View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:44 pm



Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh? 
Author Message
Zealot
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:01 am
Posts: 1076
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Johan_H wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:
Most modern movies are STILL 24 FPS. No one ever comes out of the theater complaining about how jerky the film was, because... it's not really a big problem.

It is a problem, but film makers have had to adapt to it. Most noticeably, panning shots in movies always have to be super slow or the stutter/blur will be too jarring. So while it's not a big problem in the movies that already exist, it does limit what kind of shots are viable.

Yeah 24 fps movies only appear smooth because of smart use of shutter speed and exposure to create a sort of motion blur. Modern games try to do it but its not very natural and when the frame rate drops or stutters, its awful looking.

If I played more games and used Windows, I'd get an oculus rift. I suppose there's some kind of unofficial support for it in Linux but I doubt the software support is particularly good.

_________________
Maybe these people were born without that part of their brain that lets you try different things to see if they work better. --Retsupurae


Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:34 pm
Profile WWW
Simply Amazin'
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:37 am
Posts: 60
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
software support on linux is about as good as it is on windows right now, because mainly everybody who is doing VR stuff is an indie going through valve.

And, FWIW, valve has a lot of VR stuff in linux already. it'll likely pick up steam (no pun intended) once SteamOS releases.

_________________
Image


Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:26 pm
Profile
ZSNES Shake Shake Prinny
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:15 pm
Posts: 5615
Location: PAL50, dood !
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Another thing with movies is the low exposure - dark rooms make you not notice, but they're not very bright. High brightness would make the flicker more noticeable.

Like those godforsaken motherfucking lcd panels on factory default settings leaving scorch marks on the upholstery if you hit a whitescreen for a couple seconds.

_________________
皆黙って俺について来い!!
Code:
<jmr> bsnes has the most accurate wiki page but it takes forever to load (or something)

Pantheon: Gideon Zhi | CaitSith2 | Nach | kode54


Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:46 am
Profile
Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:24 pm
Posts: 417
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
While I'm not technically savvy, I've known about films being 24fps for a long time. Even with good motion blur, movies DO look noticeably jerky to me during fight scenes & other motion-heavy scenes. I do agree that screen tearing is unacceptable(hence the lack of 40-50fps games for 60hz monitors) but 60fps is not only MUCH smoother, but games play better at 60+ fps. 30 is just fine for turn-based JRPGs and other games that don't require very precise inputs. 30fps is very playable, but when compared to 60, the difference is night and day, both gameplay wise and visually.

Gil, maybe the difference between 30/60fps isn't as obvious to you as it is for me; different people process motion differently. I have generally crappy vision, but I'm very good at detecting motion. I can immediately tell if a game is 30 or 60fps; there's a HUGE difference. I also agree that a constant 30fps is better than a stuttering 60fps. I think pubs/devs should sacrifice some graphical effects in order to make all games that require lots of precise inputs a SOLID 60fps. Most SNES & Genesis games were 60fps(yes I know there was slowdown, mostly early SNES games), so the industry has gone backwards framerate-wise. I'm so adamant about 60fps because all games look & play better at 60+fps, pretty graphics be damned.

Marketing is a big issue: people want their "next-gen" games to have amazing graphics that blow them away. Personally though, I' prefer 720p@60fps(with fewer particle effects) over 1080p@30fps + tons of effects. A constant 30 is usually fine, but 60fps allows for pinpoint precision that 30fps just can't offer. Fighters are the best examples of 60fps being superior, imo.

As for the VB, I don't know much about its history but it sucks that its creator got blamed for its failure. If Nintendo had waited another 1.5-2 years, the VB probably would've been much more powerful with a great color palette. Did Nintendo force its creator to rush it out when it wasn't ready? If so, I feel really bad for Gunpei Yokoi.(if my source is right, he was the VB's creator)


Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:56 am
Profile
Starzinger Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:14 pm
Posts: 998
Location: Sweden
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
60 is hardly even "enough" for all games either, if you're allowed to be picky. Try playing a fast FPS like Quake or Tribes at 120 - going back to 60 will feel almost unplayable.

_________________
- Oskar's chiptunes -


Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:06 pm
Profile WWW
Zealot
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:01 am
Posts: 1076
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
it's all relative I suppose. :p

_________________
Maybe these people were born without that part of their brain that lets you try different things to see if they work better. --Retsupurae


Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:46 pm
Profile WWW
Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:24 pm
Posts: 417
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
I've never even SEEN 120fps, but I bet it's unimaginably smooth to people like me that've never experienced it.

Let me rephrase: 60fps should be today's standard for consoles, but once most people own 120hz displays, 120fps should become the new standard if console hardware has enough power. With the new consoles, it's(apparently) already hard for developers to get pretty games to run at 1080p/60fps. 900 or 720p will likely be standard for 60fps console games. I prefer 900 or 720p at a constant 60fps over 1080p+ at a constant 30fps unless precise timing isn't needed.

My PC is currently very weak, but once I upgrade it and replace my monitor I should be able to at least experience 120fps. I almost exclusively play emulated games on my PC, so I don't need a beastly system. I just need enough power to run PS2 & GC/Wii games in 720p+ at full speed. I'll test a lower end PC game just to see how smooth 120fps really is.

How does the Rift's refresh rate work(2 rates, 1 for each eye?), and what's its native refresh rate? VR@120fps+ would probably blow my mind. I forgot the name of the tech some newer LCD monitors use to prevent motion blur, but I'm curious how well it works. CRTs are still king in that regard. My 1080p monitor is ancient in PC terms, and it's got pretty bad motion blur. It's especially annoying when I play platformers. I can still play them, but motion blur is a huge eyesore.


Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:31 am
Profile
Buzzkill Gil

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14 pm
Posts: 4247
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Yuber wrote:
How does the Rift's refresh rate work(2 rates, 1 for each eye?),

One refresh. Both eyes have to be updated in sync or the whole illusion collapses.

Quote:
I forgot the name of the tech some newer LCD monitors use to prevent motion blur, but I'm curious how well it works.

Depends on the display. Some insert black frames, some strobe the backlight.

_________________
Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Quote:
You have your 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, 32s, 64s, and 128s(crash course in binary counting!). But no 1s.
DirectInput represents all bits, not just powers of 2 in an axis.


KHDownloads


Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:18 am
Profile
Zealot
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:31 am
Posts: 1140
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
The current development and prototype Rift devices can't have two refreshes anyway, since they contain a single LCD panel for both eyes.


Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:28 am
Profile WWW
Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:24 pm
Posts: 417
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
What's the Rift's native refresh rate? After doing a few minutes of searching, I didn't find the answer to that, but regardless of that shit, I'd love to experience it sometime. Thanks for letting me know(well, kinda) how its refresh rate works. Cooljerk's acid trip with the Rift must've been one hell of a ride. Shit, even just strong weed would probably augment the fuck out of VR.

Technologically, what would you like VR's logical conclusion to be? I think virtual worlds that're completely indistinguishable from reality would be creepy/go too far, but that's just me. What do you guys want the end game to be like?

Gil_Hamilton wrote:
Depends on the display. Some insert black frames, some strobe the backlight.


I know you dislike marketing buzzwords, but there was a thread on neoGAF talking about monitors that curb motion blur & the term for it was some buzzword. I vaguely remember it having something to do with the backlight. If someone types the buzzword, I know I'd recognize it. I'm asking because I want to replace my monitor with one that minimizes blur as much as possible. Are there any techniques for LCD monitors that COMPLETELY remove the appearance of motion blur? MB makes the old SG Sonic games hard as fuck to play.

As far as FR goes, I don't even focus on TV/movie framerates, but I can notice the jerkiness of 24fps without trying. Movies aren't a good way of defending shitty framerates, imo. Movies, especially action movies, would look a ton better @ 60fps imo. One myth that makes me laugh is the claim that humans can't see anything above 30fps. If that were true I'd be freakishly superhuman :lol: It may be how quickly different peoples' brains process visual info, but I'm baffled whenever someone says they can't notice the difference between 30 & 60fps.

Despite my generally crap vision, I can usually detect even short, tiny FR hiccups. A minimum 60fps(constant) standard would drastically improve gaming in every way, & there's no good argument against that claim. One argument is that pretty graphics are more important than a stable 60fps, but that shit doesn't fly. FR doesn't translate to screenshots; that's the best counter argument I've heard.


Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:44 am
Profile
Official tech support dood

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:57 am
Posts: 2087
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Yuber wrote:
marketing buzzword

LightBoost aka strobing backlight

_________________
Why yes, my shift key *IS* broken.


Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:53 am
Profile
Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:24 pm
Posts: 417
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
odditude wrote:
Yuber wrote:
marketing buzzword

LightBoost aka strobing backlight


That's the term; thanks. If I were to buy a mid-range monitor that uses the strobing backlight technique, how effective is it at removing motion blur? Since it's the monitor itself and not software, I'm guessing it would apply to everything, emulation included. If you own or have used monitors with that feature, how well does it work, namely in emulated 2d games? I only want/need a 1080p native display. I don't wanna spend a ton of cash on a new monitor because upgrading my PC is gonna be fairly expensive.

In short, is it worth the extra cash to buy a monitor that uses the strobing technique? Motion blur annoys me to no end, especially in sprite-based games.


Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:11 am
Profile
Simply Amazin'
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:37 am
Posts: 60
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Welp

I just received an invitation to this:

http://www.steamdevdays.com/

Holy shit.

_________________
Image


Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:31 am
Profile
Buzzkill Gil

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14 pm
Posts: 4247
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Cooljerk wrote:
Welp

I just received an invitation to this:

http://www.steamdevdays.com/

Holy shit.

Radical.

_________________
Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Quote:
You have your 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, 32s, 64s, and 128s(crash course in binary counting!). But no 1s.
DirectInput represents all bits, not just powers of 2 in an axis.


KHDownloads


Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:01 am
Profile
Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:24 pm
Posts: 417
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Cooljerk wrote:
Welp

I just received an invitation to this:

http://www.steamdevdays.com/

Holy shit.


Congratulations man. Must be a huge honor to get an invitation like that, and I hope you have a fucking blast. If you have the time, it'd be cool if you made a thread about your experience.(without revealing confidential info, or at least not too much ;))


Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:22 pm
Profile
Simply Amazin'
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:37 am
Posts: 60
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Yuber wrote:
How does the Rift's refresh rate work(2 rates, 1 for each eye?), and what's its native refresh rate? VR@120fps+ would probably blow my mind. I forgot the name of the tech some newer LCD monitors use to prevent motion blur, but I'm curious how well it works. CRTs are still king in that regard. My 1080p monitor is ancient in PC terms, and it's got pretty bad motion blur. It's especially annoying when I play platformers. I can still play them, but motion blur is a huge eyesore.


The rift is 1 screen, displaying 2 view ports, which are aligned to two lenses. Right now, the screen is 640p at 60 hz. The HD devkit they're using is 1080p at 60 hz. They've hinted that they're considering something like a 1440p screen at either 60 or 120 hz, and that the goal ultimately is to arrive around 4k with 120 hz, and the ultimate dream is 8k at 240 hz.

A word about framerates and motion tracking: At this point, I think there needs to be a distinction among types of tracking, though. The term "motion controls" is so misleading and limited. Motion controls really refers to gesture input - a system reading a motion and trying to interpret that into an activator for an action. The most obvious type of motion input is waggle - moving a controller up and down so that the system reads that gesture and maps it to a virtual button press. You waggle in Mario Galaxy to punch, for example. Your motion to punch in mario galaxy isn't even close to what is represented on screen.

People sometimes say 1:1 motion controls, which is closer to what this type of tracking is. The better, more accurate, and emerging term for this type of tracking is positional tracking. What this means is that instead of trying to create a gesture and having the computer map that gesture into a pre-canned action, the computer instead reads where and to what orientation your extremity is at and maps it to a virtual object. It's important to clarify between orientation and position - orientation is pitch, yaw, and rotation among a vector. Think back to trig - a vector differs from a vertex in that a vector contains direction. You display orientation in vectors. Position, by contrast, is displayed as vertex, a single point in X, Y, Z space.

Positional tracking takes both of these into account. By nature, things which are positionally tracked don't need gesture tracking. If the computer can figure out which way you're holding a virtual sword, what the sword's vector is (pitch, yaw, rotation) among a vertex (the handle being held by your hand at X, Y, and Z) and can refresh its position 60 times a second, as accurate to your real world position, then it doesn't need to cross a threshhold before the computer recognizes the gesture and begins an attack animation. Simply swinging the sword IRL will be enough to attack.

Gesture tracking is imprecise and laggy by nature. Old motion controllers for last gen systems were slow and had limitations. The Wiimote could do positional tracking, but only in a very narrow field of view, and only when the orientation of the controller was such so that the camera on the controller could see the sensors in front of it. When you held the wiimote and pointed it at the screen, it had pretty accurate positional tracking - using the 2 IR LEDs it could map the rotation of the wiimote accurately, the distance (Z) from the TV accurately, the height from the TV (Y) accurately, and the horizontal distance of the TV (X) accurately. It couldn't map pitch and yaw very accurately - those were gleamed from a relatively starting position via accelerometers. Accelerometers work by counting the degree of change without regard to the point of origin. So an accelerometer reports back stuff like "from last poll, we moved +5 in pitch and -7 in yaw" without giving a frame of reference. The problem is, with this old motion control tech, these accelerometers were subject to drift, so that movement one way might report back +5 pitch, and the exact opposite movement backwards might incorrectly report back -4 pitch (instead of -5), meaning the tracking would very slowly, over time, get off.

When the wiimote wasn't pointing at the screen, it had to rely entirely on these accelerometers for both positioning and orientation, and that's where things got inaccurate. Without line of sight at the TV, the wiimote was very inaccurate and that's why devs would resort to gesture monitoring. If all they can read from the remote is rate of change, then the most complex motions they can read are stuff like waggles or waving motions.

These new VR devices work differently. They all rely on gyros instead of accelerometers. Gyroscopes take into account a frame of reference, usually a magnetic source like the earth's poles. Using those as a frame of reference, you can get an accurate reading of the absolute positioning and orientation. The razer hydras and sixense stem are built off of this technology. They include a base which sends out magnetic pulses that acts as a central spot to orient these devices within a 6 cubic foot area (9 cubic foot on the STEM). That means that you can conceptualize a cube 9 foot by 9 foot by 9 foot big surrounding the base, and these trackers, within that cube, can get 1:1 directly tracked for position and direction, without any line of sight. That means no limitations, which means you don't have to rely on gesture monitoring. Everything is accurately tracked.

Getting back to the rift, it currently tracks orientation, but not position. But it will track position going forward. But even when it does, it won't have to rely on motion to be read. It's not you swinging your head, and the rift measuring the swing, and updating the camera in-game accurately. that's slow and laggy. Instead, it's the rift updating it's orientation 60 times a second, and the computer aligning the camera in-game to the orientation the rift reads. That's why latency is such a big deal.

To think of it a bit differently, think of the way the wiimote and previous gen motion trackers read motion as them reading acceleration, while the new motion trackers read position. That's glossing over a bunch of details, but it will help you conceptualize how these are different.

That said, the stigma about motion controls needs to go away. For all the good it did getting this tech into the limelight, the wii seems to have given people a terrible conception about what motion controls are. Less gesture, more absolute positioning. Next-gen motion controls (by which I mean the STEMS and not, like, Kinect, which is built off the same limitations as the original kinect in a lot of ways) will be a lot more accurate and work the way people imagined they would.

_________________
Image


Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:46 pm
Profile
Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:24 pm
Posts: 417
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
So in layman's terms, the dream is to have the Rift(or other VR headsets) read your body's motions perfectly with nearly zero input lag instead of having to use weird gestures to make things happen on screen? I'm totally out of my element talking about this, but in order to fully utilize VR's potential, you'd need games specifically designed around accurately tracking the body's movements. The higher the framerate, the more accurate the tracking. Higher resolutions along with better refresh rates would deepen immersion & make VR-based games feel more and more real.

The idea that creeps me out is the idea of implants that "beam" the images and sensations directly into the human brain, potentially making VR indistinguishable from actual reality. When I asked about the dream, the end goal, I was talking about 20-30 years into the future. I'm completely illiterate when it comes to computer engineering, but people have expressed interest in that particular "endgame" in regards to to VR technology. I'm all for accurate body tracking, better refresh rates, and ridiculously high resolutions. However, the idea of implanting a chip directly into the brain in the future in order to experience almost completely realistic virtual worlds disturbs me.

I have no idea how plausible that scenario is, but people have expressed interest in such things. I personally think that's taking shit WAY too far.

As far as motion controls go, I'm all for accurate body tracking for VR-based gaming, but when I play console games on a TV, I prefer a gamepad.


Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:23 am
Profile
ZSNES Shake Shake Prinny
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:15 pm
Posts: 5615
Location: PAL50, dood !
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
i won't be able to take any VR seriously until they have power gloves

where's my future, bitch ?

_________________
皆黙って俺について来い!!
Code:
<jmr> bsnes has the most accurate wiki page but it takes forever to load (or something)

Pantheon: Gideon Zhi | CaitSith2 | Nach | kode54


Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:19 am
Profile
Simply Amazin'
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:37 am
Posts: 60
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Yuber wrote:
So in layman's terms, the dream is to have the Rift(or other VR headsets) read your body's motions perfectly with nearly zero input lag instead of having to use weird gestures to make things happen on screen? I'm totally out of my element talking about this, but in order to fully utilize VR's potential, you'd need games specifically designed around accurately tracking the body's movements. The higher the framerate, the more accurate the tracking. Higher resolutions along with better refresh rates would deepen immersion & make VR-based games feel more and more real.


Sounds like you got it. The rift already reads head tracking by orientation rather than gesture (any sort of gesture-based tracking for your vision would be vomit inducing and wouldn't work) but there is still a considerable amount of latency. Right now, the time it takes, on average, for the rift to figure out it's orientation, send the data to the computer, have the computer reposition the in-game cameras to the correct orientation, render the frame, then send it back to the rift's screen, is about 20 ms, give or take. According to John Carmack, 20 ms is the threshhold for believable head tracking - go higher than that, and the disconnect between when you move your head and when the image is updated is too noticable. In actuality, the rift has a bottle neck currently in the screen draw time. Internally, reading the orientation, sending it to the PC, having the PC reposition the cameras, and having the PC draw the frame takes 2ms, while actually having the screen on the rift update takes up the remaining 18 or so ms. So, as cellphone screen technology improves, this number will come down.

You're correct about game design, too. To really nail VR, games have to be made with VR in mind. You can, right now, use an injection driver to map mouse position to the rift's head tracking to give you rift support in games not built for the rift (like battlefield, skyrim, batman: AA, etc). But when you use these drivers, the limitations become apparent - your view, body orientation, and where you're aiming are all the same with no way to decouple them. Meaning your gun will always be pointed in the direct center of your view, and your view is always the 'forward' direction. Games built for the ground up for VR can decouple all of these directions, so your gun can face one direction, your vision faces another, and your body faces a third. It's kind of like those 3D tvs that advertise the ability to make any movie 3D - they work by using algorithms to measure color brightness to kinda determine where objects should be, and it kinda works sometimes, but it doesn't even begin to compare to a properly filmed 3D movie. VR is the same way.

Quote:
The idea that creeps me out is the idea of implants that "beam" the images and sensations directly into the human brain, potentially making VR indistinguishable from actual reality. When I asked about the dream, the end goal, I was talking about 20-30 years into the future. I'm completely illiterate when it comes to computer engineering, but people have expressed interest in that particular "endgame" in regards to to VR technology. I'm all for accurate body tracking, better refresh rates, and ridiculously high resolutions. However, the idea of implanting a chip directly into the brain in the future in order to experience almost completely realistic virtual worlds disturbs me.


There's a lot of moral implications about directly affecting our brains to achieve this stuff, so that technology is coming along extra slow. There is research going on, and we likely have the technology already to begin playing with this sort of VR implementation, but most agree it's something dangerous if done wrong.

What is being worked on, instead, is a variety of ways to beam images to your eyes in less intrusive ways. For example, there are a number of devices which beam laser beams into your eyes, letting your cornea split the light into the correct image, so that the image is basically being rendered in your eyeball. There is also work being done on a pair of wireless contact lenses screens. basically contact lenses that can draw pixels over the real world to your eyes.

Quote:
I have no idea how plausible that scenario is, but people have expressed interest in such things. I personally think that's taking shit WAY too far.

As far as motion controls go, I'm all for accurate body tracking for VR-based gaming, but when I play console games on a TV, I prefer a gamepad.


Many people think that's too far. My person thoughts on the matter? I exist in my brain. My physical body is just a host. An imperfect, constantly dying host at that. The sooner we figure ways to free ourselves from these fleshy coffins, the better for me. I read one interesting idea about how, in the future, once we have the ability to construct virtual realities in our brains, that we can theoretically achieve immortality by simply adjusting our perception of time, because time is relative. If we can create a virtual reality where what we perceive as hours is mere seconds in the real world, we can effectively live hundreds of lifespans.

_________________
Image


Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:35 pm
Profile
Simply Amazin'
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:37 am
Posts: 60
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
grinvader wrote:
i won't be able to take any VR seriously until they have power gloves

where's my future, bitch ?


Image

They're coming :P

_________________
Image


Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:36 pm
Profile
Buzzkill Gil

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14 pm
Posts: 4247
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Cooljerk wrote:
grinvader wrote:
i won't be able to take any VR seriously until they have power gloves

where's my future, bitch ?


Image

They're coming :P

They keep coming and going. Every few years someone introduces a new glove controller of varying levels of functionality.

_________________
Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Quote:
You have your 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, 32s, 64s, and 128s(crash course in binary counting!). But no 1s.
DirectInput represents all bits, not just powers of 2 in an axis.


KHDownloads


Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:13 am
Profile
Zealot
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:01 am
Posts: 1076
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
There was one on computer chronicles from like the late 80s or early 90s. It actually worked pretty well.

_________________
Maybe these people were born without that part of their brain that lets you try different things to see if they work better. --Retsupurae


Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:15 am
Profile WWW
Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:24 pm
Posts: 417
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Cooljerk wrote:
Many people think that's too far. My person thoughts on the matter? I exist in my brain. My physical body is just a host. An imperfect, constantly dying host at that. The sooner we figure ways to free ourselves from these fleshy coffins, the better for me. I read one interesting idea about how, in the future, once we have the ability to construct virtual realities in our brains, that we can theoretically achieve immortality by simply adjusting our perception of time, because time is relative. If we can create a virtual reality where what we perceive as hours is mere seconds in the real world, we can effectively live hundreds of lifespans.


So basically, you want to experience a virtual world that alters time perception like psychedelics but in a much more extreme, clear headed fashion? That is pretty weird, but the main things I have issues with are permanent implants that could create virtual worlds that are indistinguishable from reality. Technology like that would probably be (ab)used to alter memories & peoples' sense of self by governments and other organizations that want more control. Yes, I know how crazy that sounds but technology is advancing so quickly that such things will likely be possible in the near future.

Many extreme transhumanists are trying to find ways to download human brains into powerful, undying robotic bodies; that is the kinda shit that creeps me the fuck out. From a religious standpoint, I find that idea highly offensive, but I was an atheist for 27 years before(not officially) converting to Christianity so I understand the temptation to become immortal. I DO NOT want this to become a religious debate, though. All religious objections aside, I think literal immortality has the potential to create an even larger rift between the rich & everyone else. Plus, we're already destructive & power hungry enough WITHOUT overpowered, "immortal" robotic bodies. I'd much rather die naturally.

However, I'm all for science finding ways to eradicate all cancers/other awful diseases & greatly improve overall quality of life. Not all religious people are judgmental, legalistic holier-than-thou types. While I strongly disagree with most extreme transhumanists, only God has the right to judge others in my opinion. Plus, much of our true selves could be eternally lost if we substitute robotic bodies for our admittedly weak, natural flesh.

In many ways, I think technology is advancing so quickly atm that our brains can't keep up with all the rapid change. In the next few decades, technological advancement will likely speed up so much that we won't even have time to think about ethics & regulation. Governments and others who want more control will abuse any and all new tech available to them. This is my most convoluted post yet; I'm VERY sleepy.


Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:23 am
Profile
Buzzkill Gil

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14 pm
Posts: 4247
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Yuber wrote:
Cooljerk wrote:
Many people think that's too far. My person thoughts on the matter? I exist in my brain. My physical body is just a host. An imperfect, constantly dying host at that. The sooner we figure ways to free ourselves from these fleshy coffins, the better for me. I read one interesting idea about how, in the future, once we have the ability to construct virtual realities in our brains, that we can theoretically achieve immortality by simply adjusting our perception of time, because time is relative. If we can create a virtual reality where what we perceive as hours is mere seconds in the real world, we can effectively live hundreds of lifespans.


So basically, you want to experience a virtual world that alters time perception like psychedelics but in a much more extreme, clear headed fashion? That is pretty weird, but the main things I have issues with are permanent implants that could create virtual worlds that are indistinguishable from reality. Technology like that would probably be (ab)used to alter memories & peoples' sense of self by governments and other organizations that want more control. Yes, I know how crazy that sounds but technology is advancing so quickly that such things will likely be possible in the near future.

Many extreme transhumanists are trying to find ways to download human brains into powerful, undying robotic bodies; that is the kinda shit that creeps me the fuck out. From a religious standpoint, I find that idea highly offensive, but I was an atheist for 27 years before(not officially) converting to Christianity so I understand the temptation to become immortal. I DO NOT want this to become a religious debate, though. All religious objections aside, I think literal immortality has the potential to create an even larger rift between the rich & everyone else. Plus, we're already destructive & power hungry enough WITHOUT overpowered, "immortal" robotic bodies. I'd much rather die naturally.

However, I'm all for science finding ways to eradicate all cancers/other awful diseases & greatly improve overall quality of life. Not all religious people are judgmental, legalistic holier-than-thou types. While I strongly disagree with most extreme transhumanists, only God has the right to judge others in my opinion. Plus, much of our true selves could be eternally lost if we substitute robotic bodies for our admittedly weak, natural flesh.

In many ways, I think technology is advancing so quickly atm that our brains can't keep up with all the rapid change. In the next few decades, technological advancement will likely speed up so much that we won't even have time to think about ethics & regulation. Governments and others who want more control will abuse any and all new tech available to them. This is my most convoluted post yet; I'm VERY sleepy.

NO ONE CARES. NOW GET ME MY ROBOT BODY.

_________________
Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Quote:
You have your 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, 32s, 64s, and 128s(crash course in binary counting!). But no 1s.
DirectInput represents all bits, not just powers of 2 in an axis.


KHDownloads


Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:29 am
Profile
Trooper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:24 pm
Posts: 417
Reply with quote
Post Re: So how about that there VIRTUAL REALITY stuff huh?
Unless you're filthy fucking rich you won't even have that option. Would destroying someone's robotic body even be considered murder? Better yet, I could find a way to hack into your robotic body and torture you with gay porn ads for the rest of your existence!


Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:32 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software.