DM,

I believe you somewhat misunderstood my post. I am not disagreeing with you on many of the items you talk about. My point was to explain that it doesn't make me EVIL or SHAMEFUL only because I propose that you or anyone else may consider filing a patent. Do you agree with this?



That's true. However, I don't believe that hobbyists will make a big difference (no offense to anyone on this board). Hobbyists have been tinkering with VR for a couple of decades already with no significant progress. It's the entrepreneurs that make a difference. What Palmer really needs is a small commercial market to start out small but profitable. Then, he can use the proceeds from that niche market to reinvest into improved hardware and higher volume production if possible. IMHO, until the *commercial* market picks this up, VR will remain a niche market.

Let me give an example of a small commercial market that may potentially work:
What: Hazard and accident training for oil rig employees.
Problem: When emergency happens people often panic, don't know what to do, or get lost. For example, after a BP oil rig explosion in Gulf of Mexico 11 workers were never found. You can't just give the workers a bunch of instructions and expect them to remember it when an accident happens.
Goal: Teach employees what to do and how to react when accidents happen, in the way that they can easily memorize their way out. Note that many of these employees are not computer guys. They are blue collar workers.
Proposed solution: Create a VR training program that emulates several different accidents. The oil company already has schematics of its rigs. All they need to do is to construct a 3D world of it and have workers *experience* accidents and find their way to lifeboats starting from different locations. Such experience is a lot easier to remember and follow when real accidents happen.
Cost: Compared to the cost of lives lost, lawsuits filed and monetary damage, $600 or $1200 for a RIFT hardware makes no difference for the oil company. There are also open source OpenGL engines that can be used to model accidents. Palmer + some OpenGL guy can sell this packaged system (software+hardware) to simulate oil rig accidents. Would that make them evil, greedy or shameful? I don't think so. Such a project can save lives of innocent people.

P.S. If anyone patents this idea I will use the Dragon's method detailed above to "shoot the perpetrators in the back of the head". Just kidding.



If the Kickstarter project gets successful funding it may be worth it for Palmer to spend some time with patent attorneys. He and Carmack can probably consider sitting down and discussing which hardware decisions can be patented by enemies. IMHO, a couple of weeks now can save him months or years of litigation down the road.

I don't, no, and therein lies the crux of the matter. I see absolutely no redeeming value in the patent system. I question whether it ever had redeeming value, even historically. Certainly the quality of patents has neither improved nor degraded in the past 200 years. You've only to look at historical patents for examples of that. Often humorous examples. It's as bad now as it's ever been. It's also as good now as it's ever been, and that's pretty stinking foul.

The utility of the patent system rests on the assertion that an inventor will come up with something substantially unique. This has never happened, in the history of the world. Precisely the opposite happens--people tinkering around with the same problem at about the same time in history will always generate convergent solutions. I'll go even further. The moment in history leads people of an inventive nature to tinker with the same things at the same time. The combination of the popular zeitgeist and physics practically guarantees these results. Consider for a moment how we got here. Yes, right here. John Carmack and Palmer both took a look at the state of the art in electronics manufacturing and commodity computer components and, independently, decided that now is the time to take another run at this VR thing. This is not a unique occurrence. So the most fundamental claim about the patent system is nonsense, and all the rest is flimflammery and legal terrorism.

Patent litigation is solely a mechanism to provide employment and enrichment to lawyers. It does not and has never succeeded in fostering innovation. On the contrary, it stifles and crushes innovation at every opportunity, leaving behind it a trail of broken dreams and smashed hopes. Nor do I see any way to correct it. You are allowed precisely as much justice as you can buy, and no more. Giant corporations will always be able to buy more justice. Therefore patents filed by small business, the proverbial entrepreneur, range from a minor useless expense to a nightmarish bankrupting expense. If you are exceedingly lucky, someone wealthy might like to gently co-opt your invention, tossing a little money in your direction (very little money), in order to use it as a weapon against someone else. If you're unlucky, you will receive a legal punch to the face and still lose control of your work. More often than either of these scenarios, you will simply be ignored.

I could go on, and pile up citations, but we're wandering rather far afield from the point of this thread. I'll close with one final observation. I am supposed to be one of the people sheltering under the rubric of the patent system. I have an engineering degree and 15 years of experience and a fairly decent imagination. And after 20-some years of reading tech news, I believe the patent system is a trap. Doesn't that mean the patent system has failed to achieve its nominal goal, practically by definition? Admittedly it's somewhat circular logic, but there's a kernel of truth in there.

I believe hobbyists and tinkerers will make a big difference for two reasons: 1) Sony, giant megacorporation that it is, has a polished, assembly-line-pretty HMD available right this minute. And nobody cares. The tech news sites dutifully regurgitated their press releases and then it sank without a trace. Commercial activity is no guarantee of anything. 2) Palmer is a hobbyist and a tinkerer.

However, once again, refer back (many pages back) in this thread, and you'll see that Palmer has decided that the Kickstarter should buy him manufacturing equipment, so he can make the parts for Rifts himself. That's commercial activity, of a sort. It puts his feet on the road to continuing to make Rifts, refine and improve the design, and further cut the cost of the thing.

But he isn't going to try to write the proverbial "killer app" too. Someone else will probably do that. These things are notoriously unpredictable. The only thing we know from history is that it takes more than one person tinkering to generate the requisite snowball to get things rolling.


Another fine example of why the patent system is useless and broken. What you described is in no way worthy of a patent to begin with. The concept is blindingly obvious to anyone who has seen a few episodes of Star Trek, or a whole slew of bad '80s movies. Yes, I know, it was an example, and the remark about patenting it was tongue in cheek, but it was too good of an example... to pass up the chance to pillory it. Implement what you propose and copyright it, if you like, but don't think you have a right to have the only oil rig instructional VR program in the country for the next 20 years.


And I say it's a waste of time and money. Even if he follows your advice, even if he successfully isolates some rare bit of genius in what he's done, if a well-heeled commercial bully decides they want it, years of litigation is precisely what he can look forward to. Hell, I strongly suggest he be very careful NOT to do a patent search to find out if what he's doing now has already been patented. Because it probably has. Years of litigation is bad enough without triple damages for willful infringement.

DM

As doom 3 BFG Edition will incorporate native stereoscopic 3D HDTV support for XBOX and PS3, will it be possible to connect the Rift directly to a console, or is the Rift only availble for PC?

@ DragonM, NickK

While this discussion is quite relevant for the forum, as there are people working on innovative stuff, and there are several aggressive companies reading, and quite possibly major companies lurking... it really isn't relevant for this thread. A lot of people have email alerts for this thread waiting for news about the RIFT, so maybe a mod could break off the patent/legal discussion somewhere else?

If I am not mistaken, the "open-source" nature of the project means that no company can own the rights to employing PalmerTech's approach. I would hope that once there is sufficient adoption of Palmer's "standard" that large manufacturers will fall over themsleves to deliver their version of RIFT. Perhaps we will finally see the VR I (we) have been dreaming of since the '90s. I just hope Palmer gets rewarded for his efforts somehow.

Will the Rift be compatible with glasses? I've seen someone asking about it on oculusvr.com, but unfortunately there is no reply. My astigmatism is mild, but for obvious reasons I'd rather see sharp image.

It has been discussed previously in this thread. But the short answer is that there will be possible to adjust diopters on the lenses. So it should work if you wear glasses to correct for myopia. I'm not sure if it will be able to correct astimatism though.

A possible work around is to add padding and distance to the goggles so you can wear glasses underneath. I'm sure there will be several other people in a similar situation who will want to make that possible.

@PalmerTech:

Are there any news about the 250 Hz custom firmware for the headtacking sensor? There were several questions about it but I've not seen a clear statement about this (sorry if I just missed it).

At the E3, John Carmack said he added additional sensor code from his rocket company Armadillo Aerospace to a custom firmware which lower latency just written for him directly from Hillcrest Labs.

PattrickRedeck told us here, that this custom firmware software (which is the base for JC's work) will NOT be available for the public.

So, where will it come from then? Will the RIFT just be shipped with the stock firmware (the high latency version)?

Maybe a FAQ about the project would be a good idea.

Keep on the good work and best wishes!

spyro

I just noticed that 10 hours ago a newsletter was sent from OculusVR.com but it went to my gmail spam folder.

In case you missed it, here is what it says:

He did not say it would be unavailable to the public, he stated that it was "not something ready to release into the wild." Note the "ready" part of that, which implies that it may become available in the future.

I know it is exciting times but there's really no point sweating the details right now and picking apart every little bit of information. The kickstarter hasn't even begun yet, at which time we will be getting a lot more information just by virtue of being a kickstarter. It's just one more week or so.

if his only concern is protecting himself from malicious patents there are far easier and less expensive ways.

All he need do is publish the techniques he wishes to be open. After that, such publications become "prior art" that makes any attempt to patent same invalid.

Note: I am not a lawyer and this should not be construed as legal advice. It might be worth paying for a half hour of a real lawyers' time to make sure you do it right. This is still far cheaper then a patent search and filing.

@Cyberqat: I don't want to start the whole patent discussion again so I'll just mention to look up first-to-invent (the old sane way) versus first-to-file (the new retarded way) which basically tosses prior art out the window.

Without getting into the whole patents argument too much: I think our patent system is broken in a lot of ways, but it still has uses. I do not plan on making a huge portfolio of patents, because at the end of the day, they won't help me much if a huge entity with a lot of money decides to ignore them. I plan on continuing to do what I have been doing this whole time: not keeping any of my designs secret, and putting them out there for hobbyists to improve upon.

The current goal is to get these kits into the hands of as many enthusiasts as possible in the short term at the lowest price possible. Don't take this as anything certain, but I might even be able to ship the entire kit for $499 including the HMD, the tracker, and Doom 3! From there, Oculus will work on a slightly more expensive consumer targeted version and an SDK that developers can use to integrate support. The way I see it, there are two generally distinct outcomes:

1) Oculus wins a big chunk of the (relatively small) VR market, and continues to push forward with immersive technologies on their own.
2) Oculus proves that there is enough interest in VR for one or multiple large companies to throw their weight at making an even better product. That process might involve killing, acquiring, or just plain outdoing Oculus.

Either way, gamers win!




Not at this point. There is no easy way to get approval to hook up third party hardware to the Xbox or PS3, so head tracking is not possible. Without head tracking, you have a lot less reason to use an HMD.



No clear statement yet, sorry. Things are not set in stone yet.

Howdy all, been following this since Carmacks interview, found new article with info that Sony and valve are both interested in this tech link below
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/John-Carmac ... 15618.html

@PalmerTech: This sounds really promising, and seems like the exciting times are only getting better.

I totally concur with Carmack there, and I love his likening the goal of VR to evoking the same feeling you had when you first played a FPS. Bring it on!

I had a couple questions maybe Palmer or someone could answer...

1) Any idea if the rest of the Doom classics included with Doom 3 BFG will support the Oculus? Resolution being what it is, I would think the older games would actually be right at home on the HMD.

2) Is the TrackIR5 the tracker planned for inclusion in the Kickstarter?

In interests of curtailing this discussion: your statement is completely untrue. First-to-file is still subject to prior art invalidation. In the case of America's switch to FTF (the America Invents Act, or AIA), the definition of prior art was expanded to include publishing and sale from anywhere in the world, and to allow submissions of prior art during the patent application process from anyone (not just the originator of the prior art as previously).
By making the design of the Rift publically available, it becomes public domain, and thus cannot be patented by anyone, including Palmer.
A company could still claim that the design infringes an existing patent, but they could do this no matter what the design or whether it was patented by Palmer or not. There is no protection from frivolous patent lawsuits.

ok, I stand corrected then

I agree with Carmack but reading the replies there is a huge amount of anti-tech geeks out there that love the current status and just dont want VR of any kind until its the hollow deck. I dont know whats wrong with them but as i have treid to explain to people, fps games have progressed very little since Quake 1 and wont until we move into new interaction territory.

Thats because most people dont actually have any vision and are only able to understand that which they have already experienced.
Therefore, they can handle the idea of stuff like COD(x), with each version improving graphics/sound, but the concept of a complete shift away from what they are experienced with scares them simply because they have no terms of reference to understand it with.

I think the main problem especially with posters on a place like tomshardware is they're children (sure some may be in their 20's but sure don't act like it) that have probably never even SEEN an HMD before let alone use one or experience one with a high FOV.

Take for instance posts such as "we're not even close to VR gaming and I'm still waiting for near photo-realistic gaming on my 2D screen. Take Transformer's type CGI or whatever it was, and do that in real time on my single computer instead of pre-rendering it on a super-computer of sorts. Then do that in 3D. THEN we can tackle VR gaming."

They have no notion of what VR actually is, as far as they think VR means everything LOOKS real so if things don't look in real time like they are out of a movie then you can't have Virtual REALity. Try to explain to them that VR is all about "immersion" and not things looking real and they just flame you as a mook that doesn't know wtf they are talking about.

"VR is the future? lol? whos gonna wear that heavy spec while gaming." Post without even finding out what they actually weigh, whats the chances of ever explaining anything to them?

As far as i'm concerned i'd much rather play something with a full FOV HMD with simple flat shaded low polygon characters and sparcly textured worlds for graphics then play one on a tv or monitor with graphics that look like they are out of the transformers movies (ofcourse i'd rather they look like that on the HMD ).

"I'd rather have super high resolution gaming than virtual reality." Seriously they have no idea what words mean or they honestly think that sitting on their couch a few meters away from the TV they'll actually be able to notice any changes with a higher resolution then 1080P (after years of reading toms it's become obvious even though its about computer hardware the majority of the posters are console gamers). Though i'm pretty sure that guy probably mean super high definition (rather then resolution) gaming so that polygon counts are so high and lighting is dynamic etc that everything looks like movie CGI so i'll stick with they don't know the mean of words in which case you have no chance of getting them to see what actual VR is.

Mention head tracking and you'll get swamped with things like you don't need a HMD for head tracking you can use it without one and many people do in arma etc!!! Try to explain it's not full proper head tracking and after all you can only look so far since if you look more then you can't see the screen!!! and they'll just say thats all you need to do so you don't need to fully turn your head around you just need to be able to move it a little so there is no need for an HMD and turn your head any further is ust stupid.

So like wired said the youth this generation are just so COD and movie CGI focused thats all they can see (and know) so the only way things will be better is if that gets better and thats just dependant upon how the graphics look.

I'm sure if they payed a visit to a university or somewhere that has a high FOV HMD even if it did only have something with those plain blocky graphics and tried it then 8/10 of them would change their tune.

I'm 24 (I'm not sure if you consider that "children" or not) and I can certainly understand the difference between crappy 'video glasses' (vuzix, etc.) and a high-FOV HMD. And that's coming from someone who has never tried any of the "virtual reality" game setups from the 90's, or any expensive university HMD's.
But you're right, most people these days are idiots, and they don't know that they don't know what they don't know (say that 5x fast!). For some reason, and I have no idea why, people always assume the worst about new technology. New wii console with a second screen? IT'S GONNA BE CRAP. New 3D technology on the big screen? IT'S GONNA BE CRAP. New augmented reality concept from google? IT'S GONNA BE CRAP. New Halo game? IT'S GONNA BE CRAP. New Thai restaurant around the corner? IT'S GONNA BE CRAP. And yet that same person will love the WiiU, love 3D, love the new google glasses, and discover that they love Thai food, and yet they will never go back and say, "hmm, I guess I shouldn't have been so quick to judge those things."

From generation to generation, you will always have the immature kids who act like idiots and don't know what they're talking about. However, the new generation of kids has the ability to spew all of it anonymously on the internet, where nobody will know how old they are. So they have gone from being the minority to the vocal minority.

But here are the things I see people saying in all of the various "John Carmack VR E3 Demo" threads around the web:
"Wake me up when they get 1080p displays in those glasses. Anything less is crap."
"Nobody wants to wear a huge visor on their head."
"Head-tracking has already been around for ages."
"We already have better motion gaming with Kinect".
"They tried and failed at virtual reality in the 90's."
"This will go the way of the Virtual Boy".
"It's way too expensive. Give it to me for <$100"

Basically...

Thanks for pointing that out. It want into my spam folder as well, so it's a pretty safe bet anyone using gmail will not have seen Palmer's newsletter.

same here. Googlemail put Palmer's newsletter in spam. Cheers for the heads up

Thanks for the reference. But from the wikipedia entry what I get is that his having built a prototype and then published the results, thus documenting the prototype, could easily qualify as "diligently reduces the invention to practice", which is the 2011 criteria. But as always its best to consult a good lawyer (one who isn't just trying to make the most work as possible for himself.)

You guys have good points but I really like Louis CKs version:

@Endothermic: I think one of the major problems is that most people compare one device to the next based purely on particular specs, like resolution, or physical attributes like weight or design. Of course those are important in any device, but as soon as they notice it's not 1080p, they automatically assume the whole entire device must be crap. I'd honestly take a low resolution, high FOV HMD over a high resolution, low FOV HMD any day. Increasing the resolution will make it look prettier, but increasing the FOV is what will really offer the user a completely new experience.

So in regards to the Rift having a low resolution... of course I'd absolutely love 1080p screens, but I can hold out on that for awhile. The other features of the Rift are what's going to make it a very immersive experience.

I feel that a revolution of sorts is on the horizon, especially since this has piqued the interest of "large game developers" and "big names in the industry". Anyone else anticipating that the Rift could be that one key component that really sets the ball rolling for consumer priced HMD's for gaming and media? With other large companies catching wind and pumping out their own high FOV HMD's? Spark the market, start something new, and within three years, the consumer HMD market could be saturated with an impressive array of devices that sport high FOV's, precise head tracking, no discernible latency, and a completely immersive experience. This could be the very beginning of a paramount shift.

(Or maybe it's all this excitement and a sugar rush talking )

I agree with that last point. It's been a chicken and egg problem till now. It remains to be seen how successful Rift is in pushing the industry forward as larger companies seem to like to remain static, why create a retina display until they need to, hence us having PDA's and phones with the same stale interface and physical specs till the iPhone came around.

In terms of revolution, I hope it isn't just about games. The technology that is used in games has gotten so good recently that creating immersive worlds will be the easy part, but using it for education, entertainment, even work will make it far more useful than what we imagine right now and will for the stepping stone for whatever the next generation of technology is that can only be developed once we have widespread use of these devices and can learn their potential and their limitations.

Okay, here’s my first post after lurking for eons. I’m the guy who did the 3D Focus article, and I hope I got all my facts right! I’ve been working with Palmer off and on for the past year on projects at USC and the Institute for Creative Technologies, and designed a project last year with his PR3 HMD (the scuba one). The project was called Shayd (http://www.discovershayd.com/), and we used the PhaseSpace mocap system for both position AND orientation tracking.

Of course the 14 mocap cameras + software from PhaseSpace costs upwards of $80,000 (about $5000 per camera and $10,000 for software), so it sure as hell isn’t going anywhere in the consumer market. However, the tracking was just so god damn tasty that I don’t know if I can go back to anything else and still feel the same!

In my spare time between other VR projects I would like to integrate the RIFT with PhaseSpace, and get a prototype going with a laptop strapped to the player’s back. Given an amusement park sized budget, we could fill an entire warehouse full of PhaseSpace cameras that are daisy chained via trusses on the ceiling. The RIFT would have four or five “active marker” red LEDs on it for tracking, and if we wanted to implement full blown avatar embodiment we can also have the players in mocap suits with LEDs at each joint (between 20-24). PhaseSpace uses active markers (as opposed to passive markers like Vicon) so they can blink at different frequencies and keep each player’s point data separated if they happen to occlude each other.

This is the ideal “VR laser tag” or “VR deathmatch” or "VR holodeck" that everyone has been longing for all these years – we can do this right now, given a fat budget. I’ve been talking to Disney Imagineering about it for the past few weeks, and in reality this VR setup is about 10x less expensive than a roller coaster. At the same time, it would also take about 10x as long to push the same amount of patrons through the experience in a given hour. So theoretically if we were to make ten of these VR laser tag arenas, all different themes (Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean, Black Mesa, what have you - depending on IPs), then you would be making the same profit as a roller coaster at the same rate. Theoretically, that is

Anyway, just wanted to hop into the conversation, this is all super exciting with the RIFT and I wholeheartedly believe Palmer is going to revolutionize the game industry in due time. There's so much happening right now, I can barely keep my head from imploding, haha.

@jimbo2go: Good info. I would love to try that PhaseSpace system as well.

A large building + optical tracking system + high FOV HMD + portable rendering computer is the right mix of ingredients to implement the VR environment that everyone is anticipating.

Which just goes to show they really are children. I consider 1080p inadequate. That's why I use two CRTs running at 1800x1440. I hate the whole "HD" thing. It was a major setback for the display industry. Computer monitors were HIGHER resolution than HD, but HD marketing turned into an unstoppable juggernaut, so computer monitors actually got worse while riding the coattails of that marketing. For 5 years, display tech has stagnated, with only one display significantly better than HD (the Apple Cinema Display and its clones) and it's been outrageously expensive. So the "HD HD HD" chant is worse than stupid, to me.

Of course there's a reason the Cinema display is expensive: it's not easy to make them without dead pixels. But that could have been solved, if it wasn't for the market going backwards. Manufacturers weren't about to spend money improving the process for making actual high resolution displays when they were getting rich making crappy low resolution HD displays.

Even when I can afford a Rift, I expect to continue using my monitors for quite some time to come. The high FOV of the Rift will be great for virtual worlds and the resolution will simply be tolerated. For some things, such as displaying text (and lots of it), resolution is indispensable. It's going to be a while before there's a VR code development environment.

Probably, because the word you were looking for was 'paradigm'. And don't say it. It makes you sound like a dweeb. (No offense.)

DM

I totally disagree. While the resolution may not have increased at the rate you would like, the quality of the experience has improved markedly. To quote you, you say 'Which just goes to show they really are children.', then continue on as if resolution is the be all and end all of the quality of displays. I would much rather a nice, lower resolution but easier on the eye display with more natural colors and much more space on my desk then higher resolution.
The other advantage of the HD (meaning 1080p/i resolution) is STANDARDIZATION! Having a standard resolution makes the display a lot more supportable without having to worry that fonts, formatting, etc will be messed up due to different resolutions. This is one thing that most on this forum seem to neglect, for a consumer, they want something that just works without having to play with settings and adjust a bunch of different parameters. I like to call it the black box idea. You don't want to know what happens inside. This is why consoles have overtaken PCs for gaming in the past 10 years or so, even though you can get a better system/experience for less money with PC, there is the problem that you have to look at the back of every game box to determine if your system with its configuration of graphics card, processor, operating system is supported. With a games console, you see the console name on the game box, put it in your system and it works!
While I appreciate projects like the rift and am tempted to create one myself, these will never be adopted by the public en mass since it is not just plug and play. If it could incorporate HDMI 1.3 with 3D signal, that's when it could be taken up by the masses, since it is a true standard for the signal. This doesn't mean that it's not a good product or that the resolution isn't good enough, just it's not user friendly.

I used to use a CRT, it supported something ridiculous like 2048x1900. 23".
My 26" LCD kicks its ass however, colors are brighter etc. I dont really see the need for more than 1920x1200 in a 26" monitor. If you go 30", you can get that extra resolution, but I dont really have a need for it, and I suspect most people dont really need/want more resolution either. Those using their PCs for graphics work would be an exception of course.

@ the resolution you are running at, you'd lose very few pixels going to a 26" / 16:10 monitor...

This certainly has a lot of potential! Oh and the grass is green too:)

Does anybody know if there a concerns regarding eye damage using a HMD? I'm not talking eye fatigue but vision blurring leading to eye glasses.

Doom 3 BFG should rock!

I can't argue with the improvements flat panels have made in freeing up space on your desk, but the "natural colors" thing is bogus. When LCD panels first went mainstream, their compliance with CIE 1931 (and later standard color gamuts) was quite poor. It's only been in the last couple years that LCD panels met CRT standards, and very recently that they started to exceed CRT standards.

In any case, if you'd read some of my other posts, you'd know that I don't think resolution is the be all and end all of display quality. At least, not for all displays. Context matters. For my flat, static, sitting-on-my-desk display, resolution is extremely important, and that's what led to my complaints about HD. High resolution isn't just for graphics guys, as WiredEarp seem to think. Refer to the end of my previous post. I have a need to display large quantities of text simultaneously. LARGE quantities. For that, resolution is indispensable. For HMDs, field of view is more important. This is why I haven't criticized the Rift's initial resolution, and have, in fact, defended it.
Oh yeah. As if what we needed was another standard. Because the other 39 standard resolutions were getting lonely.

Well yeah, but that's because this isn't a consumer forum, by any stretch of the imagination. It's a hobbyist forum. Everybody here (except apparently you) is here because they don't have a problem with needing to know what happens inside. Some of us even enjoy knowing. VR and its enabling technologies are in their infancy. (A very extended infancy, to be sure, but still their infancy.) Anybody who claims they have a polished, mature, ready-to-meet-Apple-gadget-consumer-expectations product is blowing smoke. We aren't there yet. If you're here and reading this forums, that should be blindingly obvious. If you knew anything about product development, you'd know these things don't just spring full-blown from the forehead of Zeus, either. It takes time and an amazing amount of effort to mature a concept into a consumer product. An amazing amount of effort has already been expended in this space, after all, and we're still a long ways away from any such thing.

The Rift is a good step along the road.

DM

Thanks for setting me straight, DragonM... and sorry to everyone for taking this thread off track.
My frustration is with the fact that we don't seem to have advanced much in the HMD field since about 10 years back, and that we still have to go to extreme lengths like hacking together a HMD like Rift to get a half decent experience. Then, after we have gone to all lengths to create this, it will have the same old problem with having to use specialized display and input drivers (sourced from different providers) just to get it to work and likely to be hit-and-miss for the games you will be able to use it.
I'm not criticizing this product or the effort for this, and I agree with your statement 'It takes time and an amazing amount of effort to mature a concept into a consumer product. An amazing amount of effort has already been expended in this space, after all, and we're still a long ways away from any such thing.' But my point is that we still seem to be within the first km or a marathon 10 years after the race began.
BTW, regarding lots of text; I also have to deal with a lot of text in my work and find that 3 LCD monitors work well for this. It personal preference, but I much prefer the 'quieter' feel of even a poor LCD to a CRT. Even top of the line CRTs set to the max refresh rate gave me a headache and I find this isn't the case with LCD. Also, my ears are super-sensitive to the ringing of a CRT screen that most people seem unable to hear.

To be honest, those "kids" on the mainstream sites aren't totally off. Up until just recently, consumer HMDs pretty much sucked. They were low res, blurry, tunnel vision, had glitchy trackers, expensive, sad software support, etc. We are just starting to get some decent HMDs that don't cost $20,000 and up. Trackers are getting much better and much cheaper. We now have more standardized 3D formats and 3rd party 3D software. Lots of things coming together now. We are on the cusp of something big. But its not ready for the general public just yet.

While much cheaper, VR is still pretty expensive once you factor everything in. For a full consumer-level setup you could easily spend $2,000 or more, while you can get a console system *and* an HDTV for $500 these days. You still need to be a techie to get the software to work correct, and it some cases need to develop your own hardware/software to accomplish this. And even after all this money and trouble, its still nowhere close to what you see in the movies. Well at least until the Rift comes out. That will surely make some waves, but I feel its just the beginning.

@ DragonM:

Yes, but the thing is, you don't really HAVE much higher resolution, at least with the setup you quoted.

1800x1440 = 2592000 pixels
1920x1200 = 2304000 pixels

so, you are gaining only 288,000 pixels, which is nice, but you are using a 4:3 monitor, which means that for displaying text, you are probably going to be able to see LESS than if you had a 1920x1200 monitor in portrait mode. Of course, that will depend if the text is wider or deeper.

I just dont see how your setup is significantly better in terms of resolution for text OR graphics, compared to a 2x 1920x1200 setup in portrait mode... not to mention the extra desk space requirements. Also, unless you have a very large CRT (larger than 23") everything will be easier to read on the bigger screen.

@ jimbo2go, that sounds like a cool system, and I agree, the tech is almost there now for VR lasertag... its just the tracking implementations holding stuff back. If price is no object, this can be solved now as you say.

True enough, and it's to my lasting regret that I don't have a 30" 2560x1600 LCD panel flanked by two 27" 2560x1440 LCD panels (which weren't available until very recently). Alas, the money isn't there. I've been in austerity mode for 4 years now, first anticipating being unemployed (and saving as much of my salary as I could), and then actually being unemployed. Back when I had disposable income, widescreen LCD panels were far from ideal in portrait mode. LCD panels have long been optimized for viewing in landscape mode, right down to the arrangement of the subpixels, so a panel in portrait mode looks very strange. I found it hard to read, at the time. I gather that's less of a problem these days.

I didn't mean to imply I currently have the ideal setup. Far from it. Both of these monitors have at least one blown capacitor, so there are times when the picture goes all wibbly on me. Nothing I can do about it right now. But as you acknowledged, I do have substantially more pixels than an HD widescreen, and for the price (i.e. already paid for), it can't be beat.

DM

Yep, a 30" sounds like it would be perfect for you. Especially with flanking monitors!

I bought my CRT solely for 3D back when 3D LCD's didn't exist, and its still sweet for everything (i have it on my spare spare PC). Definitely back when LCD's were newer, CRTs had many advantages (were way better with scaling game resolutions to full screen, faster response, higher resolution, etc).

I know what you mean about disposable income... too many toys to buy, too little money. Ive had to hold off on the ST1080 as I've decided I cant afford TWO new HMD's just yet, and I want the Rift