u/OneQuarterHuman

Glad you're feeling entertained. Don't choke on your popcorn when you realize the logical fallacy you just used.

The funny (frightening?) thing is that the target audience for these movies universally believe that magic is real. So although they understand the movie itself is fiction, they probably believe that taking down fighter jets with your mind is possible.

The distribution and production list for Pureflix on IMDB is a Kevin Sorbo and Steve Baldwin drinking game. Take a shot every time one of their names appears. If a Sorbo sibling or Baldwin bro shows up you must pour yourself two drinks for the next shot!

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0193544/

Warning: Alcohol poisoning guaranteed. Have paramedics on stand-by.

Speak nothing to them about any religions or evolution.

Why would you not teach evolution to children? Would you also hold back on astronomy? Cellular biology? Metallurgy? I'm confused why you would elect to eliminate one scientific topic just because it's embroiled in some bogus controversy with people that can't even describe what evolution is or how it works.

Given that there is very little rendering outside the capsule enclosure there's no reason to think that the quality will be substantially less than what we see here. The A-level meshes could be very finely detailed and feature 4K textures with baked AO to maintain 75/90 FPS. What I think would be really nice though is rather than going for the highest fidelity possible instead rig up the hoses and other "shakables" and spend some of those precious GPU cycles on physics animation for a more dynamic experience.

Wait WHAT?! I watched this game and had no idea I could have been watching it with the Rift. :(

Does anyone know if and where the video is available? Or perhaps just clips that can be played in MaxVR?

I have not been impressed with 360 Video as a cinematic medium. Even with 60fps video there is a lot of uncomfortable judder when turning your head. But it's still my feeling that I would thoroughly enjoy a telepresence concert or sports event.

The page does nothing.

Not in this case. Federal law does not trump constitutional rights meaning that the law can be revoked by the courts. Contemporary court challenges have not been successful, either failing on technicality or bending to the rather unusual result of Zorach v. Clauson (1952) which found that such references amounted to "ceremonial deism" and had no significant religious value.

Not surprisingly, Zorach v. Clauson also found that up is down, left and right and the right to bear arms resulted in explosions in the deer and fish populations. ;)

It was a pretty backwards result that opened a can of worms. For instance why is the word "God" capitalized and singular if it's effectively non-religious? Why when asked do the vast majority of Americans believe it's referring to the Christian god? We're pretty convinced it's just a matter of time before the right case with the right plaintiffs come along and successfully challenge the motto on 1st amendment grounds.

I think Cineveo is dead in the water?

Very possible. Last update was September.

The phrase "It's a trap!" comes to mind. Yeah, you just walked into a customer service nightmare. A little background on this guy...

About a year ago the creator of Cineveo, /u/MindprobeSven, started a huge fuss on /r/Oculus and YouTube claiming copyright infringement where there was none. Additionally, and rather hypocritically, he chose a name for his media player that was very similar to VR Cinema, an already well known media player, and an interface that was identical to Star Trek's LCARS. When he was called out on this he spent months wrangling with the community before finally pulling back and accepting defeat. He attempted to start clean with an apology, and it actually sounded pretty legit. But just when we thought he had turned over a new leaf... hheee got caught writing shill reviews for his app. :-|

He started doing paid advertising on reddit and we haven't heard much from him since, which is a good thing.

His media player is quite good though, I'll give him that. Complete asshole who wouldn't know customer service if it hit him in the face, but decent programmer.

-edited to correct username-

Mr.Palmer

lol

I'm teasing. Your post was fine. I just thought that "Mr. Plamer" sounded a little funny both because his last name is Luckey (meaning it would be Mr. Luckey, not Mr. Palmer) and also that he's very very young (only 22). I can imagine him saying, "Please, it's just Palmer. Mr. Palmer was my father." ;-)

The community right now is made up mostly of developers and die hard enthusiasts. You could not ask for a more cynical, more critical, more detail-oriented group of people to poll. Oculus are experts in VR, but so is most of the community. So it's experts trying to impress experts, which is a very tough sell. Ever notice that the big "WOW Have you seen yadda yadda yadda" posts are always interrupted by doubters and critics (a good thing, btw)? Better than just about anyone, this community knows what it's going to take to build a VR HMD that will truly "WOW" consumers and kickstart an industry. So you have to take that into consideration to fully understanding these poll results.

I appreciate that people are experimenting with input. These problems are huge and it's important to have a variety of input options for a variety of users. Personally though I don't think I could get used to the ratcheting action of turning, pressing and recentering, turning, pressing and recentering. I prefer the "Body Relative Motion" mode which is the optional control mode in the Oculus World demo, which allows the head to turn independent of the body's motion. This eliminates the annoying "crabbing" (diagonal motion) of the default absolute motion mode and feels far more natural.

20% of the people own 90% of the wealth, among which 1% of the people owns 35% of the wealth, and yet staggeringly this still amounts to exactly 0% relevance to VR.

Sure they have something. But what is it? Below is the best description I could find...

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534971/magic-leap/

I’m staring wide-eyed through a pair of lenses attached to what looks like metal scaffolding that towers over my head and contains a bunch of electronics and lenses.

If it's just fixed eye pieces attached to an erector set of lenses then point me elsewhere because that's not impressive. How do you scale that? How do you turn it into a product?

My guess is that no product will ever come of this. It seems to me that Rony is only in this for investor cash. He's got an impressive apparatus that he claims represents the AR/VR of the future but he's got nothing resembling a practical device.

Assuming VR is a consumer hit and financial success then hopefully it will drive a new class of ultra high density OLED displays independent of those developed for cellphones and tablets. In which case your dream of the sunglasses form factor may come a lot sooner than 2047. We're already looking at 4K cell phone display densities greater than 700ppi by 2017. Obviously that will need to double to fit comfortably within the 2 to 3 inch lens width of sunglasses. But I think that should be possible without needing to go to CMOS or another expensive process.

I very seriously doubt they're abandoning anything. The way you future proof your software isn't by throwing out six months of development in place of a single promising new solution. It's by maintaining the working solutions you already have and then supporting then new ones in addition to that. There's no reason for them to remove anything.

So the Rift is ruled out because you can wear glasses over it? Ah ha, you see it's just too easy to nitpick when we don't have a good definition. :)

Definitions aside, Rony's argument hinges on there actually being evidence to support his claim that near-eye 3D is harmful. Even if we had a clear and objective definition for what "near-eye" was, we still would not have any reason to agree that there is actually a problem.

If you've never held a Nintendo 3DS console, it is fairly near-eye. You have to old the screen fairly close to see the 3D clearly. Not only is the 3DS near-eye, but it uses a type of stereoscopy that is very uncomfortable and tiring to look at with tons of eye strain. With 14 million units sold, many millions of those being used by young children, you'd think we would have heard about major debilitating problems by now.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what he's saying.

I wish I could indulge but I believe that complete and pervasive presence probably isn't possible. The reason is simple. Audio and visual inputs are only two out of five ways our brains experience the world. You'll never smell the beer, you'll never feel the glasses touch, you won't feel the air move as the kids zip by. And you'll alway have the press of the HMD against your face.

Even if we were to eliminate the HMD, or make it so light as to be ignored, and even if we're to add perfect smell-o-vision, which in itself may not be possible since there are no "primary colors" for smells that can easily be mixed and matched, there is still plenty going on in your immediate environment to continuously break presence.

I'm confident that presence will increase in duration as the technologies improve. But I'm afraid that it will only ever be a momentary thing.

Vegeta, "IT'S OVER NINE... No wait it's not even over forty. Damn it! You made me crush my scanner for nothing."

This post has more WTF than the book WTF? by Gregory Bergman.

No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

I'm afraid you are. You took two similar names (Oculus ID and OculusID), created a believable story around reasons why they might be related, and filled in the gaps with false information to support your hypothesis. That is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

The facts are that Nate Mitchell never mentioned Oculus ID being required in those interviews, you flat out lied about that. And OculusID.com has nothing to do with FaceBook or Oculus, you lied about that as well probably because you feel they have to be related in some way.

Sorry but one else is falling for this. You're on your own.