Quest Pro Shows We Have a LONG Way to Go
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- The Metaverse gets Meta Worse
Watch the full WAN Show: • This Has Never Happene...
► GET MERCH: lttstore.com
► AFFILIATES, SPONSORS & REFERRALS: lmg.gg/lcsponsors
► PODCAST GEAR: lmg.gg/podcast...
► SUPPORT US ON FLOATPLANE: www.floatplane...
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL
---------------------------------------------------
Twitter: / linustech
Facebook: / linustech
Instagram: / linustech
TikTok: / linustech
Twitch: / linustech
Arguably while hardware speed is definitely a issue, I also think people underestimate how hard it is to write software that does what AR needs. People outside of game development don't realize how much games are using a TON of tricks to fake drawing an entire fictional world every 16ms just to hit 60fps. To then actually try and interpret a real image feed in real time and understand what it's showing is a hard problem. To then do that, feed it back into a rendering engine, get the rendering engine to spit out content at a WAY tighter timing window, and composite that into a live moving video feed, ignores a lot of the things that makes faking the real world doable in a video game at all. And then to do it in a way that is friendly to the needs of a lightweight, mobile, face mounted device that people won't hate putting on their head brings us to super infeasible territory for a long time. Now you're balancing software against physical constraints that simply don't add up, and the software gives, and you end up with all the awful looking games flooding the Quest 2 market.
You are right, there are a ton of tricks to cut corners when rendering a virtual scene, and some of those tricks might not apply to AR. However, AR doesn't require you to build an entire fictional world. You are leveraging the video feed to fill in the negative space and adding layers of renders on top of that. Luckily with new hardware and frameworks, you don't have to interpolate between frames of images anymore, the same inside out tracking that is building a model of your environment to know where the headset is in space can be leveraged to position objects relative to the environment. As these models get better fidelity, the AR capabilities will improve.
I think you make an incredible point. It's not so much about the hardware, but a lot to do with the software that is being developed for it.
interpreting real image feed in real time may not be as far away as you think. There's a video I just watched of someone, by themselves, who built a real time computer vision program for playing Valorant using Python and it worked decent enough running at about 25 fps. It interpreted the images decent enough at that fast of a pace. Granted he was using much better hardware than what's in a VR headset, but you could probably get much better results by a team of developers working and optimizing it.
@@resresres1 We already do that often, there are frameworks that have been around for some time like opencv that allows you to do this image parsing. This is basically how things like aimbots work in games. When you build something like an aimbot, the app is just looking for a group of pixels that match a pattern to identify as a head, and it injects mouse inputs to move the mouse on top of it. The difference between that and say anchoring an AR object to a fixed point in a camera feed, is that not only do you need to still look at each frame and identify where that group of pixels is, but you then have to calculate where in space that is relative to the camera so it can correctly render that object out. Then it has to do all the rendering, at which point that frame is getting stale. But it can be done, and when you have a device that is actively building a model of the environment around you, it becomes easier.
And the do it twice on both the lenses!
I love that you mention the hockey ads thing. They've gone full force with shoving ads where they don't belong. There's digital ads on the ice. Then digital ads on the glass. Now digital ads on the boards. And none of them work, even when everything is going as designed. In a game where a single black pixel on an HD TV is the main focus, it will just disappear sometimes. If the puck gets lifted off the ice, it'll disappear behind the digital boards EVERY TIME.
What if its not a Bug but just them making you actually see the Add Banner better?
(Kidding of Corse... maybe)
The whole hockey ads thing really does seem like a big blunder, yet as a gauge for the advancement of AR capabilities as a whole I find it quite insignificant and really more of an edge case. I mean look at how the NFL has the first down line, scrimmage line, and more useful information like the play clock on the field without any clipping issues or latency. They were able to put the first down line on the field in 1998, only because it was messed up in that case recently doesn't mean that is the peak of AR capabilities.
Remember back when they had the "Fox Track-puck" which highlighted the puck, making it much easier to follow the puck while watching on TV. That was better tech than what they are using for these ads, and it was like 20-30 years ago lol
These have been in development since the mid 1990s. Formula One had it for their digital TV service back in 1997, it lasted for a season. V8 supercars coverage has been ruined by it recently. It does not work unless the camera movement is 100% the same every time.
They work amazingly during football broadcasts… As in “soccer”. I’ve been amazed by it and second guessing what was real or not.
Perhaps it has to do with the size of the place, camera placement and motion, and the colors with football mats being green and the boards tend to be far on the outskirts of it, and hockey is a lot of bright white with low angles in tighter arenas and zoomed cameras and players moving across etc. - They just seem to use it differently.
I get what Linus is saying but at the same time, all it takes is one big advancement and we're all looking back thinking "i can't believe we thought this was so far off".
It's trendy for CZcamsrs to hate on Quest Pro. ;)
I'm getting this. I love the flat front visor, ring-less VR Controllers, the fact that the motion tracking is superior to Q2's. Deeper black levels, greater color, expanded FOV, AR Mixed Reality etc
Still, the $1999 cad price tag is steep. if it dropped down to $1499 i'd bite. At the same time, I dont have a PC for gaming, so i'm stuck with the Quest Pro's standalone PlayStation 2.5 graphics which is a huge dissapointment, plus we'll have to wait for a 3rd party Light shield to fully block out the outside light. It's also really irritating that the resolution has practically stayed the same.
I wonder when we'll get an 8K display(4K per eye), Near human FOV with a QD-OLED display. I'll drop $3000 for something like that, even if it's just limited to PC. There's a lot of room for growth with VR, i just hope things speed up and we're not stuck with getting lame incromental upgrades.
These guys love to hate on VR
“One big advancement” is how people who don’t really understand how cpu technology is advancing talk.
@@mokied sure but, as jesen huang said, advancements are millions of times more technical than ever before. So anything is possible at this point.
It takes a use case that people actually find compelling. Meta has not found that use case.
I've been gaming in vr on a quest 2 for about 6 months, mostly standalone, some pcvr and I honestly can't go back to flat-screen gaming. I even study in vr though admittedly it is not really good enough for long reading sessions past 2 hours right now. I also am a boxer and the thrill of the fight (a boxing game) honestly has helped me as a substitue for sparring irl. I honestly feel the state of vr is a little underestimated right now.
So true! "Thrill of the fight" is my Favorite VR Boxing Game right now! VR has so much potential in the long run!
I use my Quest 2 a lot but I almost exclusively play flight and race sims.
For those VR is an absolute game changer and I could never go back to flying or racing in pancake mode. For other types of games I prefer playing on a monitor.
I am an older gamer though at 60 with arthritis in my knees so standing for any length of time is a problem.
A lot more games need to embrace the VR headset with traditional PC controls (either keyboard, wheel, stick or controller) while there's definitely charm and reason that "motion" controls in VR are great, you're not going to see mass adoption of VR without appealing to both groups.
Any Flight/race sims you can recommend?
Elite Dangerous VR
@@jgontko23 For flight sims I mainly fly MSFS but also use P3D for the large collection of planes that I have that aren't available on MSFS yet.
For race sims you cant go wrong with Assetto Corsa or rFactor 2, lots of free and paid addons available for both if the default content dousent float your boat.
Project Cars 2 is pretty good too.
If you want a more relaxing drive there's American or Euro truck sim, their great if you want to sit back while listening to some internet radio and enjoy the scenery.
Woah a 60 year old gamer. Did you play the very first video games when you were young?
VR/AR reminds me of touchscreens. There will be a ton of crap, that some will call amazing, before someone seemingly solves it all at once.
Agreed, does anyone remember the Palm Pilot? Now, how about a smart phone?
@@ronthered138 yes, exactly. smart phones didnt happen overnight - but when you look back on it now it seems like it did. Thats how this will be.
AR is already being used in utilities for asset mapping. Working in the industry myself I can see it being used regularly as an in field tool in the not to distant future. But everyday commercial use idk.
The price of the hadset can be pretty jigh in that role too. A 50k headset can be perfectly reasonable in a lot of if not most industries
The thing is, we’re never gonna get there if someone doesn’t start.
I don’t particularly like fb nor do i care about it, but if we want to get proper ar and vr, then someone would need to put in the R&D.
And I’d imagine that as a company they need to show something for it so that they can keep working on the project. ie: make products (which although might not be good, but at the very least enough to show the progress, or show how far they’ve come in the future)
R&D?
Research and Development?
So people buy subpar products until the R&D is satisfactory
Ie "The beatings will continue until morale improves"
exactly
Bingo.
Social VR somehow keeps quietly growing in the background. Even tho it is already MASSIVE. Those people a few years from now are gonna say that it suddenly came out of nowhere and exploded, totally unaware that it's been exponentially growing since years.
What kind of social VR is out there? I recently got into VR chat which is quite fun
Social VR is not a good thing
@@Passypass4 Having conversations with people all over the world on a platform that lets you express yourself in any way you can imagine isn't a good thing?
@@Passypass4 Society itself has its own downside. We can say thay humanity is not a good thing in a same manner. However, social interaction is fundament of human behavior, thus social media is such a big thing whether it's genuinely "good".
@@kyndri8347 This is an apt description for social media and I don’t think it’s controversial to say social media is a net negative on the world.
As someone who just started working in the aerospace industry developing mixed reality apps, the announcement of the mega quest pro really hammered home the « pro ». This is not a consumer product, but it ticks a LOT of shiny boxes for industry.
I use my quest 2 weekly, however I have a large living room that allows me plenty of space to play. Boneworks and bonelabs is easily the most fun in gaming I’ve had in years.
To the point Luke made at the end about not having room for his Home VR. VR games is going to slam into the same wall the Kinect, there are not many people who can just have the room to just have a 6+ ft space and eventually having to keep moving furniture will get the point where people won't want to keep doing just to play
You don't actually need a lot of space as you still (or can) move using the controllers. I live in a flat and still enjoy VR using modest space between permanent furniture.
@@lolzlolz102 this is true but the experience is so much better when you have a large space. I have a pretty substantial size room that I can plan but I still run into issues with having to constantly set up and tear down the headset when I want to play and move some things around like couches. So while VR can work without the space I think it's still a big sticking point for many people just like Sim racing can be a huge pain in the butt if you're constantly having to move your rig around because you don't have the space
@@lolzlolz102 I guess though it depends on if you have issues with motion sickness (another issue with VR in its own right).
VR arcades seem like the right deployment of the tech, like laser tag, paintball, bowling, and any other high-infrastructure recreation destination
@@anonony9081 @pettyfan45 Yes definitely agree with both points.
I bought a Quest 2 about 1 1/2 years ago. I liked it quite a bit (and still like it), but after a while, it just hasn't gotten as much use as it once did. I think part of that is a lack of new games that I'm interested in, but I think it's also because where it stands right now, VR is mainly a novelty. Sure it's fun, and even can be useful, but in the end there's a lot of work that needs to happen before it can be as essential as Meta wants it to be.
Not lack of new games.. lack of MULTIPLAYER games. GOOD multiplayer games like CSGO etc.. or a really good MMO or even average MMO's would be insanely fun in VR. There are so few games that look good...
@@n9ne I think that really depends on the user. Personally, I couldn't care less about multiplayer games, I much prefer single player story based games. And that's the real issue right now, there are good games, but there's not a lot of variety for many different players, and the selection of games is small enough that eventually you just run out of games to try out...
@@ryanzollinger as someone obsessed with My Quest 2, and wants for this to take off in a mainstream way, i have to regretfully disagree. Even if you could take PS5s current library and port it to the Quest 3 in it's full fidelity, I think people would still eventually (maybe after a couple of months) leave their VR headsets on a shelf to collect dust after the "honeymoon phase" and still opt to go back to pancake gaming bc of how easy it is to just sit on the couch, fire up the console and zone out into a game". I still love the Quest but when your busy adulting, alot of times the idea of the hassle to get up and put it on my head and stand and interact to play, just makes it easier to say "nvm" and pull out your phone and go into zombie mode
@@ryanzollinger I've been meaning to check out bonelab, I just haven't had the time
The constant forced updates for it and the game, as well as some jankiness, kinda killed it for me. I just haven't picked up mine in ages, because every time I would I'd have to go through updates for every single game I wanted to play, which would break every mod, with no way to refuse the updates, and then some updates to the quest 2 itself.
I use my quest 2 multiple times a week but exclusively wireless PCVR. I absolutely love it, going wireless but with PC performance is the perfect VR mix even though you do you get a slightly compressed image it’s worth it for the physical emersion
Every day part of me hopes that there’s a new Linus video exploring quest to wireless with a 4090 !
Honestly I wonder if the 4090 might be the first GPU that can handle VR ray tracing. Not a single VR game supports it as far as I know so it's impossible to find out, but I've always felt that ray tracing will be one of the big subtle features that make all the difference. I've already experienced cone tracing in VR and that was phenomenal, albeit limited in use and still slow.
PCVR over Airlink is bloody awesome and works WAY better than I thought it would. Barely any lag or stuttering with my experience, way better than a heavy cable
And there are VR mods like the ones from preydog that allows you to play games with Ray tracking. Wireless is so freeing and it allows for more immersion. Wait till Linus trys a quest pro with the color pass through while playing beat saber
Immersion.
NOT emersion.
I disagree with the "we're so far away" argument. Maybe if you're talking about 100% local processing power on the device, sure. Devices like the NReal Air glasses, while very janky in it's implementation, exist right now. I can go buy one right now.
You could totally wear those things driving down the road. And you'd probably get a few seconds looks.. but it's not unreasonable to say that they kinda look like sunglasses on your face
Yes, this is it. I totally agree with you on that. The main thing is that hardware is not our main problem, software is.
Both useful uses of AR and a good software layer to better take advantage of AR are things we need.
But when that gets solved, there is little in the way of growing that.
As for 100% local processing power, I think we are already getting there. The XR2 is able to run an OS with VR games, and should have no problem running AR applications. It's still a bit big for something the size of NReal glasses (45x56mm), but it's a 7nm chip. Just getting to 20mm would be enough to be viable, it doesn't need to be that much smaller.
I think Zuckerberg enjoyed Cyberpunk 2077 a lot but didn't realise it's a dystopia.
the glasses Linus said would take a lifetime to develop, will be here within 15 years. Mark (pardon the pun) my words
Doubt
CPUs and GPUs grew bigger and became much more power hungry for at least a decade. What is your idiotic prediction based at?
@@NGC1433 not op but Apple Glass should be here 2025 and use your iPhone for the processing. As far as I know, there already exist contacts that can display video from another source so it’s already possible. Supposedly 30 times the pixel density of an iPhone. Of course mainstream will take a little but Apple can do it.
By that time global society will have deteriorated to the point where we'll be more busy surviving rather than goin full metaverse
@@NGC1433 I can see wireless technology improving to the point where the device could be connected to an admittedly bigger more power hungry computer without it being physically tethered to it, thus making good on the promise of an unobtrusive VR headset accounting for Moore's law physical limit
I would point out that proper AR glasses are actually in the works and nearing completion right now. The catch is that much of the processing is done on a satellite device that you could keep in a pocket.
NREAL
You're right, the tech isn't there yet. That's exactly why I want to get into it now. Experiences like VR Chat and Neos feel like the equivalent of Geocities or Angelfire where, yeah, everything is janky and kind of gaudy, but it's a wild west where the internet is still free and organic.
I think you are pretty on the spot about the Quest 2 sitting in boxes in people's homes. It reminds me of the original Wii in a lot of ways. I know a lot of families that bought one for the gimmick factor and used it for 6 months then once the "coolness" wore off it hasn't been used since.
I use my Quest 1 for cardio regularly and that's it. It's just not convenient enough yet to use for gaming.
Here is my basic input: I use my Quest 2 approx. 3-5 times a week. I'll go out and play in my back yard in the evening when I want to play games that require more move space.
Also, I think you'd have to be pretty well-off to let a £500 product simply "sit in a box". However, I do realise that there are plenty of second-hand Quest 2s available on site like eBay... sooooo *shrugface*.
I have a Quest 2 and really only play every once in a while. When I first got it and played it for a little while, I realized I was pretty disappointed by it. I was disappointed by the overall specs of the hardware. The resolution, graphics and FOV is just not good enough. I believe there ARE a couple headsets out there that have much better FOV and resolution, but they aren't going to be mainstream because they cost thousands of dollars still.... and even then.. there's still the problem of the bad graphics in games. However, in 10 years or so, I could definitely see things getting much better.
My friends and I used the Wii for years after the launch, bought day one. It’s the WiiU that collected dust
The first experience with a VR headset (the Quest 2 in my case) was AMAZING.
I managed to get into a beatsaber workout routine for a couple weeks.
Then…it became a novelty. I’d rather run outside. If I’m gaming I’d rather just look at a screen
Im the same age as Linus. Maybe it’s just about how I grew up. But my 11 year old niece and my 10 year old nephew also vastly prefer the PC experience.
Maybe it’s not just the limited technology. Maybe we are reaching the limit of day to day useful product. Only time will tell I suppose.
Unless everybody decides to start owning a gaming PC, standalone devices are the best idea for going mainstream.
I would say wireless VR streaming with the Quest is absolutely amazing, a completely new level of immersion. Also, the size of VR headsets is mostly due to the optics more than anything else.
I hope they pair with the series x inplace of a pc
@@chrispomplun1511
Unfortunately Microsoft doesn't seem interested in VR
What about the Nreal air glasses?
7 years ago I would say real time raytracing is impossible. Depends on the timeframe we are talking about. The technology is already here, we can all imagine awesome AR usecases around us. I'm betting this will be huge in a way iPads are for sure - the question is: Can they pull off the adoption rate of smartphones. The thing that will make it or brake it is pretty much software and what will be possible. I'm just waiting for Apple's VR as this will pretty much tell us all about how is this going to be, since let's face it - with their R&D and amount of time they worked on it, it will become the defacto thing in its class. Hardware is pretty much already here with the only possible caveat being batteries which have not evolved much lately.
real time ray tracing has never been impossible if you're talking limited scope (like we have now), and if you're talking full-on raytracing, it still is impossible.
@@erickschusterdeoliveira2662 you look at 4090 reviews yet?
Battery power density can't really increase much without becoming extreme fire hazards. The higher the power density, the bigger explosion & fireball when they fail.
@@noname-gp6hk some [lithium] chemistries are safer than others.
@@erickschusterdeoliveira2662 full-on raytracing? you mean like literal path tracing? RTX 4090 is capable of doing that real-time in 60fps already, albeit only at around 1080 , but still able to do it.
Yup, totally a "The Internet is just a fad it'll never go anywhere" boomer moment. Sorry Linus & Luke but as much as I agree that it won't go full mainstream any time soon, I'd say we're still gonna see massive improvements in the tech and userbase in the foreseable future. The Quest 2 might not be perfect but it kickstarted the whole industry again with its affordability and now with the Pico 4 and soon the Quest 3 and PSVR 2 we're coming into a new era of mainstream consumer VR. Next gen will improve the helmets quite a bit, and I'd say the next one after that will finally implement a more robust haptic feedback needed to increase the experience even further.
I remember some... 20? years ago they started digitally superimposing the teams crests and score on the field during football (soccer) matches in my country. When they did that, the players were visible... but the ball wasn't. Nice to see that all these years later the issue is even worse...
The 1-to-2-hour battery life is a joke if they are going to be used in a business setting. The solution would be to always have a battery pack on hand, but it's inconvenient and also, I don't think the controllers last long either. Since they have inside out tracking, they probably also last just a few hours. It's nice to see advancements in technology, this being one of the first AR headsets specifically designed for it. But it underdelivers on all of the other points that make a headset worthwhile.
1-2 hours with all features enabled, you can disable face/eyes tracking and get what the quest 2 gets
@@NeonRedChannel so 2 hours? Lol
In my experience, the Quest 2 battery barely lasts longer than 2 hours
@@ericbaker8807 that's normal for standalone
@@NeonRedChannel so what are we talking about then? The original comment is essentially "you can disable features and still get the same crappy battery life" haha
Yeah I was going to propose that my work get some of these headsets for teleconferencing but if they have to be charged between every meeting it won't work. Meeting rooms are booked back to back typically and we would have to have additional headsets just so you could have back-to-back meetings without running out of battery
The biggest issues with the Q2 were requiring a FB account and very very little IPD adjustment. The former is not an issue any more since you don't now need it and hopefully the latter will be remedied in Q3.
You only _technically_ don't need it anymore. You do still need a "Meta account", which for almost all intents and purposes is the same thing.
@@crytocc It's not quite the same as the Facebook account required legitimate details and if you were banned from FB (for whatever reason) you lost all access to your library on the quest.
Yeah The IPD is one of the most frustrating components of the Quest 2, simply because it would have been so easy for them to allow it to be more adjustable like other headsets. my IPD is about 1mm off from the widest setting on the Quest 2, so it works pretty good, but how I wish I could adjust it just a tiny bit more
Facts. The VR industry refuses to acknowledge that some people have IPD greater than 68.
@@AnotherAnonymousMan yeah mine's 69 (Nice.)
As far as my experience, you're right on about the Quest2. I had a ton of fun with it when I first bought it. But it takes a lot of effort for me to set up a game area, since I either have to rearrange furniture or clear my patio to make enough room to not worry about obstructions. To me, that will always be the issue with VR. No matter how minimal the equipment gets, you'll need a dedicated play space if you don't want to have to do prep work to play a video game.
Get the catwalk
I think, based on where we are now in vr, we could pack all the processing power into well designed headstraps.🥳🥳🥳
I really don’t think it’ll take long for AR to become mainstream and actually usable. I say 10 years tops. Imagine where were 10 years ago with mobile phones and GPUs and CPUs
Not that far really. I mean the most expansive VR game right now if you don't count VRChat is probably still Skyrim VR. We're all still playing Skyrim over 10 years later, not that I'm complaining.
their whole argument is that moores law is ending.
And I STILL use my ORIGINAL Oculus RIFT CV1 that I PREORDERD the DAY they were first released. And the ONLY benefit I see with the NEW hardware is a slightly sharper image, that arguably looks WORSE because they've switched to LCD and reduced the refresh rate of the displays...
The PSVR2 will have an OLED panel at 4k 90 or 2k at 120 depending on circumstances.
At 120Hz, it's a boost in refresh rate, not a reduction. And the original Quest was OLED. Quest 2 uses LCD, but the Quest Pro uses LCD with local dimming to give blacks as good as OLED, while being brighter than OLED. OLEDs are pretty dim.
The best thing about the Quest Pro is the controllers - precise tracking with no deadspots and no basestations, compatible with the Quest 2 or Steam VR (hopefully)
He always slams a VR project then comes back months later saying he was wrong
I was really into VR for a couple years but my quest 2 mainly sits around now. It’s great for cardio. If you’ve got the room for it “thrill of the fight” is an amazing way to get your heart rate up and beat Sabre is amazing. The problem is that the games are rarely engaging. Every now and then you’ve got gems like moss or Asgard’s wrath or resident evil 4 but mainly the games are just boring with awkward physics. It’s pretty rare for a VR game to bail the elements you need for an immersive, engaging experience
Technology wise I'm not that pessimistic. Though it doesn't feel like it, semiconductor technology is still advancing very fast. Coupled with the general trend of offloading computing to custom ASICs (we are seeing this already, like RT cores in Nvidia GPUs, Tesla Dojo, and even the rebirth of analog computing), I bet processing would be the least to concern. The real technical challenge would be optics and energy. But with the rise of metamaterials (not a marketing speak btw, it's actually a branch of science), breakthrough could be nearer than you think.
The real problem would be how to capitalize on the metaverse when money has to be made in real life (unless you can bring the money printer into the metaverse, whatever is produced or consumed, ultimately comes from real life). I simply don't see it being a sustainable business.
Metaverse is just a scam and it’s only used by scammers for the moment
The Quest Pro it's a dev kit for the new features they want to implement in quest 3 (mass market)
Quest 3 is not gonna have eye/facetracking most likely, what the rumour says anyway
Probably both right. Quest 4 then? I’m not excited for this generation but the one after could be very interesting. I got a Rift skipped the Quest 1, will probably skip this generation and then get another.
I think it’s gonna be heavily dependent on connected device. Probably something along the lines of Valves rumored Deckard HMD. Wireless HMD streaming video from your PC.
This a long term thing I thought. Facebook wants to be the first to be there so they are the best when it is mainstream. I don’t think anyone expects this to go mainstream yet or soon
Their investors do.
@@codybishop7526 I don’t think they expect an immediate return on investment. Only people who don’t do any investing expect immediate returns on investments lol
What about AR that overlays a virtual model of your car and engine over your real car and then you select a service you want to perform, such as changing cabin filter and the AR lights up where it's at , what bolts/clips to undo and whatever other steps you need to do. Or maybe just a game like PC Builder, but a VR version of working on your car by choosing your model of car and shows you how to fix different things by making you grab tools and remove parts and replace them like in PC Builder.
Yes they have things for industry users that are going for that type of AR repair assistance. Which is definitely one of the best uses.
@@GigaBrand why just industry users? An AR app like I mentioned, tons of regular people would want in order to perform work on their car instead of paying 3 times more taking their car to a mechanic. Not limited to just cars either, you could have many apps like it that people would want in order to learn how to do something easily.
And the glitchy backboards have already gotten less glitchy. Thats the thing that we ARENT able to predict.
So heres the way to look at it:
If we try to predict the trajectory of this technolgy the NHL is using to fill in the backboards digitlally, using things like moores law etc. It ought to be years before the computing power increases, such that the glitching is reduced, through simple application of more processing power to the situation.
However I watched a Canucks game last night and there wasn't a single glitch of the advertisements on the backboard, likely because they had simply better trained the AI they use and now the glitching is gone.
So, the point is machine learning does not create more processing power. What it does is more efficiently use current processing power, to do tasks.
And I don't think any of us, Linus inlcuded are prepared to make predictions on what machine learning will introduce to the computing sphere.
Luke hit the nail on the head with the quest 2. I really enjoyed it and thought it was a step in the right direction for be but there are too many small issues for me to use it with much frequency.
I see what they're saying about the bulk and the battery life and all that, but saying you're not sure your kids will live to see it seems like a stretch. The pro is a massive shrinking off the quest 2's bulk and a big leap in AR, however expensive and not mainstream. We're a good ways off from just slim glasses, but we aren't linus' kids' lives away.
There are a lot of people saying the Quest Pro falls way short of the generational jump they expected. How exactly did it fall short? For me the resolution and battery life fell short, beyond that I’m struggling. Sure there are things like waveguide technology or AR on a transparent lens which must be well into development but I wouldn’t expect them yet. More compact perhaps?
I agree to some extent in an external device like your phone connecting on high speed Wi-Fi for short term. Don’t you think though the upcoming apple chips could get there? M1 shows us just how cool a pretty fast chip can run. ‘IF’ they can continue on that path could be within a decade? Currently battery tech is far behind but not in 10 years in my opinion
Meta got robust hand tracing running on the quest for example.
A large part that people are missing is the enormous potential cloud computing has for AR. Sure there are a ton of issues trying to fit all the hardware needed into small form factor glasses. But as cloud computing becomes more powerful and the response time reduces more and more, we will be able to just strap a Wi-Fi chip and display to a pair of glasses and stream the experience through the cloud. Also another thing to consider is the power of AI up scaling and other potential AI systems that will reduce the load. Ultimately, I disagree with Linus, sure it will be a long time before we can fit all the necessary hardware inside the glasses but the future of cloud computing & AI systems shows a different and even better route for these devices.
The first VR headsets did NOT come out “6,7 years ago”, it was more than 20 years ago….
I think it could go as like having a mediocre type processor and connected to the cloud, Ik cloud sucks but that could be something that could happen if we have REAL fast internet speeds that are common in the far future
Personally I love the quest 2 but I hardly ever use it standalone. I use it completely wireless with my pc through quest link and it’s pretty good all things considered.
The battery life of the Quest Pro can be extended by turning off features that are optional such as the face tracking etc, but yea... It's still not great.
Quest 2s wireless streaming is sooo damn good if you set it up right
I think vr is moving at incredible speed, imagine telling someone at the time the DK1 came out with it's 800p res and 3dof, that in less than 10 years we would have fully standalone headsets with inbuilt processing, 6dof, tracked controllers or even hands, '4k' displays, inbuilt face and eye tracking, and even wireless pc connectivity! While it might slow down a bit now, I can't imagine headsets from another 10 years into the future.
People that owned DK1 actually thought, that "in 10 years" VR will be glasses form factor with full human FOV. I could dig you some posts from forums if you want. Even the Facebook guy Michael Abrash predicted in 2016, that "in 5 years" we will have 140 FOV, two 4k screens and varifocal display. It should have happen in 2021, and it didn't
For me, the main problem is the idea of having the VR to do the calculation, so it needs lots of hardware. The googles should just stream, send data and receive data. Basically, a wirelles screen in the format of a google. With that in mind, you can scrap 2/3 of the size and weight. Battery should snap in your pants/belt, and a thin cable run from it to the googles. The googles could stream from distant servers or your phone, for data like your location, etc...
A good way to tell people how far away this is is to say that fusion power is so much closer than proper merged vr/ar
I used the hell out of my quest 2 for months at first, now it’s been sitting on the shelf for almost a year. I pull it out maybe once every 2/3 months to play some mini golf with friends and family or a beat saber game now and then but it’s not as fun to me as it first was.
You nailed it Luke. I had good experiences with my Quest 2, but it's been gathering dust for nearly a year.
Among Us VR is about to come out.
BoneLab?
And Ghostbusters game, assassin's Creed, GTA plus many others. The quest 2 has created a large captive market that should draw more developers
The quest 2 still has the highest percentage on steam VR by a huge margin
I think a lot of my initial excitement for VR quickly worn off after buying a HTC Vive shortly after it got released. Some moments I remember clearly are.
* Using an app to project my desktop into a huge spherical screen and try to use that for my regular work. Took me around 30 minutes before I gave up. Text was impossible to read and it was just uncomfortable.
* Attempting to run some of my regular games in VR mode only to realize I needed to turn down all my graphics settings by a lot to make them playable in VR.
* Laying in my bed watching netflix on a huge cinema screen. The resolution/screen door effect is very noticeable but this a super comfortable way to lazily watch a movie.
* Watching games done quick 4 player races in nes games on a huge cinema screen so I could easily follow each screen. (This to me is a legit superior way to watch those races since nes game resolution is so bad it doesn't get ruined anyway)
* Getting addicted to space trucking in elite dangerous. Owning the exact same HOTAS setup the game uses for maximum immersion. Using a third party app to add an extra overlay of my desktop into the game. So I basically had a computer monitor in the cockpit within the game I could run netflix on while space trucking. But I also remember being frustrated because even with the HTC Vives resolution I had nowhere near a good enough computer to render elite at good settings.
I sold my vive. Because I realized if I wanted to go deeper into this rabbit hole I would end up spending at least 5000€ to upgrade my computer to be able to run these high performance games.
2 years after selling my Vive I bought a quest 2 as Covid started with the purpose of using it for fitness. I had no intention of using it with my computer at all. With it having nearly 3x the resolution and me still running the same computer as I had when I owned my vive I knew there was no way in hell it could handle quest 2 3 times higher resolution.
One thing I remember with my quest 2 was that when we started returning back to the office I was noticably better at table tennis because of playing it on the quest 2. It's surprising how real it feels playing it in VR. First real game I had after playing it in vr I almost dropped the paddle because I wasn't ready for the force of the tiny ball :D
Something that makes me excited about Quest Pro and Quest 3 is the talk of full body tracking and leg tracking. I think this will be a game changer for fitness games and realistic melee combat games in general.
If we had good full body tracking we could have a game that straight up teaches you good boxing form. We could have a game that helps you practice karate kata that would be able to correct any tiny mistake you might make. We could have dancing games for VR that are a lot more advanced than the "just dance" clones we got right now. Most of this has been available already with addon stuff you can buy. But since there is no big audience we do not have much apps taking advantage of this. In that regard Quest Pro could revolutionize fitness games. Honestly I am excited by the idea of being able to do a kick in VR and have it being tracked.
As for the other stuff I agree that we are decades off. I remember listening to an interview with John Carmack where he discussed that there may be a limit to how much we are able to shrink computers it is possible that we are starting to reach that limit. Even if we could stream the feed to the headset. How much would a computer cost that could render a photo realistic game in 16k resolution at 90fps? When would that be affordable enough for a regular computer?
Personally I dont see resolutions higher than 4k becoming mainstream, just because of diminishing returns. I already can barely tell the difference between 1080p and 4k, I even run most youtube videos at 720p just because they look fine and it wont cause buffering when my internet speed tanks for no reason (thanks cox). Eventually, 4k 120hz displays will become the norm, and esports players will rant about how 16k gets them kills, but it'll never become a common thing. maybe maybe maybe 8k for VR purposes, but it looks like the Varijo display with 2 displays per eye, one for whatever you're focusing on and another for peripheral vision will be more popular/more efficient, since it effectively runs at 4k but delivers near-perfect visuals just by abusing how our eyes work.
@@gridgaming_ esports players will stay on 1080 for increased framerates lol. Increased resolution is never their preference.
Well the pixel density is going up pretty quick from DK1. I think the processing power will get there probably by Quest 4.
quest 4 is out next year so doubt it.
13:46 - I have the HP Reverb G2 for over a year now and I use it for an average of 1-2h almost every day. And that's part of my work-from-home habit to stand up more. And it offers decent overall quality with an RTX, but is killing my eyes when using it for too long. My problem is not what to use it for, but your body gets more tired when using it vs a regular screen. Is not the same experience!
Standalone devices make sense off course, but for right now, I actually think the better solution is moving the computing module to a wearable piece with a single cable, to keep the weight off the face. That way you can have more power than now, and wearing like a backpack, beltpack or maybe even something pocketable isn't that big or a deal. Or if the application is a sitting experience just in front of you on a desk.
It's weird that they didn't do this from the start.
Meta: "We're telling you who this product is for."
People this product is for: "Yay!"
People this product is not for: "This sucks!"
I agree about looking forward to the AR glasses we can wear out and about. I have Rokid Air glasses that claimed something close but fall too short to be usable. PSVR did the same for VR, IMHO. Quest 2 was the first usable VR for me but yeah, limited to only a few uses that weren't just novelty. I have used it for all day remote work though. The Pro actually improves on those specific work related problems that MAY dramatically improve my work-from-home. Negative comments from outside the target audience are just exhausting and seems to serve no purpose than filling air. Really love AR/VR? Then celebrate even incremental updates to hardware and those funding it who buy into this ittereation as those dollars go into future developments. I don't think quest 3 will be the next big leap either. Immersive VR with any body repositioning won't be mainstream until they can also beter replicate the feeling of walking to control that virtual movement, in place. Kat Walk seemes closest but still too awkward, clunky and expensive.
ive used my quest 2 almost everyday for about a year and a half only now started to use a cv1 because of the specific game i play (echo arena benifits from the tracking system used on rift) but i still use q2 for other games just not as often, i think this is one of those things where its really down to the software. metaverse hardware is maybe 5 years from being able to be mainstream but software is the largest drawback. if we could see a more m1 like revolution in the vr space we could see the battery not be an issue and open up so much more graphics and capability wise. public opinion is the next biggest problem, i think q2 did too good in a few areas and not enough in the areas that some people think cannot be overcame even if it can be.
I have a Quest. I sweat a bit. I couldn’t play Beat Saber or anything where I moved a fair bit without fogging up my lenses and sweating in my eyeballs like crazy. I had to wear a sweatband and point a big fan at me to do Supernatural workouts at all. And sometimes a hand controller would t be charged or whatever. It was so far from being an every day go-to.
Imagine driving down the road wearing goggles with pass-through video and your battery runs out
How does VR/AR tech like these benefits in anyway??
4Head plate is actually pretty Pogchamp, actually
I agree that we're still eons and bleems away from headsets with a form factor of gasses that can seamlessly do both AR and VR. I honestly think the AR and the Metaverse are two separate things though. When I think AR I think of walking down the street in RL, looking up at somebody walking by, and having a bubble pop up in my view giving me some info on that person, kind of like opening a person's profile in Second Life. When I think Metaverse I think of a VR experience like Ready Player One where you enter a virtual world and travel seamlessly from one experience to another (like going to Planet Doom). I think that's much more of a software challenge than a hardware challenge. How I envision that working in the "Metaverse" would be to enter a virtual world like Horizon, and then go to say a sports bar, where you can jump into a game of Eleven Table Tennis, Golf+, Thrill of the Fight, or whatever. Maybe you could enter an office building to attend a meeting, open a productivity app, etc. Obviously this would need a TON of fleshing out, but it's really just a matter of integrating app and game launching into a world like Horizon (hopefully a better world because Horizon kind of sucks lol).
Anyway, I think something like that is a lot closer than magic VR/AR glasses that you wear all day, and the technology to do it already exists, it's just a question of building it.
To me it seems like the quest pro is simply the baby step in going to VR/AR.
The probably I have with VR is that it doesn't seem like we are anywhere near having the computing power to run VR. Don't get me wrong lightweight games like Beat Saber work find. But games like half-life Alyx and Minecraft VR(given it was a modded version of java edition I played) just can't keep up, after 5 min of playing Minecraft VR on my 3070, I felt like I was going to throw-up and had to sit down for almost 15min. And on top of all of that, the framerate and resolution of VR just isn't anywhere near high enough. Playing on my quest the screen door effect is super obvious, things are generally hard to read, and I always have to turn so text is right in front of me otherwise it is unreadable and sometimes even just gives me a headache from it being there.
I resemble that last bit of commentary. I love my Quest 2, but I hardly use it.
X86 seems to be slowing down more then arm advancements have. I don't have a ton of space but I make the decision to make space because I love VR
9:00 they could have done the NHL thing much better by scaling down the boards, and by possibly putting little trackers in the headsets so it has multiple datapoints to pull from instead of trying to rely purely on image
I have an original quest and I love it, but the my head is too big, and I just have not gotten into any games that keep me coming back. I believe that VR has tones of potential and tons of room for improvemnt but it is not completely ready for me.
Moore's law is not holding VR/AR back. There is a lot more to get out of it by way of lens fidelity and battery improvements. Lenses for realism, battery for better CPU power.
"I don't have space for it." sums up my experience with VR
The one thing I really liked about quest 2 pro was the multiple monitors w keyboard/mouse. That can be really useful if it is OS agnostic or native support. I think the virtual conference room/virtual office might be the middle ground for lot of bosses that don't like work from home. It might take a couple of iterations.
TL;Dr: I disagree, mainly with the expectations rather than the reality of the hardware right now, though that I also feel is being understated to a degree. I also dislike how fast we expect things to progress sometimes. Also, you can sit while playing lol.
--------
What does "Driving down the Street with it" Have to do with being mainstream? You don't use your phone while you're driving, you wouldn't use your laptop or a gaming device-- Or is it the portability? Because you CAN take it with you, it does have the exact same portability as a laptop would have, Carrying Case and such. There's nothing stopping you from doing as anyone with a laptop would do: Carry it with you in a bag, take it out and use it when and where you want it, only thing stopping you in public would be the Stigma of how it looks, which much like Cell Phones and Bluetooths everyone would eventually get over. The point just only stands so far, it has basis, but only goes so far in how they're making that judgement.
And it's true that a lot of the advancements and compact-design capabilities will only come in decades, but it's just that-- Decades-- That isn't centuries; your kids probably wouldn't miss out, they'd maybe be in their 20's to 30's+, but honestly that isn't even a completely realistic extrapolation, considering the strides we're making in the field of compact wearables I see that future as being very possibly closer than that-- Now does that equate to "Mainstream" Close? No, not necesarily-- But it really doesn't have to, it's steppingstones, this thing does NOT need to be Smart Phones to still be a succsess and well off industry, Imaginary ideals be damned, we don't TRULY need that level of adaption that it takes over the world, we just need a Healthy eco-system-- If people hate Mark Zuckerberg's fanciful ideals for the future, you don't need to adapt to them, just support a more realistic and metered ideal.
And I think that's another really big flaw in your arguement, you're basing it around this "Fundamental Replacement" Ideal, or thinking it needs take the place or function of other devices-- Which sure in some cases it certainly can I think-- But I personally don't believe that should be the immediate mindset, we can have a device that has it's OWN specific use cases and intergrtions into daily life, it doesn't need to have the same Use Time, Cases, Locations and Expectations of your Phone-- VR/AR/MR, and more importantly just wearable tech, all can have their own time and place uses removed from this grander all-tech usage idea; we can drop what show-boating standard has been put on the technology if we stop talking about it within this real of expectation, *It does not need to be this, and certainly not Immediately.*
I definitely think the advancements made in VR/AR/MR hardware are also being understated here; while I agree that what we currently have is still limited and even comparable to earlier VR tech, the leaps and bounds we've made in Tracking, Computing, and the overall VR experience, has DEFINITELY advanced-- Having Standalone, Self-Tracked, Self-Computing and onboarding of it's own games and software completely removed from a dedicated computer and with the portability to be used in pretty much any environment-- That's an IMPRESSIVE feat and something I think if shown to VR users from 7-8 years ago, they'd be heavily impressed and inspired for what's coming forward. Absolutely blown away like showing Crystal-Clear IMAX Theater 3D to someone just hearing Talkies? No, not at all-- But I think that kind of expectation (Exaggerated of a simile I made it lol), is a bit far-fetched and RUSHED; I truly believe our time expectations are heavily skewed in tech and the modern age-- But believe it or not, 2 Decades isn't that long, and I hardly think it'll be even that before we get far more performance and impressive output from VR, at current or even a slowed pace if need be.
Also you can use VR sitting down or standing still lol. Less immesive for sure, but completely valid and supported use scenario.
Used a Hololens a few years ago on a job site to verify installations were where they were supposed to be, terrible experience. you constantly had to align to the space you were working in, it couldn't hold that much content so you would constantly updating the content to where you were working and they didn't really get bright enough to use on the job site unless you turned off some of the job lights which you couldn't do if people were working in that area and on and on and on. we quit using them.
Quit using them and just used phones or tablets with AR which wouldn’t suffer from issues with bright surroundings?
quest 2 is very mainstream. its just not used for "what you think it should". using it while driving does not equal mainstream adoption. that's actually just a whole other type of product.
IRL HUD is so cool
Note: Zack freedman made HUD glasses
Looking like those boomers that claimed the internet was a fad over here
VR will only get super mainstream when the units are like regular glasses and that is many many huge breakthroughs away
"I don't have space for it" This is why it'll never be as ubiquitous as the smartphone.
yep i am someone who literally never uses my quest 2, like its neat and it works exactly as expected but its not something that I go out of my way to use often and if i ever do have the inclination to use it, ill just take it out of the box rather than try to figure out a way to have it within reach
It just makes me sick, so I don’t use it much.
@@trollwayy5981 it used to make me sick but after I played for a while, i completely got rid of motion sickness
@@its_Vlad I imagine the same would happen to me, but it makes it where I can barely stand which kinda ruins the fun for me
My controllers broke due to sweat, so I’m unable to use my quest 2, hand tracking is only supported in few apps
The AR glasses Linus described sounds more like those in the book Daemon than Ready Player One.
@ LMG Clips For me, I just started playing around with my Quest2 after about a year of having it. It's interesting, but because of the eye strain I put it away again. What kills it for me is the FOV and my eyes can't focus naturally and adjust. So I'm always trying to adjust how close my eyes are to the lenses. If they can fix those to problems I think a lot more people would be interested. It would be interesting to watch movies a show with VR, but if I'm going to have to manually keep adjusting the headset to get some kind of eye relief there is no point. As for being able to walk out the house with VR glasses some day. I think that's so far off it doesn't matter to me. Technology would have to not only advance but probably change completely as in moving away from silicon to some else that will allow for more shrinking of computer architectures and reduce power consumption. Something of that magnitude is probably beyond my lifetime and I'm only 30. I think VR and AR will mostly remain in the enthusiast gaming space for PCs and really high end corporate solutions in medicine, aerodynamics, general engineering sectors, and some limited military applications. Basically, situations that users know the amount of power needed to a specific task. For gaming, big industry you can leverage the power of a pc or multiple gpu farms if you know you can be tethered down. Same thing in the military space, although there is some evidence of "VR/AR" application that I saw yesterday involving new Computerized scopes, but the examples were very simplistic and maybe even not VR. (czcams.com/video/f5YWXrZdNpA/video.html&ab_channel=GarandThumb)
It's just a step-up to what we want with VR/AR, but I'll skip this one because it's just way much, and I already have a Quest 2 and have all that I need at the moment. I'll think about the Quest 3 though.
Processing offloading will be a huge thing for these VR AR devices. Standalone is needed for something like that for image processing and tracking with rendering going somewhere else like what we see with Virtual Desktop and PC VR to the quest. what is currently happening is getting the "bells and whistles" that leads to better presence and easier rendering like with eye trackign and foveated rendering can create HUGE performance savings.
If u think in terms of technology evolving it’s obvious that the next step for tech would be AR and VR
Fwiw on the Quest 2, it was the first headset with good enough quality overall to play standalone I thought worth getting. Amazing value for its original price. But he's not totally wrong. I mostly got it to play Beat Saber finally and it's fantastic for that and good at much more. But now I only pull it out for occasional BS sessions.
I think part of why is that it just feels like such an oddly isolating experience if you're in it too much.
This is the few times I disagree. True AR glasses will be here in the next 10 years Guaranteed. There is no way they won’t be here.
Carmack said "in 5 years" for AR glasses. Do you know when he said that? In 2012
I'm thinking of getting AR glasses instead, I'll jump into VR when it gets better, I've been waiting since the 90s anyway
I am at 2:48 but I Wonder if Linus Will talk about possibility that those headset might not need as much processsing power as he seems to be expectin in the beggining of this video.
Upgrades in wireless connection might solve the issue of 'slowing down moore's law' - latency is not good enough yet but not So long ago latency of wireless mouses made them terrible for gaming and now Logitech solution is not even that bad and I think Ltt even said they are good in one of their videos.
"when I can drive down the road wearing it, that's when it will go mainstream". Why would that be the case, Linus? It doesn't have to be used in every scenario, in fact it only has to be disruptive in a selective few scenarios. If it's disruptive in gaming, then it will become a mainstream gaming device. If it's disruptive in business productivity, then it will be worn when sitting at your desk/doing professional work. Moreover, if the Quest 2 is as successful as it is and as clunky/undeveloped as the tech still is, It won't have to have glasses level ergonomics to go mainstream. It seems more like you're answering a question that you yourself aren't asking, which is "when will I wear my headset all day every day and use for everything?"
The only thing I really use my Quest 2 for is beat saber and even then I just connect it to my pc so i can play mods.
My quest 2 is definitely sitting in a box. I only bring it out for parties
I think you guys have a misunderstanding about the speed of computer adoption.
It took decades for computer adoption and it will decades for VR headset adoption as well.
VR/MR headsets are more like computers/laptops than smartphones. AR glasses will be like smartphones and will come far in the future.
For context,
Apple II was launched in 1977, IBM PC in 1981. In 1984, computer adoption of 8% of US households. (7 years after Apple II and 3 years after IBM PC)
Currently VR headset adoption is about 8% of US households. 3 years after Oculus Quest launch.
Computer adoption didnt cross the 50% US households mark until the year 2000. (23 years after Apple II and 19 years after IBM PC launch).
Apple will be launching it's headset next year or so, which will give a huge boost to the VR space and even tho it will be very expensive, it will give a huge boost to the overall market and actually drive sales for Quest 2 as well.
I don't know about a work headset with only 1-2 hours of battery tho. It will take a few generations but only when they can make something with capabilty and battery life close to 10-12 hours, it will be a serious work machine.
I understand what Luke said and agree because my cousin who lives next door has an Oculus and its just sitting on his shelf
Feels like there was a lot of focus just on the hardware and very little on the software. I don't dissagree with all the points, but just look at how rapidly ai is advancing. Even without any more improvents in hardware I think ai improvements will make such a diffrence with a lot of these things.