Does Oculus have any intellectual property on their HMD?

[Direlight]

I don't understand what you guys are saying. Carmack said this an interview that it was just him working on the warp for doom 3 and there was even a quote about it only taking 24 hours or something like that, and I all ready said other people had done similar things. If that isn't what happened talk to him. Note Carmack didn't specify where the original idea came from just said he was the guy who did it working on Doom 3 BFG.

I agree other people use lens and displays at the same time and experiment with them on distortion etc.

^^^^^
I put it in bold this time.

I'll post the interview if I find it on youtube, it's like 20+ minutes long.

[Direlight]

Palmer, tbh it sounds like there really is some sort of legal issue between you and Carmack, I was defending your claims and you defensively went after me for recalling an interview, lol.

Doom 3 was officially dumped and now unless doom 4 is OR enabled I'm not going to believe you 2 are on good business terms, despite PR talk.

Here's an article confirming my summary.
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/7 ... y-goggles/



No one else is mentioned with the warping (referred to as "tinkering"), according to public record which is what I'm going on, in fact it sounds like he added something to it that wasn't there before. Look at the quote

That's when he turned to the Oculus Rift, a $500 DIY kit that is currently in development. The VR headset conceived by Palmer Luckey turned out to be the perfect platform for Carmack to tinker with. A few concessions needed to be made, the most obvious of which is a low-resolution output for whatever you're looking at through the goggles. That said, after spending a good chunk of time tooling around in Doom 3 BFG Edition with Carmack's prototype Oculus Rift on my noggin, I can confidently say that it really does "work."

Doom 3 BFG at e3 was the origial Rift wasn't it? Where is this other one then that ran not doom 3, no articles I've ever read stated there was a fully functional Rift before Carmack got one of yours.





No one else is mentioned on the Doom 3 BFG Oculus work either, anywhere.

Btw which method does Oculus use? Your method or Carmack's? Unless they're the same....... so you instructed him then online?


I could go into more detail, but people can decide for themselves, it's all online what happened.

[Jose]

Direlight, I'm not exactly sure what you're claiming. Are you claiming that Carmack was the originator of the lens warping correction technique?

I wouldn't say that Carmack's unit was the original Rift. The Rift apparently was in development for a while before Carmack's E3 demos.

Here's a video of one of the Rift's prototypes (called "PR4"), a demo by cybereality, posted in January 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhAmh7FT-S0

[Direlight]

I'm literally not saying anything, please argue with every single article online stating Carmack tinkered with it and THAT WAS THE RIFT AT E3, I have no idea about mystery rifts that no one tried in public.

I know of multiple warping methods, and Carmack warp shader was the method at e3, seriously draw your own conclusions.

[cybereality]

I'm not sure I get the point here.

HMDs are nothing new. Sutherland was doing this stuff back in the 1960's.

Warping algorithms have been in use for years, primarily for projector based systems.

Doesn't mean other people can't come along and give a fresh spin on an old idea.

[Direlight]

Well now that we have multiple Oculus people claiming I'm crazy, here ya go.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/07/looki ... ulus-rift/


And a quote

Carmack would like to fix that, and he is now working with Palmer Luckey and the highly talked about Oculus Rift in order to do so. By combining Luckey's hardware with Carmack's software, they hope to remove a lot of barriers gamers typically experience when trying to immerse themselves in a virtual world.

Also your own wiki page says it's literally his altered version

Before the 2012 Electronic Entertainment Expo, id Software had announced in May that the company would develop a new version of Doom 3, subsequently known as BFG Edition, compatible with head-mounted display units. During the convention, Carmack introduced a homebrew prototype of the Oculus Rift featuring a 5.6 inch LCD display, visible via dual lenses that were positioned over the eyes to provide a 90 degrees horizontal and 110 degrees vertical stereoscopic 3D perspective.[10][11]

Do I really need to post anymore? I'll post the videos too if needed since i've been indirectly deemed faulty in my memory and clearly every early e3 article backs me up. Not only that, Carmack also said he tweaked the code for lower latency among other things, so that's another alteration.

Palmer now claims, Carmack did basically nothing but copy and that he had all ready fixed or was fixing the issues before E3. If you missed it

He did not, actually. There were several pieces of software working with my Rift prototypes using native distortion correction before Carmack did it, and I also got it working in standard SBS 3D compatible software by using projector warping tools.

Carmack did a lot to help this project, but I assure you, the idea (and implementation) to warp games to work in the Rift was around a long time before he got his!

So Carmack is just some Vanna White presenter now with minor support, but it was a lot of help...that was minor.

[geekmaster]

Almost no one talking about 3d displays and DVI-D means the crappy one.

Apparently you did not read my post. DVI-D means it is missing the analog VGA pins. If you consider that "crappy", why? Do you need VGA?

Even Single-Link DVI is not "crappy" if it is all your monitor needs. Of course you CAN by "crappy" cheap Chineses cables (of any type) with inadequate shielding, but that is a personal choice.

Like I said, DVI-D is available in both Single-Link, and Dual-Link for extra high resolutions (like my 2560x1440 display).

I even provided cable diagrams. Go back and look at it if you still mistakingly think you are right...

And this thread is about the Rift, which does not need a "3D" display, when using its SBS format as it does. So why WOULD anyone talk about "3D" displays in this Rift-specific thread?

[Jose]

Direlight I know where you're coming from because I also read all the E3 coverage, and everyone is claiming that Carmack invented the Rift or something along those lines.

I've been trying to look for the video, but I can't find it. It's basically a video of Carmack saying how he warned Palmer that the media will incorrectly credit Carmack for the creation of the Rift, and that Palmer should be prepared for that.

I think it might have been his Quakecon 2012 keynote speech. But it's 3 hours long and it might not even be in that video.

If I find it, I'll post it here.

[cybereality]

@Direlight: I am not trying to dispute any particular point. You just seem very angry for no good reason.

But hey, while I'm replying, here's a white-paper from 1995 talking about correcting for optical distortion in head mounted displays. 1995.
https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/h ... /95-04.pdf

[Direlight]

Carmack did the warping and some latency work, not the Rift. You guys need to read my posts more carefully or something.

Rift = Palmer
Warp work that went to e3 and made Oculus famous = Carmack

[WiredEarp]

@ Direlight: mate, going to a lot of blog articles for alternative stories is not going to get you closer to the truth. Why don't you just accept what Palmer has said (thanks for chiming in there Palmer btw). Seriously, you are comparing sites like http://www.g4tv.com to the truth coming out of the mouth of the actual designer.

The fact is, MOST of the blog articles contain falsehoods and misstatements.
I think I also actually remember PalmerTech talking about using a projector warping tool originally (NTHUSIM perhaps?), as he mentions in his post below.

JC DID write the warp shader for Doom 3, that is without doubt. However, he didn't come up with the idea of predistorting the imagery. There is a big difference between 'having the idea' and 'implementing an idea'.

[Jose]

Rift = Palmer
Warp work that went to e3 and made Oculus famous = Carmack

I agree with you.

Thank you for simplifying your writing. I did read your previous posts (multiple times) but you wrote so much that it was hard to understand what you meant.

[geekmaster]

Rift = Palmer
Warp work that went to e3 and made Oculus famous = Carmack

I agree with you.

Thank you for simplifying your writing. I did read your previous posts (multiple times) but you wrote so much that it was hard to understand what you meant.

John Carmack just IMPLEMENTED standard barrel warp, which has been in use for many decades. No novelty there WHATSOEVER. What he DID do that was special, was to add it to his game, along with some low latency head tracking code. But the REAL thing he did that was special was to show it to people and draw attention to it, helping make this thing the sensational phenomenon that it is today.

John's SPECIFIC source code is IP, but the algorithm is just standard stuff you can look up at WikiPedia (see "Brown's model lens distortion correction"). Such barrel correction basically models a fisheye lens, and Paul Bourke published source code to do that back in 2004, and I doubt that he was the first.

The warp is NOTHING SPECIAL. Just STANDARD stuff. It is the PRESENTATION of these ideas that is the SPECIAL sauce that makes this what it is.

[Direlight]

@ Direlight: mate, going to a lot of blog articles for alternative stories is not going to get you closer to the truth. Why don't you just accept what Palmer has said (thanks for chiming in there Palmer btw). Seriously, you are comparing sites like http://www.g4tv.com to the truth coming out of the mouth of the actual designer.

You're right man, Palmer has no cards in this unlike me..................


Stupid g4 articles, youtube interviews, the wiki all spewing propaganda!


Btw I don't know what went on during that time, just that I'm noticing the story somewhat change from what was printed.


Done with the thread though, my opinion (based on fact or not) is invalidated by a forum celeb. Bye

[WiredEarp]

Even at the time of those articles, if you look around you'll see that people in these very forums were pointing out the inaccuracies. G4 articles and youtube videos are not what I consider a reputable source.

However, I did miss the post you made right above mine, which puts what happened into an accurate, easy to understand form:

Rift = Palmer
Warp work that went to e3 and made Oculus famous = Carmack

I think Oculus would have become a success (and famous) even without Carmacks backing, however it would have just taken longer, and the kickstarter, while I think it would have been quite successful, wouldn't have been quite such a hit with the masses. Lots of people who backed probably really wanted to play Doom3 in VR (I really think id missed a big opportunity here).

Oculus are a success because not only do they have a great product, with no real competition, but because they actually have people with vision, who understand that VR is not the same as a portable video viewer. Until another company produces a high FOV HMD for a similar, they really are in a great position. Also, Palmer seems a very astute businessman, along with his vision - he has done very well to surround himself with smart, experienced people rather than doing the usual hobbyist, half assed attempts at running a company by themselves. I personally feel I have rather good vision of future possibilities myself, but I don't think for a moment that I could have handled things anywhere near as well as he has done.

@g33kmaster: nice info as always. I really don't know how you manage to post so much and remember so many details. Do you have a personal wiki you use or something?

[geekmaster]

... @g33kmaster: nice info as always. I really don't know how you manage to post so much and remember so many details. Do you have a personal wiki you use or something?

No wiki. No notes. All in my head. Even at University I found that note taking distracted from my full attention dedicated to absorbing the information as it was presented. Sadly, I feel like I lost 85-percent of my mental capacity in a brain injury decades ago, but the doctors tell me they would be filthy rich if they had a tiny portion of what I have left AFTER the injury. The problem for me was that every fact stored in my head was previously rated as to its reliability based on how many INDEPENDENT information sources (not traceable to the same originating source) I found for corroborating information. I always checked my facts. I carried a dictionary (and my current three books in progress) with me in a briefcase my father gave me in first grade. I always immediately looked anything up if I had the slightest doubt, and I was always correct. Anyway, after the injury, some of my information got scrambled and I no longer completely trust it. I no longer trust my own memory, although it seems to still function adequately for most purposes. Thank God for Google...

[WiredEarp]

Sadly, I feel like I lost 85-percent of my mental capacity in a brain injury decades ago, but the doctors tell me they would be filthy rich if they had a tiny portion of what I have left AFTER the injury

Its amazing how the brain can recover. My friend actually suffered a serious TBI a couple of years ago. Its a bit sad because he was one of the smartest people I knew, and while hes still smart about some things, hes unfortunately quite average at problem solving and logical thinking now. That said, at least he still has his personality, is able to walk, talk, eat, fly RC planes, and get on with life - especially considering they didn't think he'd ever recover from his coma, and if he did they only gave him a very small chance of then ever being able to function normally again.

I actually just keep everything important in my head as well, but my memory is not that great for stuff I don't regularly touch on, so often I might think something but not be sure as to the details or the truthfulness of it.

Even at University I found that note taking distracted from my full attention dedicated to absorbing the information as it was presented.

I agree, its quite hard to really follow along mentally when you are concentrating on writing stuff down.

I've been thinking about a personal wiki for myself, simply because I think it would help me with some of the stuff I hold in my head that i'm not so interested in. VR stuff etc I have a fairly good recollection of, but stuff I don't care about (like how to fix weird windows bugs, street names, birthdays, etc) I sometimes find myself having to look up repeatedly, as I just don't care enough about it to hold it in my head...

[geekmaster]

... I've been thinking about a personal wiki for myself, simply because I think it would help me with some of the stuff I hold in my head that i'm not so interested in. VR stuff etc I have a fairly good recollection of, but stuff I don't care about (like how to fix weird windows bugs, street names, birthdays, etc) I sometimes find myself having to look up repeatedly, as I just don't care enough about it to hold it in my head...

Yeah, well, forums have kind of been a personal wiki for me (mobileread.com, then mtbs3d.com, and now also oculusvr.com). But sadly, when I am mostly just writing down (both for my own personal benefit, and just to share my thoughts), people start trying to argue with me, or even call my ideas lies and BS. I find that very distracting and very counterproductive, making me not share many of my ideas. I like to document things as I think about them, so that people can learn to emulate my creative thought processes. But sadly, the negativity in that positional head tracking thread has made me rather avoid that painful topic, even though I am totally convinced that my ideas will work. I have shared some in PMs that I did not publish, but a lot I just keep to myself these days to avoid getting my ankles gnawed on in the forums...

[blazespinnaker]

Yeah, carmack helped make the Rift famous, no doubt about that. Wonder if he got equity for it.

TBH, I was pretty disappointed that Palmer didn't endorse the Omni. Not sure what happened there. Maybe he didn't get equity?

[WiredEarp]

But sadly, when I am mostly just writing down (both for my own personal benefit, and just to share my thoughts), people start trying to argue with me, or even call my ideas lies and BS. I find that very distracting and very counterproductive, making me not share many of my ideas. I like to document things as I think about them, so that people can learn to emulate my creative thought processes. But sadly, the negativity in that positional head tracking thread has made me rather avoid that painful topic, even though I am totally convinced that my ideas will work.

@ g33kmaster:
I don't remember the head tracking thread (so many of them!) but people questioning stuff in forums is part of what makes forums good IMHO - but it has to be constructive, not destructive. Often stuff I say is also just 'stream of consciousness' stuff throwing out ideas, and I think its fine to work this way (and often some great ideas come out of these sessions) as long as its clear to people what you are doing. Usually, i use words like 'I think' / 'i feel' 'perhaps' etc, when i'm doing stuff like this. I try to keep making concrete statements to things I'm absolutely sure of. Sometimes wins me a few bets with my friends who haven't learnt I only bet when REALLY sure

I don't want to badmouth mtbs3d, because this has always been a great community with some awesomely friendly, talented people, and I think Neil has done a really good job with the site - but I do find theres a much higher signal to noise ratio here these days. I might start spending more time on oculusvr.com as well, simply because every time I've looked there via links to stuff, it seems to be a great resource.
Also, the vrgeeks mailing list was recommended to me, and seems a good resource as well.

@ blazespinnaker: wasn't he in the promotional video using the system? That's probably as close to an endorsement as they would need...

[brantlew]

I don't want to badmouth mtbs3d, because this has always been a great community with some awesomely friendly, talented people, and I think Neil has done a really good job with the site - but I do find theres a much higher signal to noise ratio here these days. I might start spending more time on oculusvr.com as well, simply because every time I've looked there via links to stuff, it seems to be a great resource.
Also, the vrgeeks mailing list was recommended to me, and seems a good resource as well.

I'm torn between mtbs and OVR. I still check OVR a lot for work, but I have a long standing relationship with mtbs and I know the community better and feel more comfortable here. It seems like the community at OVR has a different skill mix. You get some really top notch graphic developer types, but you also get a lot of comments from people who are brand new to VR. It seems like here, most everyone has been indoctrinated to the basics and so the conversation often has a higher starting point (but not necessarily a higher ending point )

[PalmerTech]

No one else is mentioned with the warping (referred to as "tinkering"), according to public record which is what I'm going on, in fact it sounds like he added something to it that wasn't there before.

Doom 3 BFG at e3 was the origial Rift wasn't it? Where is this other one then that ran not doom 3, no articles I've ever read stated there was a fully functional Rift before Carmack got one of yours.

This is indeed all a matter of public record, just look back into my post history. You are basing all of this on articles with faulty information, of which there were many at the time (PC Gamer even claimed that Carmack designed the Rift without even mentioning me!).

I had many, many Rift prototypes before the one Carmack had. There were multiple demos with built in distortion correction, that is the only way the Rift can appear optically correct. All of this is part of the public record, you could easily find it if you look back in time on this very forum, because I posted about all of them over the past several years. Carmack duct taped a strap and a different motion tracking chip, all the latency stuff was on his own side. The Rift had low input latency on its own, Carmack did not improve that.

The core problem is that you are a relatively new member who does not remember first hand what happened, and are apparently not able/willing to go read about it. Instead, you are relying on clearly inaccurate old media articles to bolster some kind of claim that elements of the Rift were designed by someone else, and it is just not true.