Virtual reality hardware

[komyali]

You all are talking about games I dont have time people what is real price of HTC at the moment 900$ ? 840€ ?

[philippelamoureux]

799 usd. I talk about game just to illustrate my point. I think for archviz a htc vive is not worth it if you don't plan to do real-time viz with like unity or ue4. If you can only do 360 stereoscopic panoramics then you should be more than fine with a simple gear VR for 99$ or less!!! And it's gonna be mobile and lightweight etc.

[komyali]

already write about that, I am all about realtime, 360 I was doing 5 years ago

[beestee]

Did something changed in couple months, my money is still in desk waiting for me to chose what type to buy I tested both Oculus and Vive, It wasnt what I expected, they need to crank that resolution per eye big time. Difference between cardboard 2$ and HTC 900$ is smaller than difference in price, if I invest in this I think it will end up like experiment.

 

Both Oculus and HTC have stated that their hardware generations will be more than one year apart.

 

FOVE have released their first headset, it offers a few promising new technology advancement gems that are unique to it, but it is going to have similar first gen compromises.

 

Lenovo have set a date for developers to attain their budget friendly Windows Holographic headset that has inside out tracking akin to the HoloLens, and interestingly is reported to have higher resolution displays than those found in the Vive and Rift.

 

PSVR AFAIK is a lower resolution than the Vive and Rift, but the way the display is made makes the difference almost indiscernible. If you hope to use PSVR headset with a PC I do not think Sony will offer official support for that, but who knows since they have been in the HMD market for longer than most other companies.

 

There are a few add-ons on the near horizon that will make the Vive and Rift completely wireless with minimal added latency.

[philippelamoureux]

Imagine how clunky the vive is going to be if you have to attach a wireless adapter and a battery pack on top of your helmet. Meh!

[komyali]

well imagine you put monitor, mp3, gps satelite, touch screen, front camera, rear camera, microfon, and speakers on this LINK

Meh! ;D

 

But joke on side, what about health issue with VR, nobody writes about that, all electrcity and heat around your head, magnets and other stuff, how brain thinks about driving car or plain and you sitting in chair? Are you really going to improve your skills, and when you sit in car have better tests, or gravity ang G force will f... you up???

Save

Edited February 2, 2017 by komyali

[beestee]

Imagine how clunky the vive is going to be if you have to attach a wireless adapter and a battery pack on top of your helmet. Meh!

 

The existing wire bundle is pretty clunky also. It can quickly pull you out of the immersion of a room-scale experience.

[Bruce Hart]

In terms of VR equipment - we have the Rift, Vive and Galaxy gear in our office. At this point in time I still think a simple stereo pano render in the Galaxy gear is the best option. Relatively easy to produce, and no cables or special hardware. It's easily passed around a meeting room with clients. Some people don't like the fact that you look a little silly with it on and it messes up your hair - but this can be remedied a bit by removing the head straps and just holding it up to your face. We've also done some real-time stuff with the Rift and Unreal content, with the idea you can move around via an Xbox controller. This is still too complicated IMO. The simplicity of providing a fixed vantage point in the Gear has been a better option for us.

[komyali]

I see... and your cat is using holo lens

[landrvr1]

Great thread! Some comments:

 

Google Cardboard

I've tested a dozen or more and all of them are complete garbage except for one: the PowisVR. First off, most cardboard units have way too much curvature in the biconvex lenses and b. place those lenses way too close to the device. One or both is a recipe for a crap experience. The PowisVR has an appropriate curvature, and each lens is threaded to allow for adjustment. It's the only cardboard style unit that offers that feature.

 

 

GearVR

Pretty overrated. That's not to say it's junk, far from it. However, there is absolutely zero difference in the overall optic quality vs the PowisVR unit. They aren't using any better glass technology. Does the experience offer more immersion because of less light leaks? Yes, but not dramatically so... With GearVR and cardboard, you are still at the mercy of the resolution of your phone. In fact, if you are using a browser based experience, the browser will further reduce the resolution somewhat. There's no way that the pricetag for GearVR, not to mention the fact that you have to use Samsung phones, justifies our use of the product in widespread client engagements for fixed point rendering panos.

 

Also, and a lot of folks don't understand this, you are never going to do realtime VR with GearVR. It's fixed point rendering VR, only. The phones have a long way to go before they could handle any serious realtime work.

 

 

Oculus Rift

Great unit. The Vive is better.

 

 

HTC Vive

Not much to say there other than it's the way to go. There's a zillion reasons why, but I'll point out that countless hardware manufacturers and architecture firms have adopted the Vive platform over Oculus. Oculus = consumer market. Vive = seriousness. heh.

 

 

Hololens

Not ready for primetime by a longshot. The limited field of view is pretty horrible. While you can view any FBX file, only Unity is supported to create anything interactive. It's the future, for sure, but right now the promise outweighs the delivery. Maybe the next version...

 

 

Customer/Client Experience

There's absolutely nothing like giving branded PowisVR viewers away to the client after the presentation. The 'take it with you' or 'leave behind' approach is priceless. They love it. Their co-workers back at the office love it. Their kids and friends love it when they take it home. We've learned very, very quickly that the overall experience and...I'll say it... 'fun factor' cannot be underestimated. We tell some great stories with our virtual tours using KRPANO, but equally as important to those stories is the fun the clients have. Can you put a pricetag on that? No you cannot. hah.

 

I'll say this as well, because it's worth mentioning: Of the dozens of clients we've presented to with virtual tours, easily less than 1% of ever experienced VR or AR. This means that we are their first introduction, and that's the pretty awesome thing - especially when it goes well. 5 years from now everyone and their grandmother will have VR and AR but, for now, it's still magic to pretty much everyone.

 

Multiformat Approach

I tell folks a lot that it's important to keep in mind that the Rift and Vive aren't just for photorealistic real time experiences. Far, far from it. There's half a dozen ways to get a realtime experience going in both Revit and SketchUp. We need to set aside our innate need for photorealism and recognize that realtime VR as a presentation tool tells great design stories that don't need realism. Spacial relationships, content, density of space, etc etc are all fantastic to present with realtime VR. We will go from a beautifully rendered fixed point VR experience with KRPANO and cardboard viewers, to a Sketchup realtime VR tour during the exact same presentation. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

 

Game Engine Madness

We're adopting Stingray because the workflow from Max/Vray to Unity or Unreal is complete garbage for anyone that deals with serious real world deadlines. We don't have months to delicately pamper FBX files and Unity materials in order to show off yet another condo loft VR example. We have a matter of weeks to build full office floor experiences. We have a ways to go until we are comfortable enough to put these interactive VR presentations in front of a client, but it's very very clear to us that AutoDesk is serious about supporting the architecture and interiors world. Unity could care less about how to get something from Max/Vray to their platform. AutoDesk's integration and live link between Max and Stingray is huge. Purists from Unity and Unreal camps hate Stingray. Honestly, it doesn't look as good. Yet. While Unity and Unreal continue to ignore the crushing deadline demands of the realtime archviz world, AutoDesk is right out front providing tutorial after tutorial for great workflow ideas.

 

As I mentioned yesterday in a thread over at Chaos, at the end of the day - given our project schedule demands - I'm going to gravitate towards whatever company and platform wants to make my life easier.

Edited February 4, 2017 by landrvr1

[Francisco Penaloza]

Great thread! Some comments:

GearVR

Pretty overrated. That's not to say it's junk, far from it. However, there is absolutely zero difference in the overall optic quality vs the PowisVR unit. They aren't using any better glass technology. Does the experience offer more immersion because of less light leaks? Yes, but not dramatically so... With GearVR and cardboard, you are still at the mercy of the resolution of your phone. In fact, if you are using a browser based experience, the browser will further reduce the resolution somewhat. There's no way that the pricetag for GearVR, not to mention the fact that you have to use Samsung phones, justifies our use of the product in widespread client engagements for fixed point rendering panos.

 

Also, and a lot of folks don't understand this, you are never going to do realtime VR with GearVR. It's fixed point rendering VR, only. The phones have a long way to go before they could handle any serious realtime work.

 

 

Just to add a little and clear thing up, Comparing Samsung's Gear VR to a cardboard or similar, is not that simple.

 

Because of the way we use it, it seams like they are the same thing but, there is a big difference in performance, The Gear VR has interanl IMU, Giroscope and accelerometer, which are more precises than the ones inside the phone. anctually they can even work together, this make the tracking and over all experience much better than only relying on the phone hardware using cardboard or even the new day dream headset.

 

I have not tried PowisVR unit, but if there is not inner hardware that connect or enhance the phone performance, then better glasses is an improvement but performance should not be better than a cardboard.

 

Many people complain that VR make then dizzy and the hardware or devices are not there yet. I do get dizzy on boats and some roller coasters, but I think when you have a poor experience with VR is mostly because of the content is not optimized for the headset you are using or the quality of your hardware.

Trying google cardboard, over a web interface is the lower performance you'll get. Using Gear VR with an phone App should be better, Oculus and HTC should be even better, if the content is properly prepared.

 

The frame rate target is 90 FPS or better, only Oculus and HTC hardware can reach this, cellphones only can produce 60 FPS some 'older' LCD work with less... That's why people get dizzy. if you are around 60 fps and your Gyroscope is slow, you'll feel and see the lag in your image. If your cellphone screen is only HD or less, your image quality won't be enough.

 

P.S.

Sorry for the constant editing, my internet is very slow here today.

Edited February 6, 2017 by fco3d

[landrvr1]

I disagree on a 'big difference' in performance with the GearVR. It has somewhat more accurate tracking with the IMU, but it's barely noticeable on fixed point pano experiences if at all. With gaming apps I would agree that the built in IMU helps a lot.

 

I also wouldn't agree on the app vs web experience. Web based like KRPano loads everything you need on a per scene basis. Once loaded, the FPS, tracking, etc isn't any better or worse. It's pretty much the same. You are far more at the mercy of your device processor than whether or not it's web or app based. The issue with web based is that if you have a dodgy internet connection, sometimes sound files and/or hotspots might not load properly. This rarely happens during presentations because we do a quick run through. When the clients take the viewers with them, well, that's out of our control, lol.