[dm2]

Does the latest versions make people sick after prolonged use?

How similar does it feel to looking at real far away objects? Is it easy to tell it's not 3D and the screen is flat?

If I tied a passed out "friend" up and put on the Oculus Rift glasses and played a movie of them being thrown out of a helicopter from 1st person, would they be able to tell that it was fake or is there a perceived feeling of it being real?

[modeless]

1. According to media reports, the latest version almost eliminates motion sickness. You can still get motion sickness from e.g. going on a virtual roller coaster that would make you sick in the real world, but you won't get sick just sitting in place (which is why the new demos do just that).

2. Far away objects look pixelated, and very close objects look incorrect because the depth of field is wrong. However, the 3D effect is much better than with any previous 3D technology, and there's an overwhelming sense of real scale that you don't get watching e.g. a 3D TV set. You feel placed in the 3D world and you can easily judge the size of things relative to yourself.

3. If your friend knew about the Rift they would easily be able to tell that it was VR; however there is also a perceived feeling of it being real that doesn't go away just from knowing that it's not. VR "presence" means that you'll dodge an object thrown at you even though you know it isn't there, and you'll be afraid to step out over a cliff even though you know you're on a flat floor in real life.

[lutorm]

By (2), are you referring to the fact that you don't have to refocus your eyes when shifting your view between objects at different distances?

I've never tried one, but I'd assume the screen is projected at infinity or close to? This should only be an issue with objects that are closer than 1.5ft or something.

[modeless]

Yes, it's only a problem with objects that are unusually close to your face. It's a small concern and only really relevant for people designing VR content, because with properly designed content users should never notice.

[lutorm]

I guess I won't be able to faithfully simulate having to put on my reading glasses to read the cockpit instruments in a flight simulator then... ;-)

[itcmcgrath]

I got the chance to play with it a few weeks ago, along with several others in our office.

1) It didn't make any of us sick, but I could see how it still would for users, particular if they didn't try to move their body in roughly the same direction as they would if it was IRL. If you have ever sat in a vehicle and watched the outside via a mirror - it's like that.

2) For me, while it was immersive (we had several users scream at things and dance around), it is still nothing like real vision. It still gives you one real focal point (or lack of one at all), which immediately makes it different from real life vision - particularly over long distances.

3) Unlikely. It would probably severely freak them out. Perhaps the rapidness of it would leave enough confusion that they worked it out, but it is still obvious it is computer generated graphics. See the focal issue above as an example.

Having said that, it was amazingly fun and I wish I had one now. I'd love to experiment with a 'Virtual Programming' environment. I'll leave what that means as an exercise for the reader :)

[xur17]

I would love a virtual programming environment. If they (eventually) get the resolution high enough, you could use it to replace all of your external monitors, and be able to use your full desktop environment anywhere.

[jonhohle]

I've been thinking about it for development as well, but I now think that resolution isn't as big a concern as I initially thought.

You'd be able to have a virtual desktop of (essentially) unlimited size. You're frontmost task could be high resolution, but ancillary tasks could be lower resolution or high resolution but partially occluded by your field of vision. This wouldn't be opening an IDE to fill the entire screen - it would be a multi-window environment with at most a few primary tasks using up most of the screen real estate. Like Mission Control with real time zooming in a 3D environment and no distinction between workspaces.

[itcmcgrath]

Indeed that would be assume. Solves the how many monitor's do you need debate, no longer restricts you by either available space or location. Would save money on power, etc. Seems like it could be a win for both the developer and budget.

[leoc]

There's one significant catch, which is a limited ability to look around by moving your eyes rather than your head.

[moistgorilla]

The screen spans your entire field of view. You can still look around with your eyes only. The only problem is the low resolution.

[leoc]

That's not the case: different headsets have different fields of view, and most, including the DK2, have a FOV that's considerably narrower than the Sensics dSight's. Likely the dSight doesn't cover the full range of eye movement either.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApTBEPEA_odkdHp...

[sixothree]

I would love to get over a fear of heights and be able to enjoy some new places on this earth.

[dm2]

Some video games give me that feeling of "death is imminent" when the 1st person character jumps off of a cliff or falls, but it only happens the first time, so there's a good chance that it's possible to help overcome the fear of heights with VR.

I'm horrified about being near the edges of buildings and cliffs, and in my mind it's perfectly justified (less chance of death away from edge).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CCTV_Beijing_April_2008.jp...

Also this building freaks me out imagining actually being in that building. I'd much rather have a support column under me. If I worked for a company in that building and our offices were on those floors in the middle I would probably be forced to quit. Oh, and it's in an area known for seismic activity, nope.

[arrrg]

This is an actual in-use therapy approach, and one that will probably become much more widespread now that VR hardware is getting affordable and accessible. (Also used for social anxieties, like a fear of public speaking.)

[cLeEOGPw]

I wonder if it would be possible to detect from user eyes where he is focusing and adjust the focus point accordingly. Would you think that would add another level of immersion?

[erikpukinskis]

From what I've heard from the Oculus folks, it won't happen any time soon. Your eyes move way too fast for a VR system to react to them.

It will happen eventually, but it seems like we need cameras/computer vision systems/drawing pipelines with an order of magnitude lower latency for that to actually work.

[cma]

It's pretty close to happening; they can already track your eyes fast enough to render at higher resolution at the fovea area as your eyes move around:

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/fove...

Also, your eyes are very slow to focus relative to your eye movements, so it is probably doable now. It still will not feel like real life, just sort of eye tracked depth-of-field. Your eyes will still be focused at infinity, but near things will blur when you look in the distance, and vice versa.

[jbmonco]

I need this for my two monitor setup. When I look left the app on the left should take focus. That it doesn't has led to much confusion.

[itcmcgrath]

That would be an interesting research project. Track eye movement and focus. I could see how it would greatly enhancement the experience as well as introduce some fun & new rendering performance problems needing to solve.

[josephpmay]

One alternate possibility is to use a lightfield display. The problem with these is they are currently extremely low resolution and require consistent rendering at all focal lengths.

[Cacti]

Hrm. That's interesting, I've never thought about the focal point issue before. Do you know of anyone working on this problem or any general status on this in "the field"?

[corysama]

The good news about sim sickness is that most people get over it with practice. Not only that, but there are many reports from Oculus DK1 users that warming up to the Rift cured their motion sickness outside of VR! As in "I can read in the car for the first time!"

The bad news is that while better tech in the DK2 and better design in new software can significantly reduce motion sickness, I doubt we will ever completely eliminate it.

The really bad news is that nausea is funny. It's great for catchy headlines and quippy comments. I'm really afraid that the Rift will get a reputation as a "vomit helmet" and that will lead the masses to dismiss it. That would be a tragedy.

It's really important PR for VR to get the word out: If you feel sick, stop. Don't try to push through, you'll make it really bad. Try again much later. With practice, it will get better and better. When you get over sim sickness, all kinds of awesomeness awaits!

[vitobcn]

The motion sickness feeling is not due to the product itself but the mixed sensory perception by the brain when different senses present contradictory signals: e.g. visual movement perceived by the eyes vs lack of movement by the ears. Therefore, a newer product version is unlikely to address this.

Regarding your helicopter question, if you're tied and blind-folded and somebody moves you around, would you be able to fill that? So, in the same way your friend would "see" that he is falling through the glasses, but he would "feel" that he is actually not.

[ryanklee]

> The motion sickness feeling is not due to the product itself but the mixed sensory perception by the brain when different senses present contradictory signals: e.g. visual movement perceived by the eyes vs lack of movement by the ears. Therefore, a newer product version is unlikely to address this.

Citation?

There are several comments on this page that conflict with what you're claiming -- that motion sickness has not been reduced and, for some fundamental physiological reason, can't. First-hand accounts are suggesting otherwise.

[dm2]

I would argue that your brain probably believes what it sees over the sense of touch, at first at least. It would be confused why the body didn't feel anything, but that could be explained by being paralyzed on or some pain-killer.

[sp332]

The new version has positional tracking, so it should reduce the eyes vs. ears problem.

[wildpeaks]

Depends on how awake your soon-to-be-former-friend is, but the pressure of the device on his face would most likely give away that it's fake within a couple of seconds.

[kayoone]

Well in a movie he wouldnt be able to look around, defeating the purpose somewhat. So a game scene or 360 degree movie would be needed.

[nefasti]

That is some sick thoughts you have there.

[dm2]

It's just a thought experiment to gather some information.

How would you better word that statement to get the same information back? One of the keys is that the person wearing the goggles doesn't know they are wearing goggles and is in a panicked and rushed scenario with lots going through his head so that they don't have time to consider, "Wait, did someone put a virtual reality device on my head?".

Also because I realize that bumping into things and a video moving when all other senses are saying something different is happening would be clues that it would be easy to guess you are possibly in a simulation, being tied up takes away this freedom of movement (and is safer than drugs that paralyze) so I just made up a random scenario that was slightly humorous and anyone could easily imagine.

I do hope that nobody actually tries that, it would be funny but could be considered torture. I've heard of the media blacking out things willingly because they do not want people copying it, it would be an interesting article if anyone wants to research that stuff, not sure if that's ethical or not though.