually HARDER in AR but the problem still exist in both AR and VR. Latency is an issue, natural light is an issue, control mechanics is an issue. Its an issue in BOTH AR and VR and one has to ask. What is it about AR that technically makes it less of a barrier? is it the natural light interfering with the image? is it unpredictable objects in real life interfering with the experience?, is the the device trying to read your eye movement while you are outside on a bright sunny day? or is some quantum computing that exists no where other than on AR devices?
It's primarily the focus of AR and the architecture in the way it's designed. To be pretty concise with the technology is fairly simple for Microsoft because Kinect had some of the ideas inherent in it's ecosystem.
Watching a few Hololens demos you can see a lot of the hand signals are the way Kinect would request you do things. They make that inherent in the navigation in general for starters. If you consider what the kinect camera could actually do, and what the original surface could do, you really do start to see how this isn't just "AR out of nowhere". Microsoft has had a build over several years here.
As for natural light, again, it's just a problem with a fairly simple solution. It could be as simple as filtering the light with sunglasses. The images aren't actually out there in the sun, they're actually projected in the lens.
The difference between AR and VR when it comes to light is camera aperature responding to fluctuations.
You can watch Vive pass through camera videos, aside from it being somewhat monochrome, just watch as they get closer or further away from light sources. While the pixelation on all VR devices right now is apparent regardless of resolution, you can also see white washing. Even expensive cameras have this issue until they refocus. We're talking about cameras the price of the Vive itself.
you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about and are literally making things up now.
I know enough about computers to know that the problems of Latency, the problem of controls, the problem of natural light all apply to AR just as they would with VR only in most cases its MORE of a problem. Yet somehow by magic and rainbow ponies to get the same effect it needs less computing power. There is more computing going on with AR for more than one reason so to get the same quality of effect will require more gear, not less.
key here is 'same quality' because to be frank everything I have seen on AR from a gaming standpoint looks like pure shit.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Of course you could create an AR game with VR.. but again, the technology of a camera will never compete with your actual eyesight......
nor will an image projected with an abudance of natural light in the way.
What many people do not understand is that the latency problems of control vs display reaction is actually HARDER in AR but the problem still exist in both AR and VR. Latency is an issue, natural light is an issue, control mechanics is an issue. Its an issue in BOTH AR and VR and one has to ask. What is it about AR that technically makes it less of a barrier? is it the natural light interfering with the image? is it unpredictable objects in real life interfering with the experience?, is the the device trying to read your eye movement while you are outside on a bright sunny day? or is some quantum computing that exists no where other than on AR devices?
It's primarily the focus of AR and the architecture in the way it's designed. To be pretty concise with the technology is fairly simple for Microsoft because Kinect had some of the ideas inherent in it's ecosystem.
Watching a few Hololens demos you can see a lot of the hand signals are the way Kinect would request you do things. They make that inherent in the navigation in general for starters. If you consider what the kinect camera could actually do, and what the original surface could do, you really do start to see how this isn't just "AR out of nowhere". Microsoft has had a build over several years here.
As for natural light, again, it's just a problem with a fairly simple solution. It could be as simple as filtering the light with sunglasses. The images aren't actually out there in the sun, they're actually projected in the lens.
The difference between AR and VR when it comes to light is camera aperature responding to fluctuations.
You can watch Vive pass through camera videos, aside from it being somewhat monochrome, just watch as they get closer or further away from light sources. While the pixelation on all VR devices right now is apparent regardless of resolution, you can also see white washing. Even expensive cameras have this issue until they refocus. We're talking about cameras the price of the Vive itself.
you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about and are literally making things up now.
I know enough about computers to know that the problems of Latency, the problem of controls, the problem of natural light all apply to AR just as they would with VR only in most cases its MORE of a problem. Yet somehow by magic and rainbow ponies to get the same effect it needs less computing power. There is more computing going on with AR for more than one reason so to get the same quality of effect will require more gear, not less.
key here is 'same quality' because to be frank everything I have seen on AR from a gaming standpoint looks like pure shit.
Why is it more of a problem? You "know enough" about computers, that doesn't sound like you know enough at all.
Latency is only an issue when you're going through the hardware.. This is ONLY AN ISSUE WITH VR because you are forced to utilize several pieces of hardware for the ENTIRETY of your vision.
As I stated, just go watch a Vive pass through camera video. You'll understand it quite quickly.
You don't seem to understand how these systems work, but had you taken the time to read, watch, and understand you could easily realize that AR does more with far less.
For one, every AR product thus far has been self contained, starting from the google glass, to cell phone games, to Hololens and Magic Leap. Not a single one requires a huge investment.
Hololens and magic leap don't require hand controls to interact with virtual objects, you use your hands. You can't do that with VR. The only way VR can detect you is if you 1) have a camera or 2) Hold onto controllers for dear life so you can interact obtusely with the world and pray you don't drop one or else you'll have to stop to pick one up.
AR is much more precise, using your fingers can simply issue commands. Grabbing something is actually grabbing.
Oh, and does it need LESS computing power? Well, the Hololens uses hardware that does generally have less computing power. You're really only overlaying things in the world.. many times IN A FIXED POSITION that you can choose for generaly use.
For games, again, you're only detecting and then creating objects you want to display, not like VR that is forced to recreate the entire scene and display it (quite horribly, because ... y'know.. it's VR sets and everything is always pixels all the time)
Here's a question you won't answer -- What takes less processing power - Displaying the world of Skyrim, or displaying a pokemon character in the real world?
Hololens and magic leap don't require hand controls to interact with virtual objects, you use your hands. You can't do that with VR. The only way VR can detect you is if you 1) have a camera or 2) Hold onto controllers for dear life so you can interact obtusely with the world and pray you don't drop one or else you'll have to stop to pick one up.
AR is much more precise, using your fingers can simply issue commands. Grabbing something is actually grabbing. ...
Wait...
If the AR devices are using such highly sophisticated tech that they can track your most delicate hand (and even finger) movements effortlessly, without requiring a glove or anything to be present in the hand itself, then why can't VR devices do the same ?
Hand-tracking is hand-tracking, regardless of which system is using it.
I think you may be overestimating that part of the AR capabilities a bit.
Hololens and magic leap don't require hand controls to interact with virtual objects, you use your hands. You can't do that with VR. The only way VR can detect you is if you 1) have a camera or 2) Hold onto controllers for dear life so you can interact obtusely with the world and pray you don't drop one or else you'll have to stop to pick one up.
AR is much more precise, using your fingers can simply issue commands. Grabbing something is actually grabbing. ...
Wait...
If the AR devices are using such highly sophisticated tech that they can track your most delicate hand (and even finger) movements effortlessly, without requiring a glove or anything to be present in the hand itself, then why can't VR devices do the same ?
Hand-tracking is hand-tracking, regardless of which system is using it.
I think you may be overestimating that part of the AR capabilities a bit.
EXACTLY!
and do it in natural light with various other possible unknown obstructions in the way. like if you look at a table or a chair for example
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Hololens and magic leap don't require hand controls to interact with virtual objects, you use your hands. You can't do that with VR. The only way VR can detect you is if you 1) have a camera or 2) Hold onto controllers for dear life so you can interact obtusely with the world and pray you don't drop one or else you'll have to stop to pick one up.
AR is much more precise, using your fingers can simply issue commands. Grabbing something is actually grabbing. ...
Wait...
If the AR devices are using such highly sophisticated tech that they can track your most delicate hand (and even finger) movements effortlessly, without requiring a glove or anything to be present in the hand itself, then why can't VR devices do the same ?
Hand-tracking is hand-tracking, regardless of which system is using it.
I think you may be overestimating that part of the AR capabilities a bit.
EXACTLY!
and do it in natural light with various other possible unknown obstructions in the way. like if you look at a table or a chair for example
Do either of you realize that Kinect had hand tracking without gloves? VR doesn't use hand tracking, it uses device tracking. You need controllers, there is no camera connected, even if you were to wear gloves, it would be a peripheral device. Because of this AR can also do object tracking, another thing you could only do with specific devices in VR. If you had a camera in VR, that brings up a lot of new issues I've outlined countless times over.
"There isn’t a screen to touch or a mouse to click. Use gestures to create, shape, and size holograms. Use your eyes to navigate and explore. Use your voice to communicate with your apps. Microsoft HoloLens understands your movements, vision, and voice, enabling you to interact with content and information in the most natural way possible."
Hololens and magic leap don't require hand controls to interact with virtual objects, you use your hands. You can't do that with VR. The only way VR can detect you is if you 1) have a camera or 2) Hold onto controllers for dear life so you can interact obtusely with the world and pray you don't drop one or else you'll have to stop to pick one up.
AR is much more precise, using your fingers can simply issue commands. Grabbing something is actually grabbing. ...
Wait...
If the AR devices are using such highly sophisticated tech that they can track your most delicate hand (and even finger) movements effortlessly, without requiring a glove or anything to be present in the hand itself, then why can't VR devices do the same ?
Hand-tracking is hand-tracking, regardless of which system is using it.
I think you may be overestimating that part of the AR capabilities a bit.
EXACTLY!
and do it in natural light with various other possible unknown obstructions in the way. like if you look at a table or a chair for example
Do either of you realize that Kinect had hand tracking without gloves? VR doesn't use hand tracking, it uses device tracking. You need controllers, there is no camera connected, even if you were to wear gloves, it would be a peripheral device. Because of this AR can also do object tracking, another thing you could only do with specific devices in VR. If you had a camera in VR, that brings up a lot of new issues I've outlined countless times over.
"There isn’t a screen to touch or a mouse to click. Use gestures to create, shape, and size holograms. Use your eyes to navigate and explore. Use your voice to communicate with your apps. Microsoft HoloLens understands your movements, vision, and voice, enabling you to interact with content and information in the most natural way possible."
kentic hand tracking is not as good as VR hand tracking bro
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
kentic hand tracking is not as good as VR hand tracking bro
Here's another video.
And no... VR isn't hand tracking LOL you have to use devices. Or maybe you won't SEAN you'll be using an XB1 controller.
oh for the love of fuck
hand tracking via a camera or something you hold is still 'tracking your hand'
regardless of that incredibly unimportant point the accuracy of VR solutions to determine what your hand is doing in the physical world is better than Kentic.
and please stop posting AR videos they all look like shit and its painful to look at.
oh and when you grab a sphere you hand is not supposed to go thru it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
kentic hand tracking is not as good as VR hand tracking bro
Here's another video.
And no... VR isn't hand tracking LOL you have to use devices. Or maybe you won't SEAN you'll be using an XB1 controller.
oh for the love of fuck
hand tracking via a camera or something you hold is still 'tracking your hand'
regardless of that incredibly unimportant point the accuracy of VR solutions to determine what your hand is doing in the physical world is better than Kentic.
and please stop posting AR videos they all look like shit and its painful to look at.
LOL these are to show you that hand tracking without gloves and controllers is real. So if we are to believe what you're saying, Wii did hand tracking years ago and it was as good as you'll get in VR. Got it.
I've used the Vive controllers, they're alright. A little wonky, but still YOU will be using an xbox controller, so where is your hand tracking?
And you don't know how good the hand tracking was on Kinect.. you never used it. the XB1 version was actually very good. Considering that when you used Kinect from an average of 8 to 15 feet away and you would be using the Hololens at arms length, it's a very different animal.
kentic hand tracking is not as good as VR hand tracking bro
Here's another video.
And no... VR isn't hand tracking LOL you have to use devices. Or maybe you won't SEAN you'll be using an XB1 controller.
oh for the love of fuck
hand tracking via a camera or something you hold is still 'tracking your hand'
regardless of that incredibly unimportant point the accuracy of VR solutions to determine what your hand is doing in the physical world is better than Kentic.
and please stop posting AR videos they all look like shit and its painful to look at.
LOL these are to show you that hand tracking without gloves and controllers is real. So if we are to believe what you're saying, Wii did hand tracking years ago and it was as good as you'll get in VR. Got it.
I've used the Vive controllers, they're alright. A little wonky, but still YOU will be using an xbox controller, so where is your hand tracking?
And you don't know how good the hand tracking was on Kinect.. you never used it. the XB1 version was actually very good. Considering that when you used Kinect from an average of 8 to 15 feet away and you would be using the Hololens at arms length, it's a very different animal.
Enjoy your Xbox1 controller hand tracking. LOL
for the third time.
Its
not
as
good
I am not saying it doesnt exist, I am saying its not as accurate. and you know I am talking about Touch controllers not xbox so stop pretending to be a moron
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
kentic hand tracking is not as good as VR hand tracking bro
Here's another video.
And no... VR isn't hand tracking LOL you have to use devices. Or maybe you won't SEAN you'll be using an XB1 controller.
*courtesy of microsoft.
Do these concepts just completely elude you ?
How do you think an AR device performs "hand-tracking" ? With a camera !
It's not some arcane superior AR-magic, it's plain tech. That tech CAN be built into a VR headset just as easily as it can be built into an AR headset.
It's not currently done because it would be silly to do. VR is not intended to replace AR, or vice versa. They are covering very different applications currently, and in all likelihood always will.
kentic hand tracking is not as good as VR hand tracking bro
Here's another video.
And no... VR isn't hand tracking LOL you have to use devices. Or maybe you won't SEAN you'll be using an XB1 controller.
*courtesy of microsoft.
Do these concepts just completely elude you ?
How do you think an AR device performs "hand-tracking" ? With a camera !
It's not some arcane superior AR-magic, it's plain tech. That tech CAN be built into a VR headset just as easily as it can be built into an AR headset.
It's not currently done because it would be silly to do. VR is not intended to replace AR, or vice versa. They are covering very different applications currently, and in all likelihood always will.
and that is what I have been trying to tell him as well. Maybe you are better at it but I am not succeeding at this
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
basically 'AR' as a 'game' has already existed. yes the experience is not the same but the game objectives etc are all the same as what we currently have now.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
kentic hand tracking is not as good as VR hand tracking bro
Here's another video.
And no... VR isn't hand tracking LOL you have to use devices. Or maybe you won't SEAN you'll be using an XB1 controller.
*courtesy of microsoft.
Do these concepts just completely elude you ?
How do you think an AR device performs "hand-tracking" ? With a camera !
It's not some arcane superior AR-magic, it's plain tech. That tech CAN be built into a VR headset just as easily as it can be built into an AR headset.
It's not currently done because it would be silly to do. VR is not intended to replace AR, or vice versa. They are covering very different applications currently, and in all likelihood always will.
and that is what I have been trying to tell him as well. Maybe you are better at it but I am not succeeding at this
First of all...
@SpottyGekko it's not that you can't do it in VR.. it's that when you do it in VR, you have MORE problems with latency. I've posted this months back about a company that utilized a camera to try and bring AR into the VR space. Conclusion? Delay in vision, light distortion, nausea.
Again, look at the pass through camera on the Vive, just see the delay between Audio and Visuals to determine the delay. This is something YOU DON'T HAVE IN CURRENT AR.
It's not currently done because technologically it isn't easy to do. You're welcome to go back through my posting history. This was the same conversation I had with SEAN a while back, even showed my work and everything.
As for hand tracking, you COULD do it in VR, but again, to do it without gloves, you require a camera and the technology to do so -- but you're also recreating everything virtually.
You are not really there.. its you pixelated.... the resolution is poor... always will be in comparison....
As for "hand tracking in VR" No it doesn't work better in VR... VR doesn't have hand tracking... they have controller tracking.
If VR can use controllers as "hand trackers" AR could do it too... that works both ways... but the difference is... AR can track your hands TODAY and allows you to interact without controllers. There is no delay in the way your hands interact... because it is real time, it is unconstrained by hardware... something that utilizing a camera in VR will never allow.
kentic hand tracking is not as good as VR hand tracking bro
Here's another video.
And no... VR isn't hand tracking LOL you have to use devices. Or maybe you won't SEAN you'll be using an XB1 controller.
*courtesy of microsoft.
Do these concepts just completely elude you ?
How do you think an AR device performs "hand-tracking" ? With a camera !
It's not some arcane superior AR-magic, it's plain tech. That tech CAN be built into a VR headset just as easily as it can be built into an AR headset.
It's not currently done because it would be silly to do. VR is not intended to replace AR, or vice versa. They are covering very different applications currently, and in all likelihood always will.
and that is what I have been trying to tell him as well. Maybe you are better at it but I am not succeeding at this
....it is unconstrained by hardware...
you cant possibly be serious right now
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
kentic hand tracking is not as good as VR hand tracking bro
Here's another video.
And no... VR isn't hand tracking LOL you have to use devices. Or maybe you won't SEAN you'll be using an XB1 controller.
*courtesy of microsoft.
Do these concepts just completely elude you ?
How do you think an AR device performs "hand-tracking" ? With a camera !
It's not some arcane superior AR-magic, it's plain tech. That tech CAN be built into a VR headset just as easily as it can be built into an AR headset.
It's not currently done because it would be silly to do. VR is not intended to replace AR, or vice versa. They are covering very different applications currently, and in all likelihood always will.
and that is what I have been trying to tell him as well. Maybe you are better at it but I am not succeeding at this
....it is unconstrained by hardware...
you cant possibly be serious right now
Use it in context. I know reading is hard, but try.
Use it in context. I know reading is hard, but try.
I know I know because its AR suddenly and magically or by remote control the laws of physics do not apply even though the need of a camera is exactly the same between the two technologies.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
kentic hand tracking is not as good as VR hand tracking bro
Here's another video.
And no... VR isn't hand tracking LOL you have to use devices. Or maybe you won't SEAN you'll be using an XB1 controller.
*courtesy of microsoft.
Do these concepts just completely elude you ?
How do you think an AR device performs "hand-tracking" ? With a camera !
It's not some arcane superior AR-magic, it's plain tech. That tech CAN be built into a VR headset just as easily as it can be built into an AR headset.
It's not currently done because it would be silly to do. VR is not intended to replace AR, or vice versa. They are covering very different applications currently, and in all likelihood always will.
and that is what I have been trying to tell him as well. Maybe you are better at it but I am not succeeding at this
First of all...
@SpottyGekko it's not that you can't do it in VR.. it's that when you do it in VR, you have MORE problems with latency. I've posted this months back about a company that utilized a camera to try and bring AR into the VR space. Conclusion? Delay in vision, light distortion, nausea.
Again, look at the pass through camera on the Vive, just see the delay between Audio and Visuals to determine the delay. This is something YOU DON'T HAVE IN CURRENT AR.
It's not currently done because technologically it isn't easy to do. You're welcome to go back through my posting history. This was the same conversation I had with SEAN a while back, even showed my work and everything.
As for hand tracking, you COULD do it in VR, but again, to do it without gloves, you require a camera and the technology to do so -- but you're also recreating everything virtually.
You are not really there.. its you pixelated.... the resolution is poor... always will be in comparison....
As for "hand tracking in VR" No it doesn't work better in VR... VR doesn't have hand tracking... they have controller tracking.
If VR can use controllers as "hand trackers" AR could do it too... that works both ways... but the difference is... AR can track your hands TODAY and allows you to interact without controllers. There is no delay in the way your hands interact... because it is real time, it is unconstrained by hardware... something that utilizing a camera in VR will never allow.
OK, look at it this way:
The CURRENT camera in the VR headset is not of the same quality as the one in the AR headset.
If you took the camera out of the AR headset and installed it in the VR headset, the hand-tracking capability of the AR headset would now be possible via the VR headset. You'd also have to transfer the image processing software, of course.
There's just no compelling reason to do it, because it's pointless trying to turn one device into another. They serve different purposes.
The CURRENT camera in the VR headset is not of the same quality as the one in the AR headset.
If you took the camera out of the AR headset and installed it in the VR headset, the hand-tracking capability of the AR headset would now be possible via the VR headset. You'd also have to transfer the image processing software, of course.
There's just no compelling reason to do it, because it's pointless trying to turn one device into another. They serve different purposes.
I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is, it isn't about the camera.
You don't need the camera to see the world around you for AR... YOU DO for VR.
Thats what I'm saying.
So, for example Spotty, if you open the camera app on your phone and walk around holding it in front of your face, would you be confident walking around the city like that? What issues would you encounter?
The camera in the Hololens has nothing to do with real world interaction ONLY with virtual interaction.
Use it in context. I know reading is hard, but try.
I know I know because its AR suddenly and magically or by remote control the laws of physics do not apply even though the need of a camera is exactly the same between the two technologies.
So you're saying that you have latency with your RL hands. gotchya.
Comments
Potentially (so not looking at current available technology), both can be incredibly powerful and useful (both for games and professional uses). But for certain applications you would want to use VR, for other applications AR.
Both could be wireless, but VR requires more advanced tech to make the experience convincing and less cumbersome (no awkward big helmets and gloves/suit).
Current tech is not really convinving me. Current VR tech is too expensive and limited, while AR atm is still too much about data mining, so both not really interesting for me atm.
Watching a few Hololens demos you can see a lot of the hand signals are the way Kinect would request you do things. They make that inherent in the navigation in general for starters. If you consider what the kinect camera could actually do, and what the original surface could do, you really do start to see how this isn't just "AR out of nowhere". Microsoft has had a build over several years here.
As for natural light, again, it's just a problem with a fairly simple solution. It could be as simple as filtering the light with sunglasses. The images aren't actually out there in the sun, they're actually projected in the lens.
The difference between AR and VR when it comes to light is camera aperature responding to fluctuations.
You can watch Vive pass through camera videos, aside from it being somewhat monochrome, just watch as they get closer or further away from light sources. While the pixelation on all VR devices right now is apparent regardless of resolution, you can also see white washing. Even expensive cameras have this issue until they refocus. We're talking about cameras the price of the Vive itself.
I know enough about computers to know that the problems of Latency, the problem of controls, the problem of natural light all apply to AR just as they would with VR only in most cases its MORE of a problem. Yet somehow by magic and rainbow ponies to get the same effect it needs less computing power.
There is more computing going on with AR for more than one reason so to get the same quality of effect will require more gear, not less.
key here is 'same quality' because to be frank everything I have seen on AR from a gaming standpoint looks like pure shit.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Latency is only an issue when you're going through the hardware.. This is ONLY AN ISSUE WITH VR because you are forced to utilize several pieces of hardware for the ENTIRETY of your vision.
As I stated, just go watch a Vive pass through camera video. You'll understand it quite quickly.
You don't seem to understand how these systems work, but had you taken the time to read, watch, and understand you could easily realize that AR does more with far less.
For one, every AR product thus far has been self contained, starting from the google glass, to cell phone games, to Hololens and Magic Leap. Not a single one requires a huge investment.
Hololens and magic leap don't require hand controls to interact with virtual objects, you use your hands. You can't do that with VR. The only way VR can detect you is if you 1) have a camera or 2) Hold onto controllers for dear life so you can interact obtusely with the world and pray you don't drop one or else you'll have to stop to pick one up.
AR is much more precise, using your fingers can simply issue commands. Grabbing something is actually grabbing.
Oh, and does it need LESS computing power? Well, the Hololens uses hardware that does generally have less computing power. You're really only overlaying things in the world.. many times IN A FIXED POSITION that you can choose for generaly use.
For games, again, you're only detecting and then creating objects you want to display, not like VR that is forced to recreate the entire scene and display it (quite horribly, because ... y'know.. it's VR sets and everything is always pixels all the time)
Here's a question you won't answer -- What takes less processing power - Displaying the world of Skyrim, or displaying a pokemon character in the real world?
If the AR devices are using such highly sophisticated tech that they can track your most delicate hand (and even finger) movements effortlessly, without requiring a glove or anything to be present in the hand itself, then why can't VR devices do the same ?
Hand-tracking is hand-tracking, regardless of which system is using it.
I think you may be overestimating that part of the AR capabilities a bit.
and do it in natural light with various other possible unknown obstructions in the way. like if you look at a table or a chair for example
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"There isn’t a screen to touch or a mouse to click. Use gestures to create, shape, and size holograms. Use your eyes to navigate and explore. Use your voice to communicate with your apps. Microsoft HoloLens understands your movements, vision, and voice, enabling you to interact with content and information in the most natural way possible."
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Here's another video.
And no... VR isn't hand tracking LOL you have to use devices. Or maybe you won't SEAN you'll be using an XB1 controller.
*courtesy of microsoft.
hand tracking via a camera or something you hold is still 'tracking your hand'
regardless of that incredibly unimportant point the accuracy of VR solutions to determine what your hand is doing in the physical world is better than Kentic.
and please stop posting AR videos they all look like shit and its painful to look at.
oh and when you grab a sphere you hand is not supposed to go thru it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I've used the Vive controllers, they're alright. A little wonky, but still YOU will be using an xbox controller, so where is your hand tracking?
And you don't know how good the hand tracking was on Kinect.. you never used it. the XB1 version was actually very good. Considering that when you used Kinect from an average of 8 to 15 feet away and you would be using the Hololens at arms length, it's a very different animal.
Enjoy your Xbox1 controller hand tracking. LOL
Its
not
as
good
I am not saying it doesnt exist, I am saying its not as accurate. and you know I am talking about Touch controllers not xbox so stop pretending to be a moron
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Co-Founder of Elder Moot
SotA Founder
VR: I need to track a hand
AR: I will use cameras
VR: I could use cameras too
so what SPECIFICALLY about AR makes it technically more possible to do this with less gear than VR that is SPECIFIC to technology of AR?
nothig
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
How do you think an AR device performs "hand-tracking" ?
With a camera !
It's not some arcane superior AR-magic, it's plain tech. That tech CAN be built into a VR headset just as easily as it can be built into an AR headset.
It's not currently done because it would be silly to do. VR is not intended to replace AR, or vice versa. They are covering very different applications currently, and in all likelihood always will.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
if you want to talk AR check out this:
http://www.fastcompany.com/3061735/pokemon-go-may-prove-that-ar-is-more-mainstream-than-vr
basically 'AR' as a 'game' has already existed. yes the experience is not the same but the game objectives etc are all the same as what we currently have now.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
@SpottyGekko it's not that you can't do it in VR.. it's that when you do it in VR, you have MORE problems with latency. I've posted this months back about a company that utilized a camera to try and bring AR into the VR space. Conclusion? Delay in vision, light distortion, nausea.
Again, look at the pass through camera on the Vive, just see the delay between Audio and Visuals to determine the delay. This is something YOU DON'T HAVE IN CURRENT AR.
It's not currently done because technologically it isn't easy to do. You're welcome to go back through my posting history. This was the same conversation I had with SEAN a while back, even showed my work and everything.
As for hand tracking, you COULD do it in VR, but again, to do it without gloves, you require a camera and the technology to do so -- but you're also recreating everything virtually.
You are not really there.. its you pixelated.... the resolution is poor... always will be in comparison....
As for "hand tracking in VR" No it doesn't work better in VR... VR doesn't have hand tracking... they have controller tracking.
If VR can use controllers as "hand trackers" AR could do it too... that works both ways... but the difference is... AR can track your hands TODAY and allows you to interact without controllers. There is no delay in the way your hands interact... because it is real time, it is unconstrained by hardware... something that utilizing a camera in VR will never allow.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The CURRENT camera in the VR headset is not of the same quality as the one in the AR headset.
If you took the camera out of the AR headset and installed it in the VR headset, the hand-tracking capability of the AR headset would now be possible via the VR headset. You'd also have to transfer the image processing software, of course.
There's just no compelling reason to do it, because it's pointless trying to turn one device into another. They serve different purposes.
You don't need the camera to see the world around you for AR... YOU DO for VR.
Thats what I'm saying.
So, for example Spotty, if you open the camera app on your phone and walk around holding it in front of your face, would you be confident walking around the city like that? What issues would you encounter?
The camera in the Hololens has nothing to do with real world interaction ONLY with virtual interaction.