I bet there is one...and its got a 1080p OLED screen on it...
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
LOLFredrum wrote:...Just rolling around in the big pile and trying them all on.
marbas wrote:Positional tracking must have highest priority. Sadly it's a difficult problem to crack, atleast for the level of accuracy we need for proper VR.
Thats it? I might detach those 6 strings form my electric guitar and build a positional tracking device insteadNegativeCamber wrote:Not really, it's easy, see you have 6 strings attached to your head, left-right/up-down/forward-back, these then are attached to the walls in your room. These are attached to little winches on the HMD, problem solved.![]()
Where would be the best 'primer' that would take one up to the minute, in data, for understanding the scope of this problem?marbas wrote:Positional tracking must have highest priority. Sadly it's a difficult problem to crack, at least for the level of accuracy we need for proper VR.
I proposed that topic (difficult to get proper positional tracking as VR needs it) in reddit but was overwhelmed by bad criticts about my "pessimism", WISHFULL THINKING EVERYWHEREmarbas wrote:Positional tracking must have highest priority. Sadly it's a difficult problem to crack, atleast for the level of accuracy we need for proper VR.
I am by no means an expert on this matter. But It sounds reasonable like you say that the pos tracking problem is easier to solve for a limited volume, if that range is good enough for immersion. When pos tracking finally gets integrated for some future vr-hmd, I wish for the range to accurately work for a standing position as for seated with no FOV limits like the TrackIR system is limited by.Bishop51 wrote:Positional tracking isn't really the tough issue everyone assumes it to be so long as you think of it from a limited volume, front-facing, positional tracking standpoint only. If we're talking very small spaces with a limited tracking FOV and range of motion (like facing a user seated at a desk or standing in front of a couch), then the puzzle becomes much easier to resolve. Its only when people start conceptualizing positional tracking that accounts for full body rotation and huge capture volumes that it becomes complex.
For my part I would be happy with a system that tracked position much like TrackIR. Or better yet, you could get away with some limited supplementary positional tracking with a magnetic base station like the Hydra built into the Oculus breakout box. The range doesn't need to be huge, just a small volume of space with enough room to crouch, lean and peer.
I come here from time to time now and I've read about this speech he gave about the state of VR. Does anyone happen to have a video? Thanks.marbas wrote:But Im still taking Michael Abrash word as a reliable fact that the pos tracking problem is pretty darn hard to solve.
Being stuck in front of a desk without being able to at least rotate on a swivel chair is very poor VR in my opinion. I sincerely hope the near future of VR is free of stupid keyboards, mice and analog sticks.Bishop51 wrote:Positional tracking isn't really the tough issue everyone assumes it to be so long as you think of it from a limited volume, front-facing, positional tracking standpoint only. If we're talking very small spaces with a limited tracking FOV and range of motion (like facing a user seated at a desk or standing in front of a couch), then the puzzle becomes much easier to resolve. Its only when people start conceptualizing positional tracking that accounts for full body rotation and huge capture volumes that it becomes complex.
For my part I would be happy with a system that tracked position much like TrackIR. Or better yet, you could get away with some limited supplementary positional tracking with a magnetic base station like the Hydra built into the Oculus breakout box. The range doesn't need to be huge, just a small volume of space with enough room to crouch, lean and peer.
i totaly agreeMrGreen wrote:Being stuck in front of a desk without being able to at least rotate on a swivel chair is very poor VR in my opinion. I sincerely hope the near future of VR is free of stupid keyboards, mice and analog sticks.Bishop51 wrote:Positional tracking isn't really the tough issue everyone assumes it to be so long as you think of it from a limited volume, front-facing, positional tracking standpoint only. If we're talking very small spaces with a limited tracking FOV and range of motion (like facing a user seated at a desk or standing in front of a couch), then the puzzle becomes much easier to resolve. Its only when people start conceptualizing positional tracking that accounts for full body rotation and huge capture volumes that it becomes complex.
For my part I would be happy with a system that tracked position much like TrackIR. Or better yet, you could get away with some limited supplementary positional tracking with a magnetic base station like the Hydra built into the Oculus breakout box. The range doesn't need to be huge, just a small volume of space with enough room to crouch, lean and peer.
I was referring to his statement about pos tracking on the Virtual Insanity Panel at QuakeCON 2012Randomoneh wrote:I come here from time to time now and I've read about this speech he gave about the state of VR. Does anyone happen to have a video? Thanks.
I agree aswell, but I also agree with Bishop51. A limited volume positional tracking is alot better than no tracking at all.Kirito wrote:i totaly agreeMrGreen wrote:Being stuck in front of a desk without being able to at least rotate on a swivel chair is very poor VR in my opinion. I sincerely hope the near future of VR is free of stupid keyboards, mice and analog sticks.Bishop51 wrote:Positional tracking isn't really the tough issue everyone assumes it to be so long as you think of it from a limited volume, front-facing, positional tracking standpoint only. If we're talking very small spaces with a limited tracking FOV and range of motion (like facing a user seated at a desk or standing in front of a couch), then the puzzle becomes much easier to resolve. Its only when people start conceptualizing positional tracking that accounts for full body rotation and huge capture volumes that it becomes complex.
For my part I would be happy with a system that tracked position much like TrackIR. Or better yet, you could get away with some limited supplementary positional tracking with a magnetic base station like the Hydra built into the Oculus breakout box. The range doesn't need to be huge, just a small volume of space with enough room to crouch, lean and peer.
270?Randomoneh wrote:About Palmer - he has a 270° HFOV prototype. Good enough for me
Actually you only need ONE string. I have a GameTrak (that I bought for $2), which does it with one string. Unfortunately, it's the PS2 version, and I haven't got a clue what protocol it uses (damn PS2 emulators that don't include USB support).NegativeCamber wrote:Not really, it's easy, see you have 6 strings attached to your head, left-right/up-down/forward-back, these then are attached to the walls in your room. These are attached to little winches on the HMD, problem solved.
![]()
That's sorta getting there. I found a solution that was just introduced in another arena of development, to deal with noise floor drift. It may be possible to introduce it to this arena. The entire package of this proposed solution must be translated.zalo wrote:@KBK
The way I see it, there are only two good ways to do positional tracking (of the HMD only):
1. Optical - This involves camera(s) tracking movement in the scene. It's fast. It can be as simple as tracking bright lights in infrared, or as difficult as extrapolating 3D motion from optical flow. Robust/Driftless/Feasible solutions use the former technique. However, when performing only bright light (blob) tracking, line-of-sight issues tend to arise, as well as problems with converting the screen-space position of the blobs into 3D geometry. Applications like TrackIR can track IR blobs (aka fiducials) very quickly. And as long as the user stays within a certain range of motion (where there is a unique solution to the blobs being tracked by the camera), both rotation and position can be acquired with extreme speed and accuracy. But TrackIR needs at least 3 blobs to be visible at all times, and they can not all be on a plane perpendicular to the camera (otherwise the equations mess up) or switch planes. It's a difficult problem because here, because both rotation and translation must be found to just find translation. I believe this problem can be simplified to tracking only two fiducials by taking advantage of the orientation data from the rift's IMUs. One might also find a blob's distance from the camera using parallax by comparing the speed of the blob being tracked with the speed reported by the accelerometers in the IMU.
2. Magnetic - This involves a set of coils (one for each axis) emitting a magnetic field to a similar set of coils (receiving), and measuring the analog output of each of the coils in the receiver to determine position and rotation of the receiver. This lets you get "driftless" 3D tracking without any line-of-sight issues. However, the magnetic system:Assorted funky techniques like the MadCatz GameTrack also exist.
- has less range
- has a slower refresh rate (usually)
- requires bulkier equipment (ADCs) on the object being tracked
- is susceptible to interference by ferrous objects which change the magnetic field
Fredz Mega Wiki also describes the Positional Tracking problem (with potential solutions) very well in the context of VR.
I think it was was pre-rift prototype. Threads are all here on MTBS, you can just search for them. If I remember correctly the 270° prototype was really big and bulky, so it isn't really something you could wear on your head; a HMD without headtracking loses a lot of the magic. There's a reason we're getting the current Rift and not thatLinkage1992 wrote:270?Randomoneh wrote:About Palmer - he has a 270° HFOV prototype. Good enough for meDo you have a link to where he mentioned this?
I know lots of people want a perfect Matrix-esque experience with free roaming, perfect body representation, etc. While I think all those things are awesome, and people should definitely be doing research to further this, in reality it's just not practical when you're playing in your living room where you don't have the space (or safety) and also don't want some cumbersome setup of various gear you have to wear, or external equipment that you have to properly set up. These kinds of things would be better left for VRcades where all the drawbacks can be justified, and a proper experience can be provided.Bishop51 wrote:Positional tracking isn't really the tough issue everyone assumes it to be so long as you think of it from a limited volume, front-facing, positional tracking standpoint only. If we're talking very small spaces with a limited tracking FOV and range of motion (like facing a user seated at a desk or standing in front of a couch), then the puzzle becomes much easier to resolve. Its only when people start conceptualizing positional tracking that accounts for full body rotation and huge capture volumes that it becomes complex.
For my part I would be happy with a system that tracked position much like TrackIR. Or better yet, you could get away with some limited supplementary positional tracking with a magnetic base station like the Hydra built into the Oculus breakout box. The range doesn't need to be huge, just a small volume of space with enough room to crouch, lean and peer.
2EyeGuy wrote:Actually you only need ONE string. I have a GameTrak (that I bought for $2), which does it with one string. Unfortunately, it's the PS2 version, and I haven't got a clue what protocol it uses (damn PS2 emulators that don't include USB support).NegativeCamber wrote:Not really, it's easy, see you have 6 strings attached to your head, left-right/up-down/forward-back, these then are attached to the walls in your room. These are attached to little winches on the HMD, problem solved.
![]()
I'm sure Palmer does have some super Rifts. I wonder what he uses for software for them. They've probably been too busy on the dev kit recently to do much with their super rifts until now though.
Only thing is, having a string attached to your face might not be the best solution.The distance of the tracked element from the mechanism is determined through components which measure the rotation of the spool drum for the retracting cable reel, and calculating how far the cable is extended. Through the ball joint and guide arm, the mechanism functions in a similar fashion as a gamepad analog stick[citation needed] to determine the angular direction from the mechanism to the track element.[2] From the distance and angle data, a three-dimensional position for the element is resolved. The predetermined spacing and orientation of the mechanisms on the base unit allows the coordinate data gathered by the two mechanisms to be converted into positions in a unified space. According to In2Games, the mechanisms can determine position "to an accuracy of 1 millimetre anywhere within a 3m cube around the unit, with no processor overhead or time delay.
Jan has done a great guide for modding the Rev.1 / PS2 version: http://janoc.rd-h.com/archives/1292EyeGuy wrote:Actually you only need ONE string. I have a GameTrak (that I bought for $2), which does it with one string. Unfortunately, it's the PS2 version, and I haven't got a clue what protocol it uses (damn PS2 emulators that don't include USB support).NegativeCamber wrote:Not really, it's easy, see you have 6 strings attached to your head, left-right/up-down/forward-back, these then are attached to the walls in your room. These are attached to little winches on the HMD, problem solved.
![]()
I'm actually pretty sure he mentioned in an interview that he's running 3x Titans. The value of that computer... geezsquibbfire wrote:twin Nvidia 690 video cards in SLI configuration
bwahahaFredrum wrote:I bet he has 12000 rifts at home in his flat, refusing to send them out. Just rolling around in the big pile and trying them all on.
The annoying thing is we absolutely have the technology to build that panel right now, its just procuring it that's the problem, Oculus isn't big enough to commission its own spec panels.superbike81 wrote:I would be happy to see a 2560x1600 OLED panel with 170-180 horizontal FOV around 2016.
I'm sure he's experimenting to give us the best product.
or a Nvidia Volta can run Brigade Engine powered games in 3d and at 1080p.superbike81 wrote:Yeah, I think it would be possible for sure. Might double the price of the Rift but I'm ok with that. The problem for now is even my two gaming systems (i7-2600k with 7970 and i5-3570k with 680) would struggle to do stereoscopic 3D at that resolution and maintain high FPS. I think 2016 is a safe bet to where mid-range cards should be able to handle that without a problem.