Meant to be Seen

[youtube-hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW_-bGyiKGs[/youtube-hd]

looks pretty cool! I wonder if the HMD is heavy or just really bulky? The previous post with the Novint Xio was different in that the tech vid combined MANY products, however novint also has existing driver support for many games (small compared to s3d drivers)- this is just proof of concept

Seems interesting, but its not really anything new. And that HMD is ridiculous. I hope the FOV is high.

Also, this should be in the Virtual Reality section.

well , there was apparent tearing on the screen , so I guess the framerate is less than okay, ,moreover, scene like this should be rendered with raytracing on remote server datacenter, apparently PC -s can't keep up with this stuff.

tritosine2k wrote:scene like this should be rendered with raytracing on remote server datacenter, apparently PC -s can't keep up with this stuff.

Why would you state that?
I didn't noticed NOTHING in the scene which would require raytracing. Simple scene, with simple materials (even without normalmaps etc.) with baked lightmap, + video-sprites. And them are using Virtools engine, which is actually DX9 capable. You actually need pretty average laptop to render all this with very fast framerate.

Because with raytacing you get a "physically correct" result , thats the idea. If a scene is not physically correct ,why would you call that VR at all...? Because of the presence of yours? Let's just do RT or something resembling RT by the looks of it, thats the real deal.

tritosine2k wrote:Because with raytacing you get a "physically correct" result , thats the idea. If a scene is not physically correct ,why would you call that VR at all...? Because of the presence of yours? Let's just do RT or something closely resembling RT, thats the real deal.

1. In this demo they don't use raytracing.
2. You don't need to have physically correct rendering to be used in VR medium.
3. I don't know any real-life VR setup which would use raytracers as an engine nowadays.
4. There are whole lot of raytracers on the market which are NOT physically correct. I have in mind only Maxwell http://www.maxwellrender.com/ render, which is physically correct.
5. Realtime raytracers is the future, but not modern reality. You can trace simple things in realtime using NVidia Optix (on Cuda), but it doesn't mean you're currently not required to use other real-time techniques.
6. And one more thing. There are difference between "Virtual Reality", and "Simulated Reality". "Simulated Reality" is kind of "Virtual Reality" which very accurately reconstruct real-life experiences. But Virtual Reality itself can be used as medium to totally unreal but useful or entertaining experiences.

Dr. Mirko Sattler : Computer Graphics Bonn
http://cg.cs.uni-bonn.de/en/people/alum ... o-sattler/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The RealReflect project's goal is to increase the realism of Virtual Reality (VR) technology by developing physically correct visualization technology ...

"increasing realism of VR" , weheh, well lets say it either looks close to photoreal or its no VR.

We don't call the latest dolby whatever surround this & that either.

tritosine2k wrote:...well lets say it either looks close to photoreal or its no VR.

VR is scientific term
Of course everyone wants for their software (simulations and games) to look better, but this deals nothing with your first statement - raytracing.

Serious Virtual Reality implementations deal with Ray Tracing, and physically correct rendering - that is, in practice, not necessarily a Ray Traced renderer, but an approximation.

tritosine2k wrote:...that is, in practice, not necessarily a Ray Traced renderer, but an approximation.

Everything in modern realtime 3D graphics is approximation and depiction of real-life.
This is approximation:

And this is approximation:

You basically can't even mention that this is approximation, of course it is.

And here are examples of real-life, serious Virtual Reality applications that do nothing to realistic rendering:





But nevertheless it is VR!
It does feel realistic for human sensorium in proper setup, but on practice its very simple rendering techniques, which are not physically correct.

Here is another example, actually a visualization of abstract data in VR:

Abstract data can't be visualised physically correct, because you can't perceive it in physical world that way, that's why visual metaphors created.

Ray-tracing is not needed for VR and, in fact, it is undesirable due to performance costs. It has been proven that virtual reality applications benefit more from low-latency high-refresh simulations than almost anything else (including stereoscopy). So if you were developing a VR application, you would actually want to be as far away from ray-tracing as possible, since it is so slow currently. VR is more about the immersion and interaction, than having a photo-realistic rendering. What makes it VR is how innovative the control interface is and the richness of the interactions. So this means things like HMDs with head-tracking, data-gloves, haptics force-feedback devices, motion-simulators, etc. All of this has nothing to do with whether you are rendering flat-shaded or texture-mapped polygons, or if you are using DirectX or OpenGL, or anything of that. Certainly it has nothing to do with ray-tracing. I mean, maybe one day that will be the case. But modern day hardware is just not designed to do that efficiently.

Plus, there is a reason its called VIRTUAL reality. Because its NOT real.

1. day night cycles

2. fume, smoke , semi transparent stuff

3. all physically correct

Im not talking about VR until these criterias are met, period

tritosine2k wrote:1. day night cycles
2. fume, smoke , semi transparent stuff
3. all physically correct
Im not talking about VR until these criterias are met, period

You are amazingly obstinate my friend...
Virtual Reality is a medium as books, pictures, movies, music.
It can deliver realistic experience as well as unrealistic.

Method of actual image rendering doesn't matter, method of delivering experience to the user is matter.
How visually perfect is final imagery is the question of rendering engine.

Television can show you cartoons as well as movies. Do you deny cartoons?

I like cartoons. Sponge bob is my favorite. I'm looking to buy the entire definative collection. Patrick is awesome.

cheers everyone

tritosine2k wrote:Serious Virtual Reality implementations deal with Ray Tracing.

This is simply not true. In fact, I am not aware of any "serious" VR implementations that use Ray Tracing. In fact, I cannot find anything that is past the theoretical stage.

PalmerTech wrote:

tritosine2k wrote:Serious Virtual Reality implementations deal with Ray Tracing.

This is simply not true. In fact, I am not aware of any "serious" VR implementations that use Ray Tracing. In fact, I cannot find anything that is past the theoretical stage.

Use the good keywords ,
search google for "virtual reality" + "physically correct" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22virtu ... ly+correct

once something is physically correct it won't look all that different compared to RT, and they should compare their stuff to RT.

I don't know what VR is with absolute minimum graphix, I would call that virtual presence + virtual enviroment at most. Cartoons have nothing to do with this discussion, RT has ^^

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HJVKBJK-Cs[/youtube]

That's not VR.

Noone's saying that it doesn't look better, just that it's not possible right now.
Your vid just confirms it. Intel's got a MIC supercloud rendering that, and in pretty low res from what i can tell(certainly not full-screen). The input lag is surprisingly low, but still makes it useless for any type of VR or gaming application.

It's going to take many years before we have that sort of performance in our homes, so until then just learn to live with what you've got. All things considered, today's games really do look stunning, and it won't be long before we have (pseudo-)photorealistic games.

Just a little reminder to put things into perspective: Remember how good Halo looked when it first came out? Turns out, it didn't! :>

tritosine2k wrote:Cartoons have nothing to do with this discussion...

Here is some old example of serious artistic VR project, which have cartoonish visual stilyzation:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQdV0KN0aQQ[/youtube]

Authors of this project made cartoonish look by intention.
However, This is Virtual Reality too.

You cycling around lifelike visualization but it's just one of the variants of rendering. Virtual Reality is much wider term, and seems to me you don't (or don't want to) understand it, even after explanation.

Another example of data visualization approach in VR:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cakUYzW2 ... re=related[/youtube]

I think this guy said something about ray tracing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKvYClgc ... detailpage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



In super slow. I think he said "Rrayy tra". And Pow thats it.

Your welcome
cheers everyone

At one time, THIS was Virtual Reality:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9aaBWxicbg[/youtube]

LOL, that was my first experience with VR. Dactyl Nightmare in an arcade!

Explore virtual reality on board of magic school bus! Watch out for the pew wew sounds.

No wonder VR continues to be *this* cool .