[HN Gopher] Relativty - An open-source VR headset
___________________________________________________________________
Relativty - An open-source VR headset
Author : karanganesan
Score : 675 points
Date : 2020-09-10 11:01 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.relativty.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.relativty.com)
| VectorLock wrote:
| I never knew they made these boards that take two LCDs and have
| an adapter board with a DisplayPort (port)
| https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32975198897.html
| ourcat wrote:
| If it supports 5GHz Wifi, something like this could eventually
| work well with VirtualDesktop (An incredibly useful app which
| makes the Oculus Quest _truly_ wireless and capable of playing
| all SteamVR games from your PC).
|
| Keeping all the GPU overheads off the headset is the way to go.
| (And will also be seen eventually with future '5G' wireless
| systems (not to be confused with '5GHz' Wifi) which will put that
| 'grunt' in the cloud.)
| Kiro wrote:
| OT but how is the lag with Oculus Quest + VirtualDesktop? Let's
| say I wanted to play Half-Life: Alyx.
| nvarsj wrote:
| I think the lag is subjective. I find it noticeable compared
| to wired - however I'm fairly latency sensitive. I think if
| you've never played Alyx over wired, you may not notice the
| lag in VirtualDesktop. Playing something timing sensitive
| like Beat Saber it's very apparent and basically unplayable.
|
| You also need ideal wifi conditions. I found the best option
| is to have a dedicated wifi card on your desktop and just
| make it into a dedicated AP for the headset. Without this I'd
| get occasional glitches/pauses which is motion sickness
| inducing.
|
| Even with these drawbacks, I'd say VirtualDesktop is pretty
| amazing and shows the potential of what's possible. The image
| quality is far better than the wired Oculus link. The
| software is also far less buggy than Oculus link - it has
| nice, working integration with SteamVR that just works out of
| the box. I wonder how a single person could write a better
| implementation than Facebook/Oculus engineers, but there you
| go. And when it works, under ideal wifi conditions, it's
| really nice not to have a wire tether.
|
| I imagine the future of VR will have dedicated wireless base
| stations. Nintendo was doing this almost 10 years ago with
| the WiiU - much lower bandwidth, but virtually lagless and
| resilient even in noisy RF environments.
| icebergonfire wrote:
| On my Oculus Quest I have completed a playthrough of Alyx and
| a few other games of different genres, no issues and no delay
| whatsoever.
|
| It feels magical, in a way that feels like it must be
| cheating and the spell is going to break anytime... yet it
| doesn't.
|
| To pre-empt a few of the obvious asterisks:
|
| - "No latency" is physically impossible. If you play twitchy
| music rythm games you will indeed manage to notice.
|
| - You must have a good wifi ac router.
|
| - Your gaming host must be wired to that router.
|
| - To minimize network hoops, all of this should happen in the
| same room. Every milisecond counts.
| ourcat wrote:
| It's great. But make sure you have a decent 5GHz router.
|
| I use a TP-Link AC1900 and Half-Life Alyx works great.
|
| VirtualDesktop completely revolutionises the Quest. It's an
| absolute must-have.
|
| I wouldn't be all surprised if it got bought by Facebook at
| some stage, or they build something that does exactly the
| same thing.
| jonplackett wrote:
| It's like Oculus redux.
|
| Give it a few months and Google/Microsoft/Amazon will probably
| buy it up.
| criddell wrote:
| If the product turns out great they might buy it as an aqui-
| hire.
|
| What has Facebook gained from their purchase of Oculus? At the
| time I thought it was a pretty shrewd move by Facebook but six
| years later I'm not sure they got much for the $2 billion they
| spent.
| kipchak wrote:
| Judging by the demos[1] they've shown and changes they've
| made to the Oculus software like homes, it seems like their
| long term goal is for it to be the basis of a google glass
| like system that's more environmentally aware and collecting
| lots of environmental mapping data for FB, and a VR
| facetime/The matrix but with Xbox Live avatars-ey thing. I
| think adoption is probably a ways out, but if people wind up
| wanting more than Teams/Zoom/Discord/Facetime and so on it
| sets them up.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTa8zn0RNVM
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijmnk5L767U
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JD6F9XYrMQ
| criddell wrote:
| By the time any of that is ready, their purchase of Oculus
| will be more than a decade in the past. I think the
| acquisition was probably a mistake, but for Facebook
| blowing $2 billion isn't a very big mistake.
|
| From my perspective as a consumer and somebody who was very
| interested in VR 6 years ago, I wish Oculus had either
| remained independent or had been purchased by somebody that
| was actually going to do something with the technology
| before a decade passes. I think Facebook's purchase of
| Oculus is one reason VR has lost so much energy and
| interest (Magic Leap's hilariously bad execution in AR
| hurts VR too).
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| If Relativity ends up with a competitive design, I agree that
| it's a risk. But I'd rather hear from Relativity's creators
| before assuming it could go the same way.
| MrGilbert wrote:
| It's interesting how a lot of commenters are writing "Relativity"
| instead of "Relativty". I also fell for this at first.
|
| Makes it easy to mistype the url, if you were to visit it later
| on.
| lxe wrote:
| Great brand name. Awesome write up.
|
| "We made Relativty in my bedroom with a soldering iron and a 3D
| printer and we expect you to do the same: build it yourself."
| Soldering SMD components sounds daunting, so kudos to you for
| this.
|
| Not sure why the pedantics about 2K and the price in these
| comments...
| lilSebastian wrote:
| > Soldering SMD components sounds daunting,
|
| It really isn't, watching some videos learning some techniques.
| Practice. The same statement could be made about most things
| that people aren't familiar with or haven't spent any time
| working to learn.
| lxe wrote:
| Just because you can get good at something, doesn't mean it's
| not hard :)
| num wrote:
| It's also worth note that manufacturers like JLCPCB have SMT
| Assembly Service which might be able to deliver fully
| assembled boards. I haven't looked at the gerber+BOM to
| verify.
| pedrocr wrote:
| The screens are 1440x1440 and square format makes a lot of sense
| for this application. They're best described as 2MP instead of
| 2K.
| noxer wrote:
| Jees, pls dont. MP should not be used for display resolutions.
| It's 1440x1440 or 1440p 1:1 But yes definitely not 2K.
| pedrocr wrote:
| For a screen that you're placing in front of each eye, giving
| the total resolution actually sounds pretty appropriate.
| Particularly since although this is technically 1440 lines it
| only has as many pixels as 1080p resolution, which won't be
| obvious to most. Given all the different aspect ratios if
| screens started being quoted as megapixels and a format ratio
| we'd actually be much better off than with the current mess.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| Since head-mounted displays put the screen a mostly fixed
| distance from the eye, I wonder if resolution is best
| described in terms of solid angles[0].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle
| jaywalk wrote:
| No, not at all. Solid angles could describe how big the
| display looks, but absolutely nothing about its
| resolution.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| What I meant was to provide both of the following
| measurements:
|
| (1) Solid angle of each individual pixel. (Assuming that
| typical screens and optics are used, I'd expect this
| value to vary depending on the location of a given pixel.
| So something like (average(solid angle of each individual
| pixel in the display)) could be advertised.
|
| (2) Solid angle of the overall virtual image.
| Ruthalas wrote:
| In the enthusiast community, I've seen reference to
| 'pixels per degree' to define fidelity.
|
| This changes a bit based on how close the eye is to the
| lens/screen, but is a useful general measurement that
| also takes into account lens effects.
| TooSmugToFail wrote:
| You're confusing resolution and virtual image size.
|
| Virtual image size of an immersive display system (video
| headsets) is the equivalent of the diagonal of a standard
| scren.
|
| Virtual image size is typically quantified by the Field
| of View (FOV), and is typically expressed as an angle
| your eye closes with the diagonal edges of the virtual
| image. Pretty much what you describe.
|
| Another way people express virtual image size is by
| saying e.g. "a screen with a diagonal of X cm (in) at a
| distance of Y m (ft)". This may seem more intuitive at
| first, but problem with that is you can use different
| combinations of X and Y to express the same virtual image
| size. This is why FOV is a far superior way to quantify
| virtual image size.
| neallindsay wrote:
| I think it's a good idea to use megapixels for resolutions.
|
| 720p - almost 1MP, 1080p - 2MP, WQHD - about 3.7MP, my
| monitor (advertised as "4K") - more than 8MP
|
| Also we should use area instead of diagonal measurement to
| convey the size of a screen.
| Mooty wrote:
| Bravo les gars :)
|
| Sincerly nice project, I would do one myself if I had the time or
| knowledge. What could be really nice is that make a DIY video to
| demonstrate it's easy and link to where we can buy different
| stuff (and put a affiliate link, please). Also suggest
| controllers that are compatible with steam if that exists.
| noxer wrote:
| Daily reminder: 2K doesn't really exist. Yes by definition
| anything with around 2000 pixels vertical would be 2K but that
| would mean FHD is 2K because it almost 2000 pixels wide. The
| display in question here is 1440x1440 That is not 2K. Sure there
| are two next to each other that would mean 2880 pixels horizontal
| but the image you see cant have this resolution. Also that would
| be 3K not 2K. So pls everyone stop the nonsense with the Ks
| unless used properly like if you actually mean DCI 4K then its
| appropriate to say so. Everything else is marketing nonsense.
| /endrant
| anilakar wrote:
| Having 1440p screens would have been great two years ago. The
| baseline currently is Index with 1700ish vertical pixels, and
| competitors such as HP and Pimax have pushed past the "4K"
| (2160+) pixel mark.
|
| Disclaimer: I'm a sim game enthusiast and don't play any titles
| where the game designer can just change the gameplay mechanics
| and UI to work on screens with a low PPD.
| taneq wrote:
| Exactly. The original Rift and Vive were 1440x1440 (iirc) and
| the Vive Pro, Valve Index and most WMR headsets are
| 1440x1600.
| folli wrote:
| Any sim game recommendations that fit your criteria?
| anilakar wrote:
| Digital Combat Simulator (DCS World) has some really tiny
| text on the cockpit dials and screens, and distant targets
| are often only a few pixels in size. Those 2000+ vertical
| pixel HMDs I mentioned don't have any issues with cockpit
| details whereas my older Samsung Odyssey+ required constant
| use of the zoom button.
|
| Furthermore, the performance hit when upgrading to higher
| resolutions is negligible. Smaller pixel densities require
| heavy supersampling to look good whereas higher density
| displays can be run at or near their native resolution.
| quit32 wrote:
| DCS is so cool. I feel like I need to quit my job / be
| single again in order to learn it though.
|
| I got the rift in order to play it only to realize that
| learning DCS from the ground up requires a lot of
| keyboard input / referencing cheat sheets so need to be
| pretty proficient with it before you can't see your hands
| and as you mentioned the resolution is not quite good
| enough in rift to really see things with much detail
| though it is still a fun experience to try out.
|
| Looking forward to playing it on a future headset.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| > Disclaimer: I'm a sim game enthusiast and don't play any
| titles where the game designer can just change the gameplay
| mechanics and UI to work on screens with a low PPD.
|
| I'm sorry but that sounds like pure snobbery. With the same
| PC running the game, and only changing the display, any game
| can be adapted to anything by changing gameplay mechanics and
| UI.
| anilakar wrote:
| Then it's no longer a systems-level simulation but an
| arcade game with a sim-like physics.
|
| However, you are correct in the sense that most racing and
| flight sim folks tend to be entitled snobs who have spare
| money to throw around. Many have spent money on a RTX2080
| Ti card when the non-titan edition could not run games in
| VR at high enough frame rates. Most are going to be
| upgrading to a 3080 as soon as it comes out this fall.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > Most are going to be upgrading to a 3080 as soon as it
| comes out this fall.
|
| You mean in a week?
|
| Looking forward to replacing my GTX 1070. Such an
| underpowered card to sit next to my i9-9900K and 32 GB of
| RAM.
| nebulous1 wrote:
| > Then it's no longer a systems-level simulation but an
| arcade game with a sim-like physics.
|
| How are you defining a "systems-level simulation" in a
| way that it would no longer be one if run at a different
| PPD? I feel like there's something I'm missing here.
| farias0 wrote:
| It's an open source project, you can modify it however you
| want
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| The website makes it clear you can swap out for other panels.
| gorkish wrote:
| 2K was/is a real specification that defined and used in digital
| cinema well before consumer TV's got near to these resolutions.
|
| DCI specifies a few 2k resolutions based on aspect ratio:
| 2048x1080/24 full Frame, 2048x858/24 for Scope, and 1998x1080
| for Flat. Basically any crop of the full frame image with
| either the maximum width or height is still 2K.
|
| There's probably not a lot of value in beating that dead horse
| anyway; I have a sneaking suspicion this is all just a typo.
| Most devices containing a display like this are usually digital
| cameras or imaging instruments which almost always market the
| raw pixel count ahead of screen resolution. This is probably
| generally advertised and specified as a 2MP display not a 2K
| display.
| kybernetikos wrote:
| I think it can be difficult to compare VR Headsets by stats,
| since the fields of views are different and stereo overlap is
| different. I think the metrics people are looking for are
| something that proxies for space, clarity and responsiveness.
| Ideally we'd have figures for these that can be compared across
| different headsets.
|
| Although lots of different things can affect these numbers
| (e.g. size, shape and technology of the pixels) probably the
| best proxies would be diagonal fov, pixel per degree and
| refresh rate.
|
| It'd be great to see everyone just standardise on reporting
| something simple, meaningful and comparable.
| 83457 wrote:
| You missed diagonal. I believe that is how VR displays are
| often measured.
| GodofGrunts wrote:
| Can we just go back to calling resolutions by their height?
| noxer wrote:
| That was never a thing so we can't go back to it. A
| resolution is 2 dimensional height + aspect ratio works. But
| for all the popular resolutions we have a standardized short
| form like FHD/QHD/XGA/VGA but these obviously cant cover
| every existing resolution. Like for example the one from the
| article 1440p 1:1 there is no standardized name for it.
| psadauskas wrote:
| When widescreen LCDs were starting to replace 4:3 LCDs and
| CRTs, the screens were described as 720p, 1080i, etc. It
| wasn't until 4k was a thing that screens were described by
| their width instead of height.
| noxer wrote:
| i stands for "interlaced" that has nothing to do with
| display resolution. p stands for "progressive scan"
| technically also not related to resolution but it makes
| clear that the number before describes the vertical
| resolution.
| frou_dh wrote:
| The "p" is kinda interesting because it used to convey
| useful extra information (presence of Progressive Scan),
| but now that's simply a given in almost every context. So
| the "p" has sort of degraded into nothing more than a
| signifier that someone is writing about resolution.
|
| "c" could mean Colour. Bob uses a c2160p monitor!
| MrGilbert wrote:
| At least for me, the short forms are hilarious and
| obnoxious. I can get an understanding of what 3840x2400
| could mean in terms of aspect ratio and pixel density. But
| WQUXGA? I have to look that up.
| amarshall wrote:
| That doesn't really help, as while typically it's assumed the
| aspect ratio is 16:9, that's not always true, making such a
| scheme ambiguous. Listing vertical resolution with aspect
| ratio is fairly sane, though. Or use standardized specific
| resolutions (e.g. FHD, QHD, 4K UHD).
| Mirioron wrote:
| These specifications don't mean anything for a lot of
| people. To me they sound like marketing buzzwords that
| companies use to try to sell me inferior products. I'd much
| rather have them say 2k than any of the "FHD"
| abbreviations.
| Arkanosis wrote:
| At least FHD almost universally means 1920x1080 and is
| googlable. This is less true for QHD / QHD+,
| unfortunately.
| spiznnx wrote:
| I thought QHD was almost unambiguously 1440x2560 (4xHD),
| and QHD+ was wider than that.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| I think QHD+ is a little more ambiguous, as it could also
| reasonably be used to refer to taller displays (16:10
| display at 2560x1600, for instance).
|
| Also, annoyingly enough, QHD itself can stand for "Quad
| HD" _or_ "Quarter HD", the old smartphone standard of
| 960x540, which admittedly has pretty much entirely fallen
| out of use
| mcdevilkiller wrote:
| Isn't that qHD?
| Arkanosis wrote:
| Today, it is. But humans are usually not very good at
| paying attention to the case and machines are too often
| very bad at preserving it (the best -- or should I say
| worst -- example being search engines). And that's
| without even taking into account the fact that the need
| to distinguish both didn't exist before QHD was a thing
| and that most people have no idea there's ambiguity at
| all.
| jrockway wrote:
| I actually like the abbreviations because, while
| exceedingly optimistic if you sound out what each letter
| means, every vendor maps them to the same number of
| pixels. For example "QHD" or "Quad HD" means 2560x1440.
| "That's not 4 times HD, what a dumb name," I hear you
| scream. But in this system, HD is 1280x720, not 1920x1080
| as everyone in the real world understands it. But it's
| fine, because anyone selling their monitor as QHD will be
| giving you a 1440p display. They get to mislead you as to
| the specifications... in a standard way that everyone
| agrees is the maximum amount of misleading they can get
| away with, so you actually know what you're getting! (If
| they did 4x "real" HD, then they'd call it "UHD" or
| "Ultra High Definition".) It's all genius and I love it.
| noxer wrote:
| It's exactly the opposite. Whenever you see 2K you have
| to check what they actually mean with that. I can be
| ~2000xAnything or they can blatantly lie and name
| 1440x1440 2K. FHD however is defined its exactly
| 1920x1080 and nothing else.
| LegitShady wrote:
| My main monitor is 5120x1440. Is it 1440p?
| noxer wrote:
| Yes, but without aspect ratio you don't give all
| information. It's also 5K but again missing aspect ratio so
| best is to name the pixels.
| dandellion wrote:
| I've always wondered why we can't just use the pixel count.
| opencl wrote:
| Camera manufacturers often advertise the number of "dots"
| in their displays/viewfinders, but they also tend to count
| each subpixel separately so it's 2-3x higher than the pixel
| count.
| SargeZT wrote:
| That's how you'd end up with a billion pixel monitor that's
| 100x100000
| GuB-42 wrote:
| There was a brief period of sanity in the late 90s early
| 2000s where resolution used actual numbers (ex: 1024x768)
|
| Otherwise it is a mess. There is the letter soup (WSXGA+,
| WQUXGA,... ), the lines (1080p, 720i,... a throwback to
| analog CRTs), the HD (Full HD, HD ready, ultra HD,...), the K
| (4K, 8K,...)...
|
| Is it that hard to use 2 numbers?
| kwanbix wrote:
| Both existed at the same time.
|
| You had VGA (640x480) for example.
|
| But I do agree we should have called it 2160p not 4k, but
| marketing guys are like that.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Vecto
| r_V... What a mess.
| mrmonkeyman wrote:
| Humans are like that, not just "marketing guys". Indeed,
| two numbers is "too hard". Adjust your expectations of
| humanity accordingly.
| projektfu wrote:
| I remember when makers were advertising "8514/A!" You
| know, 1024x768 interlaced 43Hz.
| [deleted]
| kybernetikos wrote:
| You missed Megapixels too, which is usually used for
| cameras, but I have seen used for screens. 1080p is around
| 2 megapixels, 4k is around 8 megapixels.
| the_hoser wrote:
| This is really great. I wish people would stop comparing this
| effort to commercial products, though. Like most open-source
| hardware, the proprietary competitor will always be the better
| value proposition, if that's all you care about.
| detritus wrote:
| Good luck to them, and I've bookmarked it to keep tabs on it in
| future, but that is an infuriating and in my opinion - very poor
| - choice of brand name.
| andrew_c_v wrote:
| Can you give more details on this? Is that name already
| associated with something else?
| detritus wrote:
| 'Relativity' would anyway be generic, non-descriptive for
| this product domain and cliche, but then to mispell it just
| to 'get a domain' (or whatever the logic was) seems poorly
| considered - every time I see 'relativty' it reads as a typo.
|
| Choosing names is Hard though, I appreciate.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| I agree that "relativity" isn't a great name: it's a mouthful
| at 5 syllables, and I don't see a logical connection between
| the name and the product.
|
| But I don't understand why the name would be infuriating. Can
| you explain?
| SamBam wrote:
| The fact that you thought it was "relativity" is exactly what
| makes it infuriating, I think.
| ColeyG wrote:
| Not the OP but I thought it was miss-spelled at first.
| alecfreud wrote:
| The name is "Relativty" without the last 'i'
|
| That's the issue. It's an awkward 4 syllables.
| gegtik wrote:
| "Relative-T"?
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Infuriating? Let's not go there here please.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| detritus wrote:
| Really? Wow.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| Relati-"vee"-ty?
|
| They could brand it like "relatiVty" or "RELATIvTY", I guess.
|
| Or maybe "relativTY" (relative, thank you [open source
| community])?
|
| Either way, by searching for "relativity vr headset" you end up
| on the proper website. So the point is kind of moot in my
| opinion. People might remember it as the "correct" spelling and
| end up at the right place anyway.
| jerrygoyal wrote:
| on a side note, I wish if there was a company like LEGO but for
| providing components for building DIY electronic gadgets
| especially small size home robots which gets some particular work
| done. for instance DIY wifi locks for doors, automated food
| dispenser for pets etc.
| zamboni-killer wrote:
| Radio Shack could have done this.
| centimeter wrote:
| People have tried to make kits like this but they never work
| out because a LEGO-like form factor is not flexible enough for
| 99% of projects.
|
| Electronics are already pretty LEGO-like conceptually; you just
| have to solder instead of snapping things together.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Isn't that AdaFruit and Sparkfun?
| utopcell wrote:
| This might be a fun weekend project to work on, but cannot be
| built for $200. The displays alone (and their driver PCB that
| accepts DisplayPort) cost $195. They are also not 2K but rather
| 1440x1440 (or 2.0736M pixels). Maybe the displays were cheaper
| when they built this. They also hookup a 6-axis tracking chip
| (MPU-6050) to an Arduino board and feed it to a PC via usb. Even
| if tracking was working perfectly, this would be a cut down
| version of an Oculus Go, which additionally has smartphone
| electronics integrated, can run VirtualDesktop, and can be had
| for $150 as of this moment.
| konjin wrote:
| Great, is the oculus go open source?
| solarengineer wrote:
| Not a valid retort, IMO, to a comment that was only making an
| observation on the prices of the parts.
| gegtik wrote:
| Counterpoint: the comment was _not_ only making an
| observation on the prices of the parts.
| wolco wrote:
| It is a valid retort and trying to hide that fact when
| comparing doesn't do it justice.
| marcinzm wrote:
| The fact is well known and obvious to anyone so I don't
| see how anything is being hidden by anyone.
| wolco wrote:
| The people in the know who believe it's obvious will be
| the same people who know the price of an oculus.
|
| As for the rest of us. We neither know the price of an
| oculus $150? or that an oculus isn't as open source as
| other products.
|
| Valid point for the rest of us.
| prophesi wrote:
| I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. The fact
| still stands that it's an achievement for an open source
| DIY project to come close to Oculus Go specs. The
| original comment was asking a rhetorical question to make
| that point.
|
| If Oculus Go was open source, it would cost you much more
| than the retail price to manufacture it.
| ekianjo wrote:
| If you only use one variable for comparison then the
| comparison is hardly valid.
| [deleted]
| jstanley wrote:
| > Even if tracking was working perfectly, this would be a cut
| down version of an Oculus Go
|
| Yes, I agree, this is a tremendous achievement and a great
| project.
| theon144 wrote:
| Nobody disagrees with that, I greatly respect the project's
| authors, and even just successfully replicating it would be
| undoubtedly a great learning experience!
|
| I think the comment is just trying to align the expectations
| better, given the context in which it appears and is
| communicated.
|
| The $200 claim is plainly inaccurate, and unlike many open-
| source projects whose stated and successfully executed aims
| are to provide a hacker-friendly, cheaper alternative, this
| project does is not one of those; and its technology is in
| fact inferior. If one aims to experiment with VR, there's
| simply better options for an individual.
|
| This is separate from the project itself being a great
| achievement and/or a potential base for further community
| improvements - and it would be appropriate to celebrate those
| aspects, which the website, and their ProductHunt entry do
| not communicate too well - as is evident from even this
| comment section.
| _ink_ wrote:
| Probably Facebook can sell it cheaper that the hardware costs,
| because they (hope to) make money by tracking its users and
| showing them more ads.
| ygjb wrote:
| Also, when you are homebrewing a device, vs say, shipping
| 400,000 devices to users, you just don't get the same
| economies of scale.
| ponker wrote:
| You forgot the cost of Mark Zuckerberg'S eyes in your bedroom.
| Bedon292 wrote:
| I am sure you can build a version for $200, but if you are
| going to says its $200 you should provide an exact list of
| parts you used to make it for $200.
|
| I did not take it as each eye was getting 2k when I read it.
| Your total screen space is 2880x1440 with those displays. Even
| with two 1080s you have 2160 total. But then again the screens
| are advertised as 2k on aliexpress. So it is all a bit weird.
| nl wrote:
| I think the (repeated) note that you can downscale to 1080p
| displays is how you are supposed to do it under $200. They note
| themselves these displays are $150-$190 so it's not like they
| are hiding something.
| numpad0 wrote:
| High resolution(> QVGA) display panels is difficult to come
| by, especially at small quantity-per-months.
|
| Those in the form of Raspberry Pi or Arduino parts are more
| accessible but still not cheap and not so high resolution.
| LegitShady wrote:
| Just buy a used vive for that.
| nl wrote:
| No one is claiming that you can't get something cheaper,
| either.
| sfteus wrote:
| They mention in the build guide that the display is sometimes
| available for $150, that's probably how it gets to around $200.
| MPU-6050 appears to be about $30, main PCB is claimed to be $5
| or so, another $5 for the lens and foam respectively, and $10
| for the strap. That'd bring it in at $205 provided you already
| had the capability to 3D print and solder and didn't factor in
| the material cost for those. It's unlikely, but you could
| probably make it happen.
|
| I assume you could downscale the display to like a 1080p
| version to save costs as well.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| i'm pretty sure the $200 quote is an "it's possible" type
| thing, like where car companies quote prices "from" the lowest-
| spec version.
| coronadisaster wrote:
| Can you ever buy a car at advertised price? Excluding
| taxes... Im trying to buy a motorcycle and the dealers tag on
| 20% in fees
| [deleted]
| TheSmiddy wrote:
| You can in most countries that have proper consumer
| protections. Cars in Australia are often advertised with
| their "drive away" cost which includes all state and
| federal taxes etc.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I figured THE base configuration are for corporate uses.
| Plain iron exhaust, no hubcaps, flat paint, manual air
| conditioning, multi band AM radio and the likes. Sales reps
| worldwide are driving in that configuration but dealerships
| that don't expect business customers probably don't stock
| them.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| In the US, if you buy a car at the advertised price you're
| probably getting massively ripped off!
| mrmonkeyman wrote:
| Usually less, actually.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| It is not possible. Not now at least.
|
| Even if they manage to get the display+motherboard under
| $200, there is a number of small parts that will end up being
| quite expensive if you can't do the economies of scale big
| manufacturers can do.
|
| There is the 3D printed enclosure, lens, cables, straps,
| padding...
|
| Also it is just a headset, you probably want some sort of
| controller too. Also, even if though they mention
| experimental "roomscale", it involves a camera that is not
| included. And as with any DIY project, you a probability
| missing a few tools you'll have to buy...
|
| I'd say it is affordable as a hobby project, which, in
| itself, is really nice. It is the kind of thing you enjoy
| making even more than you enjoy using.
|
| For cheap, you can't beat cardboard. And if you really want
| VR and not a new hobby, commercial offerings are hard to
| beat.
|
| EDIT: one way to reach the target price could be to start
| with one of these cheap "cardboard+" headsets you can find
| for about $20 on Aliexpress. They already have most of the
| parts you need except for the display and motherboard. The
| optics may be tricky though as they are optimized for
| smartphone screens (if they are actually optimized for
| something...).
| jiofih wrote:
| 1440x1440 _is_ 2k, as is 2048x1080. It refers to the total
| number of pixels.
|
| 4K is 3840X2160, but you wouldn't be wrong to call 2048x2048
| 4K, especially in a VR display where you have two displays,
| doubling width, and in the end what matters is pixel density.
| bsza wrote:
| > Even if tracking was working perfectly, this would be a cut
| down version of an Oculus Go
|
| Oculus Go doesn't have position tracking. I don't know what
| you're talking about.
| utopcell wrote:
| Neither does this headset. Oculus Go has at least a 6D IMU,
| that gives it 3DOF (no position tracking), while this headset
| has a 6D IMU. The Quest and Rift have cameras on them for
| positional tracking. If it was possible to have reliable
| positional tracking just from an IMU, John Carmack would have
| delivered it on the Go.
|
| This OSS headset has "experimental positional-scaling" using
| "any camera". On github, they say: "The tracking is still
| very experimental and can only be run on NVIDIA GPU due to
| the usage of CUDA. The tracking makes uses of only a video
| input and an Artificial Neural Network AI trained to estimate
| a 3D body position. This method is nothing close to the
| precision or freedom of movements of a dedicated sensor
| however we believe that the model can be trained and improved
| by orders of magnitude."
|
| Again, this is a fun project. Probably as fun as the
| cardboard VRs Google used to hand out for free.
| bsza wrote:
| So it _does_ have position tracking. I guess it uses an
| external camera directed at you - of course that will be
| far from perfect, especially if you only have one. But it
| has potential. With more cameras and an improved model, it
| could possibly even do FBT in the future. At no or marginal
| upgrade cost.
|
| I see more in this than just a weekend project. Even the
| fact that you can just _buy_ a new lens when one gets
| damaged means this might actually save you money. (This
| actually happened to my Quest; lucky I could save it with
| some polish.)
| RicardoLuis0 wrote:
| Saying it "has tracking" is a bit of a stretch, given
| that the tracking isn't a feature of the headset, but
| rather a separate system that can theoretically work with
| any other non-tracking headsets.
| marcosscriven wrote:
| On the plus side - you don't have to have a Facebook account.
| keenmaster wrote:
| Considering how Palmer Luckey was just tinkering when he made the
| Oculus Rift, this can produce some useful innovation outside of
| the corporate environment.
| beams_of_light wrote:
| These guys were 15 years old when they started, and are now 20.
| That's amazing, great work!
| IanSanders wrote:
| Can I point out, that's a nice domain name.
| maneesh wrote:
| Did you notice it's missing the final 'i'?
| ozten wrote:
| Amazing work, congrats!
|
| I think it is smart to build on top of SteamVR and PCVR, but...
|
| I would love to drop my Oculus Quest for a DIY open-source
| headset. My #1 requirement is stand-alone. No cable, no wires. I
| don't own a gaming PC, so the Quest has been a great way for me
| to experience 6DOF VR.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Looks very cool, but you are going to run into problems with the
| name because people are going to confuse it with
| https://www.relativity.com/
|
| That company sells a major legal document management platform,
| and has the standing, incentive, and capacity to drag Relativty
| into court for trademark infringement and easily win. The sheer
| number of people getting the word wrong on this HN thread is
| itself evidence of potential consumer confusion. Trademark
| infringement doesn't have to be wilful or malicious, and
| trademark holders are _required_ to defend their marks or risk
| losing them through a legal doctrine called 'constructive
| abandonment' so it's probably only a matter of time before
| Relativity-the-legal-software-company sends a finger-wagging C&D
| letter to Relativty-the-bedroom-hackers.
|
| tl;dr find a new name or get sued.
| chmod775 wrote:
| Sounds like you could sell this pre-assembled for $300 and it'd
| still blow all the other headsets out of the water. Taken at face
| value this sounds pretty great.
| easton wrote:
| The problem is roomscale, although if you bumped up the budget
| by $30 dollars I bet you could put the sensors needed for 6DOF
| in there. Then it'd be great! (Without the sensors, most
| SteamVR games would be janky until their model is improved)
| marcinzm wrote:
| As others have pointed out the displays aren't 2k and they
| aren't 120hz and they cost almost $200 alone. So none of the
| marketing is true.
| ralusek wrote:
| We know nothing of how performant it is. The reason ALL VR
| isn't at 2K 120fps isn't because other companies don't know how
| to do that -- most of the technological hurdle comes from the
| PC producing those outputs -- it's just that there are clearly
| performance standards companies hold themselves to in order to
| consider the product fit for a general audience.
|
| In regards to the room scale tracking alone:
|
| > Precision and freedom of movement are still very far from
| dedicated sensors, however, we believe that the model can be
| trained and improved by orders of magnitude.
|
| Whereas, say, Oculus, already has room scale tracking down-pat.
|
| The only way I see this as "blowing all other headsets out of
| the water" is if the way they're able to achieve 2k 120fps
| where others could not is Relativty simply being willing to
| cater to a much smaller audience of high-end PC owners that a
| mass-reaching product like Oculus wouldn't limit themselves to.
|
| Anyway, this whole thing is really cool, and I want to see more
| of it, I just doubt that the correct way to think of it is as
| something already capable of blowing competition out of the
| water.
| [deleted]
| spaceisballer wrote:
| This looks great. Is there anything on the horizon filling in the
| more inexpensive market that Windows Mixed Reality headsets were
| occupying?
| [deleted]
| agentdrtran wrote:
| This is extremely impressive and well-communicated!
| skellystudios wrote:
| To the creators: this is a really incredible achievement,
| especially to have done at age 15, and really well communicated.
|
| Please don't get disheartened by the mass of comments around this
| not actually being a $200 headset[1] or your unusual[2] spelling.
|
| This is freaking awesome, please keep it up!
|
| [1] It definitely would be cool to see some sort of parts list,
| but that's not really the point here.
|
| [2] Clever domain hack, IMO
| White_Wolf wrote:
| I think a lot of people are missing what I think are 3 main
| points before moaning about everything else: 1. It's freaking
| open source 2. It's DIY fun 3. It's the bare VR without being
| an over-engineered device that reports your farts to the
| manufacturer.
|
| I can only respect and envy the guys for pulling this off.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Doesn't the Steam dependency mean the reports are going to
| Valve?
| oooooooooooow wrote:
| Why would this be steam (or anything) dependent -- am I
| missing something?
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Most of the VR graphics code & engine integration AFAIK
| is implemented within Steam, not on the headset. So
| beyond just getting some basic positional tracking you're
| not really going to be able to access any content without
| something else.
| Shared404 wrote:
| It looked to me like it was Steam compatible, not steam
| dependent.
|
| However, I can see where the idea would come from,
| because they do talk a lot about Steam on the site.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| What would you be able to do with the headset aside from
| connect it to Steam? They could add support for OpenXR
| but OpenXR is just starting to get traction and that's on
| the application developer side. I don't know how
| widespread the adoption of the HMD agnostic bits of
| OpenXR are.
| Shared404 wrote:
| On the developer side, both Godot and Unity have some
| support for VR.
|
| On the game side, there's also Windows MR, which supports
| some games. I don't know if this headset supports it now,
| but it could presumably be made to.
| nimazeighami wrote:
| Godot and Unity have support for specific VR API's.
|
| This headset is designed for SteamVR.
|
| You can build for this headset by targeting SteamVR in
| Godot and Unity, but you'd have to do a TON of work
| yourself if you wanted to build your own VR runtime to
| bypass SteamVR for use on this headset.
| phaemon wrote:
| The parts are all listed right there on GitHub via the How to
| Build link, either with prices or direct links to AliExpress
| where you can see the price.
|
| The build comes in under $200. I don't understand the whinging
| in the comments.
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| The lcd screens listed are 195 right now. With a lower res
| screen it might get close. Pricing might be variable.
| phaemon wrote:
| For 1. Cheaper if you buy in bulk. You could have mentioned
| that.
| fuzxi wrote:
| The bulk discount is 3% off, and only if you buy 5 or
| more.
| [deleted]
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| I actually love this but I wonder if inside-out tracking using
| webcams might be better (although you may need more oomph on the
| processing side).
| 8K832d7tNmiQ wrote:
| why not just called it OpenVR? Shorter and more to the point IMO.
| ehsankia wrote:
| Well OpenVR already is a thing. It's an API by Valve for
| interfacing with generic VR hardware.
| chrisallick wrote:
| nothing brings out the haters like a job well done. great
| project. people will benefit from it.
| yetihehe wrote:
| Just their suggested displays cost $195 (2 displays with driver
| pcb). Otherwise, very nice.
| andoriyu wrote:
| That's for 2k @ 120fps. You're free to use any display pair.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Why isn't it RelaiVRty?
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Where do you source the lenses?
| ourcat wrote:
| There's an AliExpress link in the README of the Github repo.
|
| Though, I'd imagine you could use ones from cheaper 'phone-to-
| face' Google Cardboard-style ones.
| archi42 wrote:
| Lenses are actually not that irrelevant for this application.
| There is a huge difference between some cheap plastic and
| camera-grade glass. You don't want [excessive] chromatic
| aberrations, or [excessive] "God rays" (the Vive has that
| effect), or other optical artifacts.
|
| Optics is similar to electronics: With high school physics
| it's all quite simple, but with high school physics a
| transistor can switch nearly infinitely fast ;-)
| ortusdux wrote:
| Can anyone recommend an elegant method to 3d map a face? If I
| were to print one of these housings, I would at a minimum adjust
| it to my PD, but it would be great to also contour the fit to my
| face.
| ourcat wrote:
| I did a similar thing to design a 3d printed mask.
|
| I used an iOS app called ScandyPro which gave me a mesh which I
| then imported into Fusion360 and modelled some lines/layers of
| the curves around my face. Then I performed a 'loft' between
| them.
|
| The result was a perfect fit.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| It's a great start at a young age, congratulations and all the
| best!
|
| I'm not into VR, but can this setup be used to create a 'Wearable
| low latency display for computers'[1] i.e a wired video headset?
| None of the current video headsets seem to work well according to
| the reviews be it $800 Ziess Cinemizer or $200 Avegant Glyph.
|
| [1]https://needgap.com/problems/16-wearable-low-latency-
| display...
| ahupp wrote:
| A typical Apple "Retina" display has 57 pixels/degree[0], held
| at ~10 inches. VR screens are roughly similar resolution but
| held far closer to the eye, so pixels/degree is proportionately
| less. All this mean that we'll need dramatic increases in
| display resolution before it's pleasant to read text in VR for
| long periods of time.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display
| davidzweig wrote:
| I think a 'video headset' doesn't try to such a wide angle as
| a 'VR headset.' I would really like one for programming on,
| as it's more portable than a big screen.
| nimazeighami wrote:
| There's a good one coming out soon, the Cinera Edge Elite.
| neiman wrote:
| On a slightly related topic: are the open-source VR controllers?
| AndrewSChapman wrote:
| Ever since Facebook bought Oculus I've really hoped something
| like this would spring up.
|
| I really really want it to succeed and would be happy to back it
| on Kickstarter or similar.
|
| How do we ensure that these projects don't end up being bought
| out by Facebook or Google?
| TheRealSteel wrote:
| If we make sure it's licensed properly, that's not possible,
| right? They could hire certain people but if it's all open
| source, we can at worst just fork it.
|
| According to the GitHub it appears to be under GPL v3. I'm not
| qualified to state whether this applies to the hardware design
| or just the software.
|
| I certainly wouldn't want to put any effort in to a project
| where the IP can be bought.
| vinceguidry wrote:
| Being under an open source (the term you're really looking
| for is free software) license isn't enough to protect a
| project. You have to maintain forward momentum. A company can
| buy the trademark, and the company or group of people
| providing that forward momentum, like Oracle did with Sun,
| and then, like China assimilating Hong Kong, it's just a
| matter of time. Solaris died, Java got wholly corporatized
| and free software mostly moved on.
|
| Stallman, of course, realized this a long time ago and
| started a group of people, in the legal form of a charitable
| foundation, to keep that forward momentum going. To his
| telling, his Hail Mary was phenomenally successful.
|
| If what you want is to work on a platform that will stay free
| no matter what, your best bet is to align with the FSF. They
| have the most momentum, the fewest corporate threats, and a
| long enough memory to keep it that way.
| johnyzee wrote:
| > Java got wholly corporatized and free software mostly
| moved on
|
| ?... The Java community was completely unaffected by the
| Oracle transition and is as strong as ever. Of course, Java
| wasn't open source (or "free") to begin with.
| vinceguidry wrote:
| Sun released the JVM under the GPL in 2006. Oracle bought
| them in 2009. Sun always intended to release Java as free
| software, they just needed to make their money first, and
| were a big user of dual-licensing, which is endorsed by
| the FSF. It's a pattern they replicated across their
| entire product stack.
|
| Of all the big names in the technology space that made
| their buck from tagging along the free software train,
| Sun was far far far from the worst offender. When they
| got bought, I have friends that were personally extremely
| offended, they had built their professional lives around
| expertise in Sun tech.
|
| And, as to "stronger than ever," if you're a new coder,
| are you going to learn and use and love Java, or Golang?
| Java is what you do for your job. The only reason it's
| still a thing is because of the massive existing install
| base. The company I work with, is already starting to
| treat their Java projects as legacy and most teams,
| including mine, are starting up, are moving, or have
| already moved to Golang.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I have mixed feelings about the Oculus and FB's ownership. I
| would like an open platform but I appreciate both the more than
| adequate Oculus hardware and some excellent VR experiences
| created by both Oculus and many 3rd parties.
|
| I might still buy a manufactured open platform system,
| depending on available experiences. I would also definitely buy
| an "Oculus 2" that had a higher resolution screen and slightly
| lighter weight.
|
| I really like the recent Oculus software update that allows
| some games and VR experiences to be used without controllers by
| recognizing hand gestures. I hope there is a lot of exploration
| of new ideas based around no controller use.
|
| Hopefully open platform VR headsets will be adopted by
| university research teams as well as commercial content
| creators. Hobbyists creators are to be encouraged but they are
| not enough to get widespread adoption.
| moron4hire wrote:
| You mean 3? We're already on Oculus' second generation.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| Thanks, I meant "Quest 2" - I only kept my Oculus Go for 1
| week, then gave it to my grandson. I get a lot of value
| from my Oculus Quest which I bought last year.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| The Quest 2 is rumored to be releasing this month, but
| you'll be forced to log in with Facebook to use it.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I will probably get it. I just spent 20 minutes playing
| the Quest ping pong game - amazing game physics and
| general gameplay.
| andybak wrote:
| I'll repeat a comment I made on Reddit:
|
| I was scanning the page trying to understand how you were doing
| positional tracking. Took me a while to realise that's what you
| mean by "Experimental room-scaling"
|
| I'd suggest that this isn't the best wording. Call it "positional
| tracking" or "6DOF" or something.
|
| The whole "room scale" thing was confusing at the start and isn't
| used much nowadays (Is seated 6DOF VR "room scale"? It's
| ambiguous and irrelevent for most purposes)
|
| I'd also say that I think most people assume that being SteamVR
| compatibile implies having 6DOF tracking of head and hands. Most
| software simply won't work unless you have this. How experimental
| is experimental?
| c22 wrote:
| I understood what they meant by "room-scaling" immediately and
| I've only ever used a VR headset one time about 4 years ago.
|
| On the other hand, I can surmise from my experience with robot
| arms that "DOF" likely stands for _degrees of freedom_ , but I
| would have had no clue what "6DOF" meant in terms of VR.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| 3dof. 3 degrees of freedom. These are typically rotation -
| yaw/pitch/roll. You can look around. 6dof is 6 degrees. In
| addition to rotation you add translation (x/y/z) so that you
| can walk around the environment. Generally you can't get
| translation without at least first having rotation because
| humans are more sensitive to rotation.
| andybak wrote:
| OK. Fair point about "DOF".
|
| But what do you understand "room scale" to mean"? Genuine
| question.
| c22 wrote:
| I imagined it to mean I could move around a constrained
| physical space while seeming to explore a larger virtual
| environment (thus "scaling" the dimensions of the room I
| was in). Admittedly the reference to a webcam that tracks
| your movements was an additional helpful context.
| andybak wrote:
| That is also roughly my interpretation. But that is
| different to the meaning used in the post itself. See my
| other comment below.
| slipheen wrote:
| Not OP, but in SteamVR room-scale is typically used to
| indicate you can move around within a play area, and your
| avatar/camera moves as you do.
|
| Its the way the setting is named in Steam, and in SteamVR
| games.
|
| Example:
|
| https://www.vive.com/us/support/vive-pro-
| hmd/category_howto/...
| SamBam wrote:
| Oh, I thought it was a cool mode that made your current room
| look huge or tiny.
|
| A sort of "Alice in Wonderland" mode.
| andybak wrote:
| Yeah. The term arose around the time the Vive was released to
| distinguish against the Oculus Rift. It was a fairly subtle
| distinction - the Rift at that time was optimised for front-
| facing experiences because it came with two cameras you
| usually mounted on each side of your monitor. If you moved
| out of their cone or occluded them by turning around too much
| then it would lose tracking so most games assumed you'd
| mostly be facing forward.
|
| The Vive on the other hand had tracking that was usually
| mounted in opposite corners of the room. Two trackers were
| more than capable of covering an average sized room and the
| only limitation on your movement was cable tangle.
|
| The Rift tracking got a lot better eventually - even with two
| cameras.
|
| The other meaning of the term is sometimes to distinguish
| between VR that can track the headset position (6DOF) as well
| as it's rotation (3DOF). But all serious VR is 6DOF nowadays.
| 3DOF is pretty much the domain of "slide your phone in this
| thing" VR or headsets that are intended mainly for viewing
| 360 video.
|
| So - two different meanings of "room scale" that mean quite
| different things.
| Fabricio20 wrote:
| One interesting thing I noticed is that this project ALSO doesn't
| seem to have a controller. You can't really play SteamVR games
| without at least one! (Issue #50)
|
| You can grab a Samsung VR for very cheap, put a phone on it and
| do VirtualDesktop magic, but you are still gonna struggle without
| controllers. Same for Google Cardboard and other similar
| projects.
|
| There's some very cheap controllers you can get, with base
| stations for tracking like the Nolo-Home, but they are still
| quite behind the tracking precision and latency of some "top-of-
| the-shelf" headsets.
|
| It's an interesting idea and I hope the developments on it go
| forward, specially since the recent Facebook/Oculus announcement.
| nimazeighami wrote:
| There are many great SteamVR games that support mouse and
| keyboard or an XBOX controller. Trover Saves the Universe is
| one of them.
|
| I don't think the lack of controller tracking is a deal-breaker
| for those who want to get an open source VR experience.
| gri3v3r wrote:
| Unfortunately, these projects have been discontinued.
| fouric wrote:
| > We started Relativty because after watching Sword Art Online
|
| This little fact alone makes the background story way funnier
| than most tech origin stories I've heard. And being able to do
| PCB layout and system design at 15-16? Kudos to Maxand Gabriel.
| imba404 wrote:
| Hopefully the design won't kill users on launch day.
| Shared404 wrote:
| For those downvoting, this is the plot of Sword Art Online.
| 1run9 wrote:
| From a financial aspect, I think the soldering ion and a 3d
| printer would cost more than $200, plus $200 on parts. So with
| $400+, i would consider buying an Oculus?
|
| From bottom of my heart, hats off to those kids.
| Aachen wrote:
| > the soldering ion and a 3d printer would cost more than $200
|
| That sounds odd, a bit like saying a car and a smartphone
| holder together would cost more than X. A soldering iron is,
| what, 15 euros? And a cheap 3d printer like twenty times that?
| chaostheory wrote:
| This is awesome. I'm glad we have have insurance in case no one
| fills the void of HTC leaving. You can argue that Valve is, but
| given the massive back orders of the Index and their
| discontinuing of their controller and streaming box; I'm not
| totally confident.
|
| Now we just need controllers and maybe even base stations.
| Fej wrote:
| Valve discontinued their controller and streaming box because
| they did not sell - to get rid of their stock, they had to put
| them on fire sale. They're still supporting the controller and
| afaik the streaming box as well. The controller was innovative
| but often regarded as awkward, and the streaming box wasn't
| particularly special.
|
| The Valve Index on the other hand has redefined the high-end VR
| market and is selling out accordingly. I've tried most of the
| consumer VR solutions on the market and the Index "knuckles"
| controllers blow everything else out of the water, it's not
| even close. Oculus has dropped out of that market, opting to
| produce more affordable but _somewhat_ less capable headsets
| and controllers. I don 't see HTC turning it around as they
| don't have the name recognition or the capital and their tech
| is already weaker.
|
| Point being is that Valve owns the top-end of the VR market
| already and this project, while impressive and definitely
| promising, is not competing with Valve. It might in the future,
| with a lot of work, but it's not insurance against a Valve
| dominion. There might not even be room in this niche market for
| more than one competitor, which is awful but that's what we're
| looking at.
| chaostheory wrote:
| One reason the Steam controller didn't sell is that users had
| to figure out configuration schemes on their own instead of
| Valve being proactive with developers and publishing houses.
|
| I agree that the Index, especially the knuckles blows
| everything away, but I'm already seeing the same issue that
| the Steam controller suffered from pop up with the knuckles.
|
| You're right about Oculus too, and I hope that you'll be
| right about Valve staying in the game. I definitely want to
| keep using base stations instead of unreliable and heavy
| headset cameras. I want full body tracking to gain traction
| and that won't happen if external base stations die off.
| swalsh wrote:
| I've been hoping someone would create an open source version of
| the lighthouse technology. I think that technology could be huge
| outside of VR.
|
| Inside VR, I just want more custom hardware... I want VR feet.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > I want VR feet.
|
| That exists, and has existed for a couple years now through the
| Vive Tracker [0]. It's essentially a puck that acts as another
| receiver for Lighthouse tracking. You typically strap them onto
| an object or body part and it gets tracked.
|
| Search YouTube for "full body tracking" and you'll see it in
| action, though it's mostly just a bunch of silliness in VRChat
| since very few games actually take advantage of it. With each
| tracker being $99, adding both feet and your hips will run you
| $300.
|
| [0] https://www.vive.com/us/accessory/vive-tracker/
| archi42 wrote:
| Isn't the lighthouse system relatively open? I recall the
| analog receiver circuitry is relatively simple, and Valve
| cooperated with an IC manufacturer to get rid of the analog
| stuff (or, more precisely: move it into an IC). The IC was
| intended to be not be exclusively for Valve alone.
|
| Of course that doesn't help with the base stations, and might
| still violate [Valves' or other's] patents if used in an actual
| product.
| zlsa wrote:
| > Valve is now making SteamVR Tracking fully available to
| other companies, without licensing fees.
|
| > There is no certification from Valve necessary. Ship the
| product you want to build, whenever you think it's ready.
|
| I don't believe it's strictly open source, but it's certainly
| far more open than Facebook's ecosystem.
|
| Source: https://partner.steamgames.com/vrlicensing
| [deleted]
| neonhat wrote:
| Seems like a fun project, but the experience will be garbage
| compared to Oculus/Vive.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-10 23:00 UTC)