Abrash Predicts The Future Of VR

[kcarbotte]

Throughout the development cycle of the Rift, Oculus continuously refined the hardware. Now that the Rift is a shipping product, Oculus is looking to the future and exploring what virtual reality hardware could become in the next few years.

Abrash Predicts The Future Of VR : Read more

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

Got it... I'll check back in five years.

 

[wifiburger]

must buy some VR stocks, not !
the future is so bright it's going to burn your retina ! that should be their slogan,

 

[Spazzy]

VR is interesting as an occasional diversion. I cannot see this as a replacement for consuming content. Human interaction is already on the decline, can you imagine what will happen if VR takes over? We really will be in a world of our own!

It is already known that too much time staring at a computer screen is bad for your eyes. Now we are going to put them within inches of our eyes with no buffering light source. Might be time to invest in your local optometrist.

 

[Jim90]

Since "the human visual system is capable of perceiving 120 pixels/degree" and we're currently at "15 pixels/degree" then we have a very, very long way to go till monitor/viewports catch up.
Since it's only the eye's fovea which renders in high resolution to the brain, then it would seem highly illogical to dismiss any system employing or research into foveated rendering as anything but hugely significant.

 

[Jsimenhoff]

VR is to 2016 as the Atari 2600 was to 1980?

 

[bit_user]

Abrash started publishing books and articles on 3D graphics and assembly language optimization like 30 years ago. This man helped develop the original rendering engine in Quake, which was a huge leap ahead of anything that existed, at the time. Even today, I'm sure he's still one of the foremost experts in realtime 3D graphics.

[quotemsg=18711765,0,1078105]Since it's only the eye's fovea which renders in high resolution to the brain, then it would seem highly illogical to dismiss any system employing or research into foveated rendering as anything but hugely significant.[/quotemsg]He obviously understands the potential, but his point is not to underestimate the challenges in doing it well enough. He's also clearly saying that the brute-force approach isn't an option.

I agree with him - we need like VR contact lenses, or something. The rendering pipeline needs to hack the human visual system at a more fundamental level.

What you'd ideally like to do is render one pixel for each receptor on the retina. If we do that, we can afford to spend a lot more effort rendering each one. The problem is that the eye moves, and there's this deformable lens, in the way. But it's got to be cracked, and I think the refresh rate will need to be closer to 200 Hz.

[quotemsg=18711885,0,2199259]VR is to 2016 as the Atari 2600 was to 1980?[/quotemsg]Not that far back. I'd say more like 8-bit Nintendo or maybe 16-bit (Super Nintendo).

 

[bit_user]

Abrash expects that Touch will remain the “state of the art” input device for VR for years to come.

Not this generation of it, I'm sure. Current VR input devices are like 1980's era mice. But he has a point that you can get tactile feedback by holding something. And I still prefer a mouse over touchscreen (if I'm seated at a desk).

 

[Memhorder]

I just can't see myself having a family AND one of these.

 

[bit_user]

[quotemsg=18721686,0,1545826]I just can't see myself having a family AND one of these.[/quotemsg]So, ditch the family!

 

[Memhorder]

[quotemsg=18721714,0,328798][quotemsg=18721686,0,1545826]I just can't see myself having a family AND one of these.[/quotemsg]So, ditch the family![/quotemsg]

Maybe.....I'll get one of those rubber Japanese play toys and Baby Robots to along with the VR headset.

 

[eklipz330]

"VR is to 2016 as the Atari 2600 was to 1980?"

no, technology is improving at a break neck pace. probably more like the ps2 or xbox.