Meant to be Seen

I haven't yet managed to get the TF2 IPD tool to measure my IPD correctly...i get something like 34mm and i am no mythical creature of small proportion or something like that ..on the contrary, i'm a tall fellow with a big head

I have the feeling i can't ever get both lenses at the right position. Because my left eye kinda sucks (but i was amazed at how the focus of the rift and my left eye magically produce very sharp images...they like each other...in the rift it seems both my eyes are good ) and my right one is the dominant useful one, I always put it a little bit towards my right eye to have the blurry lens distortion centered around it's vision. The left eye then gets very blurry vision on the left side of it's 'cone'.

I think the real rift should have some adjust ability. It can't be that hard to put the lens cup mechanism on a slider...Especially because there should probably only be adjust ability over a small range...maybe 5mm on either side? Who agrees???
Who has similar problems?

Thinking about it...but a little weary to start cutting up my rift...i should maybe just build something myself. Pretty soon there'll be a couple of 3d printers where i work.
Maybe i should put that autocad license to work

i agree it feels weird being blinkered. i think 3 cms of travel would cover 90% of adults.

Who thinks RIFT2.0 should have IPD adjustable lenses?

Oculus does

They do?
Where did you get that from/?

Mattijs wrote:They do?
Where did you get that from/?

Just from a variety of interviews/articles from recent events, where they've said they would like the lenses to be much more configurable. Nothing specific, but they're definitely thinking about it. I'm hopefully going to see them at Gamescom - I should write a list of stuff I want to remember to ask them

TheHolyChicken wrote:

Who thinks RIFT2.0 should have IPD adjustable lenses?

Oculus does

TheHolyChicken wrote:

Mattijs wrote:They do?
Where did you get that from?

Just from a variety of interviews/articles from recent events, where they've said they would like the lenses to be much more configurable. Nothing specific, but they're definitely thinking about it. I'm hopefully going to see them at Gamescom - I should write a list of stuff I want to remember to ask them

What? Just exactly how "specific" does somebody need to be to be considered "specific"?

This looks suspiciously "specific" to me:

At [url]http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=14777&p=94029#p94029[/url], [b][color=#FF80C0]PalmerTech[/color][/b] wrote:The consumer version will support IPD adjustment.

Google-fu to the rescue! Already (specifically) answered. No need to waste valuable "face time" at Gamescom...

Specific as in: what range of IPD adjustment will be supported, what adjustments will be possible to account for eyesight deficiencies, etc.
I meant that some adjustability has been confirmed, but details as to the specifics of that adjustability is unknown.

Also, thanks Geekmaster, you got my back

TheHolyChicken wrote:Specific as in: what range of IPD adjustment will be supported, what adjustments will be possible to account for eyesight deficiencies, etc.
I meant that some adjustability has been confirmed, but details as to the specifics of that adjustability is unknown.

Also, thanks Geekmaster, you got my back

Ahh... as in "technical specifications" rather than "factual confirmation". Your local context implied (to me) "no specific proof to support the claim", so I misinterpreted the intent of your "specific" comment. I need more adjectives to pin down a specific interpretation that is not implied by local context after I translate it to "pictures in my mind". Adjectives and other syntactic sugar are a great help to narrow the range of possible interpretations. I need that, or I risk seeing more possibilities than were intended (which is great for technology research, but just upsets people in social discourse).

Regarding specific range of IPD adjustment in the consumer Rift, I have seen nothing published about such plans, but I suspect that the consumer Rift design will go a little beyond the 99th-percentile ranges in the 1988 military study on IPD that has been mentioned in the forums. If the range is too large, it makes specific adjustments slower or more difficult to get "just right". I am sure that if they do it, they will (hopefull) do it well, and Palmer said they plan to do it. Such things often take a couple of iterations to get "just right" in the design, especially for a company as young as Oculus. But whatever they do, I am looking forward to it with a smile on my face.

@geekmaster - please never change. Your updates are always so entertaining, not to mention informative (mostly).

For the sake of mass public acceptance, I think they will have to include some sort of IPD adjustment. I struggle to get mine right and find that I can only ever get one eye in the sweet spot of the lens at a time. I can't imagine the general public accepting this.

I'm starting to think geekmaster is a very clever google-bot.

Drewbdoo wrote:I'm starting to think geekmaster is a very clever google-bot.

http://www.geekosystem.com/cleverbot-passes-turing-test/ wrote:Cleverbot Passes Turing Test
It seems that Cleverbot, the chatbot so ready to admit that it was a unicorn during a discussion with itself, has passed the Turing test. This past Sunday, the 1334 votes from a Turing test held at the Techniche festival in Guwahati, India were released. They revealed that Cleverbot was voted to be human 59.3% of the time. Real humans did only slightly better and were assumed to be humans 63.3% of the time. That being the case, Cleverbot’s success in conning people into thinking it was human is greater than chance, and therefore, one could argue that it has technically passed the Turning test.

Of course, that’s only one way to look at the results. Although Cleverbot may have been able to convince a majority of people that it was a human, as bizarre as that may sound, it still comes short of actual humans. 59% is also not that much greater than chance. Still, when you consider that actual humans are only suspected to be human 63.3% of the time, there’s not much of a gap for Cleverbot to close.

_______________________geek{Cleverbot}master, at your service...

______________________________

_________________________Now, with extra Google-fu power...

Yes, our own vr cleverbot. I can only assume the reason is so the NSA can follow all the latest in vr development...

TheHolyChicken wrote:Specific as in: what range of IPD adjustment will be supported, ...

Many stereoscopic telescopes only have an IPD adjustment range of 61mm to 71mm:
http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/binotests.pdf
That is not enough for younger children with typical 55mm to 58mm IPD.

This stereoscopic operating surgical microscope has 55mm to 75mm IPD adjustment range:
http://www.labomedsurgicalmicroscope.co ... r_logo.pdf

The IPD range reported for US Military personnel in 1988 was even larger (52mm to 78mm):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpupillary_distance
The consumer Rift probably needs at least that much, and perhaps a little more.

The military IPD table shows a median IPD of 65mm for men, and 62mm for women, and the Rift DK fits about in the middle (63.5mm or 64mm depending on where you look).

I suspect that Oculus VR may not have settled on a design range yet, but I think it should probably support a range of 50mm to 80mm, a bit beyond the military 99th percentile. I do not like unnecessary limitations when there is no cost savings or technical reason to impose such restrictions.

geekmaster wrote:

TheHolyChicken wrote:Specific as in: what range of IPD adjustment will be supported, ...

Many stereoscopic telescopes only have an IPD adjustment range of 61mm to 71mm:
http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/binotests.pdf
That is not enough for younger children with typical 55mm to 58mm IPD.

This stereoscopic operating surgical microscope has 55mm to 75mm IPD adjustment range:
http://www.labomedsurgicalmicroscope.co ... r_logo.pdf

The IPD range reported for US Military personnel in 1988 was even larger (52mm to 78mm):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpupillary_distance
The consumer Rift probably needs at least that much, and perhaps a little more.

The military IPD table shows a median IPD of 65mm for men, and 62mm for women, and the Rift DK fits about in the middle (63.5mm or 64mm depending on where you look).

I suspect that Oculus VR may not have settled on a design range yet, but I think it should probably support a range of 50mm to 80mm, a bit beyond the military 99th percentile. I do not like unnecessary limitations when there is no cost savings or technical reason to impose such restrictions.

Thanks geekmaster , very cool post. Very informative.