Mozilla Reality

[Sniperfox47]

1 hour ago, AresKrieger said:

I think the cost combined with space requirements and ultimately unfinished hardware has more to do with it, also I don't think internet browser is what people are really looking for as a "supporting application" as the primary function these devices serve is for gaming and frankly there aren't any good games for VR, even the ports of good games are bad on VR.

This is targeting "Standalone VR and AR" like the Oculus Go, the HTC Vive Focus, and the Qualcomm/ODG AR glasses, as well as Google Daydream in the future (Vive Focus US launch and Lenovo Mirage). These kinds of devices don't have the performance to be huge gaming monsters like the Rift and Vive.

 

These devices are oriented towards media consumption which is also a perfect target for WebVR. Imagine being able to go to Ikea and instead of seeing a picture of a chair, you can see a 3D model in VR space. Imagine being able to go to a museum website and get a 3D view of exhibits. These are the kinds of interactions WebVR is oriented towards, not gameplay.

[AresKrieger]

5 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

"Standalone VR and AR" like the Oculus Go, the HTC Vive Focus, and the Qualcomm/ODG AR

Well then my original point of "but why" is valid because I didn't know any of those existed

[Sniperfox47]

8 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Well then my original point of "but why" is valid because I didn't know any of those existed

Yup. Although to be fair they're "mobile VR" like Samsung GearVR (for the Go) and Google Daydream (for the Focus), just with the phone built in. Personally, I don't really understand the appeal over mobile VR, but it's a thing so yay?

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

Still waiting for Windows to get at least a virtual desktop mode natively ._.

I looked into VR specifically for this + some other Business applications, and making a VR headset practical for non-entertainment use is a really long ways off. I spend a lot of time with people that legitimately say, "ugh, I need a 5th monitor", so the idea of using a headset makes a lot of sense. You just can't do that right now, though I'm sure someone has hacked together a way to do it with Linux & a couple of dozen self-coded programs. Because someone always homebrews something like that.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I looked into VR specifically for this + some other Business applications, and making a VR headset practical for non-entertainment use is a really long ways off. I spend a lot of time with people that legitimately say, "ugh, I need a 5th monitor", so the idea of using a headset makes a lot of sense. You just can't do that right now, though I'm sure someone has hacked together a way to do it with Linux & a couple of dozen self-coded programs. Because someone always homebrews something like that.

It'd be great as an architect tool to show clients the proposed final results before we actually build anything.

[Taf the Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It'd be great as an architect tool to show clients the proposed final results before we actually build anything.

Shared 3D design spaces, directly brought in from a CAD program, would be really valuable business space approach, but the ecosystem just isn't there. That'd take some legitimate money behind it to achieve.

 

In the cases I've dealt with, when you have a bunch of monitors and you're looking to upgrade them all, there's $1000 pretty fast for okay monitors. If you want a mix of good and okay, you get to 2k pretty quickly. Well, a nice 4K monitor + a VR headset would make a lot of sense in that situation. It also saves a lot of space. (I know a guy, who works in Finance, with a 12 monitor setup, who would probably be the most interested in a VR Mass Desktop space.) They just can't get there right now, and poking around in the space & pretty much no one is developing that direction.

 

VR is still a really expensive gaming experience, with a few other niche applications. AR has some promise, but no one wants to even talk about the non-Consumer applications. The consumer space just cannot sustain this technology until you can program games for it rapidly, but there's a lot of good business use-cases. Most especially in any large scale design fields.

[Taf the Ghost]

@Slick

@VegetableStu

@Drak3

 

https://www.roadtovr.com/virtual-reality-desktop-compared-oculus-rift-htc-vive/

 

Was mid-last year when I went looking. Appears it hasn't changed much. Oculus appears to be making work that direction, but I still find that VR developers are still obsessed with gimmicks and don't properly focus on the control interface aspects of the technology. Gaming is defined by its control interface and graphics ability at different stages. Using simulated VR hands via a controller just isn't the right approach. Further, AR can use standing aspects, but if it isn't for a 30min or less game, standing shouldn't be the focus of a lot of VR applications.

 

"Mobile" phones are used mostly while stationary, because the value is the ability to do tasks disconnected from hardlines. VR & AR still have a long way to go, apparently, before the developers focus less on "exciting, new experiences!" and more on "you can do this old task so much better!". The "killer apps" on Mobile phones were, first, a 100 year old technology (phone) then 150 year old technology (text message), then web browsing (only 20 years old, at that point). 

 

They'd sell massively more headsets if they could spawn 20 different Excel spreadsheets at once. Somehow "Minority Report" had a much better understanding of where this tech really should be headed.

[Drak3]

11 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

@Slick

@VegetableStu

@Drak3

 

https://www.roadtovr.com/virtual-reality-desktop-compared-oculus-rift-htc-vive/

 

Was mid-last year when I went looking. Appears it hasn't changed much. Oculus appears to be making work that direction, but I still find that VR developers are still obsessed with gimmicks and don't properly focus on the control interface aspects of the technology. Gaming is defined by its control interface and graphics ability at different stages. Using simulated VR hands via a controller just isn't the right approach. Further, AR can use standing aspects, but if it isn't for a 30min or less game, standing shouldn't be the focus of a lot of VR applications.

 

"Mobile" phones are used mostly while stationary, because the value is the ability to do tasks disconnected from hardlines. VR & AR still have a long way to go, apparently, before the developers focus less on "exciting, new experiences!" and more on "you can do this old task so much better!". The "killer apps" on Mobile phones were, first, a 100 year old technology (phone) then 150 year old technology (text message), then web browsing (only 20 years old, at that point). 

 

They'd sell massively more headsets if they could spawn 20 different Excel spreadsheets at once. Somehow "Minority Report" had a much better understanding of where this tech really should be headed.

I use Bigscreen regularly.

 

But I disagree with your statement on VR hands. IMO, outside of Minecraft, VR games that revolve around controllers or KB+M are just unadulterated garbage, because for VR, those control schemes are unadulterated garbage.

[Methos]

8 hours ago, TheGlenlivet said:

Surfing the web...

Greetings chummer. You seem to be lacking a cyberdeck... Null sweat. I've got you covered and not the drek they're pushing in the Redmond Barrens.

[Taf the Ghost]

11 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I use Bigscreen regularly.

 

But I disagree with your statement on VR hands. IMO, outside of Minecraft, VR games that revolve around controllers or KB+M are just unadulterated garbage, because for VR, those control schemes are unadulterated garbage.

How's Bigscreen to interact in?

[Drak3]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

How's Bigscreen to interact in?

Besides moving screens, pretty good.

[Canada EH]

9 hours ago, TheGlenlivet said:

Surfing the web...

Sad but thats the way it is today in the computer age isnt it.

 

Perhaps Mozilla is doing this for some free PR

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

maybe for freehand it's pretty crap. but for things like "EXCEL 3000 VR EDITION" typing with a wand is horrible ._.

 

Maybe a combination of the 3 would be nice. wand for moving things in 3D space, KbM for 2D screenwork

Productive VR is going to end up something like digital design with a tablet & pen. You end up switching between controller types for the task you're up to. Some sort of flat touch surface would probably work well, in addition. Which I might have just suggested the current Apple Touch Mouse is a good idea.

 

I also realized you're going to need a damn good porn filter on your business network if you give your employees VR desktop headsets.

[Drak3]

15 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

maybe for freehand it's pretty crap. but for things like "EXCEL 3000 VR EDITION" typing with a wand is horrible ._.

 

Maybe a combination of the 3 would be nice. wand for moving things in 3D space, KbM for 2D screenwork

Typing with the Oculus touch controllers isn't that horrible. It's far better than touchscreen or Apple's keyboards.

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, Methos said:

Greetings chummer. You seem to be lacking a cyberdeck... Null sweat. I've got you covered and not the drek they're pushing in the Redmond Barrens.

Great shadoowfall reference

[vorticalbox]

12 hours ago, Wolther said:

So no pictures okay. Is there any benefit to using vr on the web? Like you probably are going to be using a mouse and kb anyways, maybe not a mouse but certainly a kb. 

If we take AR you could pin browser tabs to walls and surfaces in terms of VR you could make a website like, well anything a notice board of recent posts, a book with your news feed just like a history book.

[Canada EH]

I dont think VR will fly for the great majority of people.

[Beskamir]

10 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

 

How many people have VR? From what I can tell it's not nearly enough for this to be a good idea atm

Bit of catch 22. People won't justify getting VR if nothing supports VR but nothing will support VR until wide spread adoption. TLDR it's really good that Mozilla's doing this.

[Canada EH]

Public users do not need nor want VR, except for the few gamers and early adopters.

 

Now teaching aids and industry tools like say a surgeon, yeah it will for sure take off.

[Taf the Ghost]

59 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

Public users do not need nor want VR, except for the few gamers and early adopters.

 

Now teaching aids and industry tools like say a surgeon, yeah it will for sure take off.

Actual adoption needs "boring tasks, made much better". Before that, it's always niche, which is the problem with the early adopters right now. Very few are putting in the directed effort for the places Virtualization can really help.

57 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

motonokia users in the 90s didn't need nor want a touchscreen

First iPhone was 2007. It didn't actually work until the iPhone 3G in 2008, though it was really the iPhone 4 in 2010 that made the product line truly work.

[Sniperfox47]

3 hours ago, Canada EH said:

Public users do not need nor want VR, except for the few gamers and early adopters.

 

Now teaching aids and industry tools like say a surgeon, yeah it will for sure take off.

You'd be surprised. The sales numbers for absolutely *terrible* but cheap-ish mobile VR headsets like the Noon have been pretty substantial.

 

The issue we're having with building the mobile VR market beyond a niche is largely due to the prevelance of these "toy VR" systems, and the lack of wide device support for actually decent mobile VR systems, not lack of interest.

 

The problem is that while Daydream is strictly better in every way than the headsets, these other headsets have more marketing presence. And a lot of people are spending $80 on these toy headsets and then going "Why would I spend another $70 on a Daydream headset if that's even cheaper!?"

[Sakkura]

10 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Yup. Although to be fair they're "mobile VR" like Samsung GearVR (for the Go) and Google Daydream (for the Focus), just with the phone built in. Personally, I don't really understand the appeal over mobile VR, but it's a thing so yay?

Standalone has advantages. One thing is a lower all-in price, another is higher performance out of the same SOC (not having to run a full phone OS + bloat, better clocks via better cooling). The biggest thing is probably that it's more convenient and comfortable when you aren't having to spend time plugging your phone into the headset, with a compromised physical design due to that modularity. Better sound quality is also possible.

 

Not that I'm all that excited for Oculus Go etc. anyway, but they do have significant advantages over phone-based VR.

 

Santa Cruz is more interesting as it gets past the input/tracking limitations that currently hamper mobile/standalone VR.

[Sakkura]

16 hours ago, Wolther said:

So no pictures okay. Is there any benefit to using vr on the web? Like you probably are going to be using a mouse and kb anyways, maybe not a mouse but certainly a kb. 

You would not be using M+KB. It will eventually be a separate design target for websites, the same way websites have been modified to work well on smartphones. This could be a bigger transition though, as a website will now be able to present a physical space if it wants. See Janus VR for an early implementation of that idea (warning, it's buggy as hell).

 

12 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

I think the cost combined with space requirements and ultimately unfinished hardware has more to do with it, also I don't think internet browser is what people are really looking for as a "supporting application" as the primary function these devices serve is for gaming and frankly there aren't any good games for VR, even the ports of good games are bad on VR.

Nonsense, there are a lot of good games in VR, and even a somewhat lazy port like Skyrim VR is excellent.

[asus killer]

what the f do you need a VR browser

 

17 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

better browse the Web in VR

[RagnarokDel]

17 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Ugh.....what

future is a long time.