Nope. Immersive environments have been a cutting edge plaything for 50 years. an incremental improvement in visuals does not a revolution make. Immersion cues go far beyond auditory and visual cues. Focusing on these two generally increases the alienation experienced by the viewer.
I'm not sure about that. My university managed to get two really cool virtual reality experiences, called the Reality Cube and Reality Theatre and I had the chance to test both out a while ago. The latter is a gigantic 3D screen that completely fills your vision and the other is a cube with projections on most sides, where you can walk around a bit. They programmed it so that with a little helmet on your head, the entire world moved with you when you walked and moved around. Instant perspective change. The 'Reality Theatre' felt quite real already (basically an impressive 3D IMAX) but that 'Reality Cube' was goddamn magic. They rendered an ancient burial cave where you could crouch around and use a Wiiremote as a flashlight. I have never been more immersed, more convinced that I really was somewhere else as in that cube. I haven't tried the Oculus but you could probably make it so that if you walk around, you also walk in the game world. And that's with only visual and auditory cues (or do you count movement as the key immersion cue needed?) .
I'm sure about that. LANL built the CAVE in 1997, which not only added waldoes and two more surfaces to your "reality cube" it was also driven by a legit supercomputer and paid for by DOD money. Nobody cares. I don't think they even use it any more. I found out about it because my parents were involved in the building it was in; neither one of them knew of anyone who had any research for it, but the care and feeding of it was exorbitantly expensive. You have discovered, once again, that 3d immersion is a powerful gimmick. Spend a week with it and you will discover that it is of little utility. We perceive "depth" in ways that don't lend themselves to googles, and no matter how many times researchers spend a shitton on displays, that fact won't change.
They currently use it mostly to let people walk around and experience buildings. There was a guy who was building his own house, everything perfectly planned, but when he saw the actual dimensions in 3D, walking around his new house, he really didn't like it and immedeately called his contractor to halt the construction. And they've also used it to plan the new campus buildings, since it's a much more powerful communication tool than some renders or floorplans. Another use is for fear therapy. They have a room with a spider on a table, where people with aragnophohia can walk around and slowly get used to spiders. Especially useful because they can program its movements and because unlike a screen, when people walk around it and have that perspective change, they often cant tell that it isn't real. They also modded Doom to work on the giant 3D screen but they said that nobody lasted more than 15 minutes due to motion sickness. Interesting, in what ways do we percieve depth differently? I know our visual field is quite weird but surely at some point it will look very realistic.We perceive "depth" in ways that don't lend themselves to googles, and no matter how many times researchers spend a shitton on displays, that fact won't change.
You are describing a solution in search of a problem. 1) The reason you hire an architect is so that somebody in the project can put the brakes on things that look good on paper to the uneducated. 2) They're using it to present the new campus buildings, because we've been doing 3d walkthroughs since I graduated in '99. 3) A real spider on a table under a glass is a much more effective "spider." 4) Yup. Motion sickness. Consider how many people there are in the world with, say, only one functional eye. Yet they have depth perception. more here.
Well yeah I completely agree with you that it's not born out of necessity (there was an EU tech fund they got to finance it) , I do think you can do some really cool stuff with it - especially with the head tracking cube thing. It's not gonna dust away. Similarly, while I haven't tried the Oculus, if it can manage to provide a similar 3D perspective-changing experience it will be used for cool stuff. It might need some more accelerometers (as I don't think you can move now without a controller of some sort) but it's a hella lot cheaper than the millions spent on that 3D Imax touchscreen and not that much less cool.
I disagree with the fundamental premise. VR has had decades to improve. It hasn't, not appreciably. When a technology offers an advantage, technology improves by leaps and bounds because there is utility to improving it. When a technology hangs forever over our heads without actually arriving, it's generally because there isn't money to be made on it because nobody really needs it. That's where your wristphone is. That's where your flying car is.
That doesn't mean it isn't cool though! It is definitely not needed, not something that the market will chase to improve, unless some really amazing use is found. Just like the wristphone and the flying car, it is a cool gimmick that some people will chase after because they want to have it and experience it.
Totally different discussion. I fully support Oculus Rift or the Sony thing as a gaming accessory. It's when this "ZOMG GONNA CHANGE EVRYTHINGS" discussions come up that my cynicism shows. "Come look at a spider in VR to solve your arachnophobia" is a subsidized project justifying its existence. "Come kill a giant spider in VR because it's fuckin' awesome" sells itself.
I know, the whole Oculus Rift being bought by Facebook hasn't done this platform much good. Too high expectations, too little added value. That was not my favourite dungeon in Skyrim. Gimme some damned dragons to slay, man!Totally different discussion.
"Come kill a giant spider in VR because it's fuckin' awesome" sells itself.