[wongarsu]

Alternatively, we try again and again because there's a lot of promise if we get it right, but so far the technology just isn't there for anything sustainable beyond the novelty factor.

This round we got far enough that there are some industry use cases for AR, which shares 99% of its tech with VR. Maybe that will funnel enough money into development to break out of the hype cycle into something sustainable.

[manholio]

I think stereoscopic viewing is fundamentally a bad idea that holds little promise - it's not really 3D, but a parlor trick that gives confusing depth information, the eye must focus at the screen even if the scene is very close or very far. It's too annoying and tiring as a sustainable consumer technology; maybe tools only professionals are required to use, ex. remote surgery gear, with pros and cons well understood.

This could change if holographic digital screens become practical, allowing, for example, multiple people in a room to see a real 3D scene, each from a different angle without any head gear.

[chowells]

There are some attempts at making light field displays. Those seem like they would address this, but it's a lot of engineering to get from where they are now to a useful head-mounted display.

[ahelwer]

>the eye must focus at the screen even if the scene is very close or very far

This is just literally untrue. Your eyes focus "into" the VR scene, not at the screens one inch from your eye.

[neuralRiot]

But you cannot focus where you want, so it’s not 3d but layered 2d. In a 3d emulated image you cannot focus on a background object and even if you could the interpupillary distance would be the same and so the focusing one. Our image processing in the brain uses such information to calculate, that’s why you can approximate the dimension of an object and distances in real life but not in a picture even if it is a 3d one.

[manholio]

> Your eyes focus "into" the VR scene, not at the screens one inch from your eye.

3D head gear like Oculus have optical systems that move the physical screens virtually to a much greater (and comfortable) distance - most people can't even focus objects closer than about 10 cm.

That's not what I meant. Rather, even that virtual 3D screen is still at a fixed apparent distance from your eyes, unlike a natural scene that contains objects that are father or closer. Such objects scatter light not only at different angles for the two eyes, the bulk of the 3D effect, but also at different internal convergence, requiring the eye's lens to deform and compensate.

This is an effect current tech cannot reproduce, leading to a nauseating and tiring viewing experience - as if the whole immersive virtual world wasn't already.