Carmack is now CTO of Occulus Rift

21 Replies

Please log in or register to post a reply.

A3c652c6832b95ef5c3e63e60527e1ab
0
Albertone 101 Aug 08, 2013 at 10:51

I wish all the best to Carmack and Oculus. However, call me shortsighted, but I’m frankly not that excited about VR. By the way, how are 3D movies doing these days? Five years ago they seemed on a renaissance, but I’m really ignorant about their current state.

A638aa42130293f319eda7fa4ba121f4
0
fireside 141 Aug 08, 2013 at 11:27

I think 3d movies are doing fairly well, but the technology really hasn’t changed much in that area. VR for games and computers is a lot more exciting. It’s more to do with input from turning your head, etc, that can make it feel more like reality. I would love to have one, but probably not at the current price. This is a great fit for Carmack, I think. I don’t think he’s much into actual game design. I think Doom 4 got delayed again. It’s starting to look like Doom 4(ever).

46407cc1bdfbd2db4f6e8876d74f990a
0
Kenneth_Gorking 101 Aug 08, 2013 at 11:44

Carmack didn’t leave id, he is just going to spend more time at Occulus. I wonder why he didn’t mention this in his QuakeCon keynote…

A3c652c6832b95ef5c3e63e60527e1ab
0
Albertone 101 Aug 08, 2013 at 12:17

With all due respect to Carmack&co, I think that id has been underperforming for well over a decade. Doom 3 is - sigh! - boring, and graphically not that good. I think that the king of FPSs in early 2000s was FarCry. Granted, it wasn’t indoor - I’m still waiting for the second coming of strafe-a-lot FPSs, though Serious Sam 3 proved to be quite good. Rage is boring, but it didn’t disappoint me (that much): I was all but excited about id developing a madmaxian FPS. id was so good at making grotesque storyless FPSs a la Quake 1, with that strange blend of medieval and mayan architecture, and totally unconnected levels it’s a pity they tried to make Doom 3 the Half-Life of the poor demon!
I think, however, that these things don’t detract anything from Carmack’s reputation: I still consider johnc one of the world’s best programmers!

B5262118b588a5a420230bfbef4a2cdf
0
Stainless 151 Aug 08, 2013 at 12:51

3D television for sport’s is amazing.

I was watching England play rugby in my local on their 3D system and the ball came over the touch line towards the camera.

About six of us tried to catch the ball :D

3D movies, well it depends on the director, if he uses 3D to enhance the story, fine, but if he just fills the film with 3D effects just for the sake of it, it’s boring and actually nauseating.

The problem I have is the size of the headset, once that comes down to the size of a pair of glasses we have to take it seriously, before they do that, it’s a niche market and not worth our time.

A8433b04cb41dd57113740b779f61acb
0
Reedbeta 168 Aug 08, 2013 at 16:48

I think an immersive VR experience is a totally different ball-game than watching 3D in a theater or on the couch. The 3D there is always going to be kind of crappy because it can’t be fitted to your exact perspective, FOV, interocular distance, etc., especially with multiple viewers. Plus there’s the problem of the glasses cutting the brightness in half or worse. And it’s not immersive, because the scene doesn’t surround you. Not that you really want to be “immersed” in a movie or TV show where you can’t control your viewpoint, anyway, as that’s incredibly disorienting.

Most people I know are “meh” at best about 3D movies - I certainly refuse to see any 3D movies at the theater, and I’ll never buy a 3D TV. Yet people are really excited about the Rift. I haven’t been able to try it myself, but everyone I know who has tried it is basically ecstatic about it - even those who got nausea or headaches from it!

VR solves a lot of the problems with 3D movies. Of course it brings its own set of problems, but they seem solvable. Oculus are working on adding positional tracking which should help reduce the physical reactions. There are also technologies on the horizon like light-field displays that have the potential to make VR even better.

B5262118b588a5a420230bfbef4a2cdf
0
Stainless 151 Aug 08, 2013 at 18:22

So … how many of us would pay for a device to be implanted in our brains to give a totally immersive expierience?

You know, the matrix kind of thing

A638aa42130293f319eda7fa4ba121f4
0
fireside 141 Aug 08, 2013 at 19:05

So … how many of us would pay for a device to be implanted in our brains to give a totally immersive expierience?

That’s for the very trusting. Definitely not me.

A8433b04cb41dd57113740b779f61acb
0
Reedbeta 168 Aug 08, 2013 at 19:50

I read a sci-fi story where a guy had one of those brain implant things, and spammers hacked it to display cheap porn ads over his vision all the time, even when his eyes were closed.

He ended up blowing his brains out.

A3c652c6832b95ef5c3e63e60527e1ab
0
Albertone 101 Aug 08, 2013 at 20:26

I honestly don’t see such a big demand for stuff like that. I think that a lot of companies overestimate the percentage of hardcore gamers - sure, the number of gamers of all kinds has never been so large, yet I think that the percentage of hardcore gamers has never been so low. Your average gamer is already not that excited about the next gen, I actually don’t think he/she would enthusiastically embrace VR headsets, even if made considerably smaller. Young gamers in particular consider games a lot like a social activity, or a mean to kill time when they’re not going out with their friends: sometime I think that “Call of Duty”&co will eventually move toward a “Pal of Duty” kind of thing, where the chitchat aspect is more important than the “actual” gameplay.

A638aa42130293f319eda7fa4ba121f4
0
fireside 141 Aug 08, 2013 at 23:39

yet I think that the percentage of hardcore gamers has never been so low.

I don’t think it’s changed much. It’s lower because there are more casual gamers than there used to be. I think both xbox and playstation4 are sold out for their preorders. It’s still many millions of gamers. People tend to get excited about new input systems. That’s why Nintendo was such a big hit a while back. The key will be getting the price low enough and making sure it doesn’t make people sick and it works with a lot of games. I don’t think it necessarily has to be for hardcore gamers as it would be the most exciting for exploration. Games have needed to migrate out of blood and guts for a long time. It maybe was necessary once, but there are other ways to stimulate people’s minds and imaginations. Things like this will open up new games that haven’t been thought of yet.

6837d514b487de395be51432d9cdd078
0
TheNut 179 Aug 09, 2013 at 02:01

You gotta give Carmack credit, he’s living his life. How many game devs go out and play around with rockets and VR tech? I think what he does is pretty cool and I respect him for that. There’s plenty of sheep at ID to keep the business going anyway.
@Stainless

So … how many of us would pay for a device to be implanted in our brains to give a totally immersive expierience?

Not quite VR, but hallucinogenic drugs will give you quite an experience. Perhaps one that no VR tech will ever give you :D

46407cc1bdfbd2db4f6e8876d74f990a
0
Kenneth_Gorking 101 Aug 09, 2013 at 06:40

@TheNut

Not quite VR, but hallucinogenic drugs will give you quite an experience. Perhaps one that no VR tech will ever give you :D

Imagine if you did that, and all you saw where cheap porn ads :lol:

B5262118b588a5a420230bfbef4a2cdf
0
Stainless 151 Aug 09, 2013 at 09:07

I remember in Shadowrun they had beatles (BTL’s, Better Than Life ) chips.

They were the equivalent of hardcore drugs in the current world.

Plug it in and you can be having sex with the most beautiful girl in the world, and you’re actually good at it :P
Or you’re winning the formula one grand prix at Monaco
Or flying a plane down the grand canyon

Addicts sit in a corner with the chip on loop till they die.

Scary thought

Fd80f81596aa1cf809ceb1c2077e190b
0
rouncer 104 Aug 09, 2013 at 09:30

maybe if it was a nice pair of (wireless) glasses and it worked fine, but not the scooba equipment, its embarressing.

if augmented reality ever comes in, its gonna have to be some light equipment that doesnt bother you, just like the 3d glasses you wear at the cinema.

I always thought augmented reality was cool, cause its like a real hologram, something thats tricky to do, especially if its an interface you need to pass your hand through.

And on the brain implant thing, wouldnt the decent solution be just to trip your brains happy switch permanently? :D
but like stainless said, scary thoughts…

B20d81438814b6ba7da7ff8eb502d039
0
Vilem_Otte 117 Aug 09, 2013 at 11:36

And on the brain implant thing, wouldnt the decent solution be just to trip your brains happy switch permanently? :D
but like stainless said, scary thoughts…

So basically feeding you with some hard “stuff” :D

“Rendering” holograms is basically possible, you can create displays able to render holograms (although you really need tiny pixels, in terms of showing the light wave pattern), and place them on all the walls and floor of room. If you would have enough computation power to actually render the hologram (note that it’d be petabytes of data to process for single frame, maybe even more), you could render 3D hologram inside that room. And you wouldn’t need any glasses for that.

The problem is, first of all, money - the LCDs or anything else is not able to render holograms, you need smaller “crystals”, single pixel should have just some nanometers, not hundreds of micrometers (thats several orders smaller). Next thing, processing power. As you use several orders of magnitude smaller pixels, you need several orders of magnitude more computation power to actually compute what should be drawed and draw it.

The second problem is “touching the hologram”. This is generally huge problem. First of all you’d need to define what is touching suface - touching surface e.g. colliding with it - your finger is composed of matter (particles), once the particles are approaching some object (F.e. desk), the electromagentic forces grows as distance gets smaller (unless you’re so close at atomic level, they are basically zero), once the particles get really close, this force grows (almost towards infnity). And you can’t pass your finger through the desk (because you can’t overcome this force).
Overcoming this force is possible, F.e. inside Tokamak devices, Sun or Thermo-Nuclear explosion (e.g. Fusion bomb), using huge temperatures and pressure, you can perform nuclear fusion (e.g. overcoming this force and fusing particles together), but thats not the subject of “touching the hologram”. Basically you would need to be able to somehow “simulate” this force without the actual matter. The problem is, that we basically don’t know how to create electromagnetic force without some emittor (maybe some theoretical force field could do this).

Then we would just need some advanced epic-level artifical intelligence, so we could create Doc from Star Trek: Voyager. :ph34r:

A638aa42130293f319eda7fa4ba121f4
0
fireside 141 Aug 09, 2013 at 11:40

How many game devs go out and play around with rockets and VR tech?

Being rich kind of helps. I think he’s lost quite a few million on his rocket venture and he’s winding it down now to some part time employees or something.

maybe if it was a nice pair of (wireless) glasses and it worked fine, but not the scooba equipment, its embarressing.

It’s not something you would want to use in a living room with other people around. I think most people that play games have some kind of private area for it because you are always a little dead to the world, same with reading a book.

A3c652c6832b95ef5c3e63e60527e1ab
0
Albertone 101 Aug 09, 2013 at 12:01

Strange Days anyone? I think it’s so much better than Matrix&co.

1766067da5ff92962fb82e5b1f63a2a4
0
tyree 102 Aug 09, 2013 at 16:36

carmack isnt interested games. he is interested in some new tech to jump into. being a part of something new is really what he is after.

there were holographic games in gamerooms when I was teenager. but they were not better than the other games. aside from the tech, nothing was really there. one made today may be better

with VR anyone interested in doing something different would make a game that isnt 1st person. being completely in the world and able to view your character would be unique

A638aa42130293f319eda7fa4ba121f4
0
fireside 141 Aug 09, 2013 at 18:33

doing something different would make a game that isnt 1st person. being completely in the world and able to view your character would be unique

That would be interesting. First person would be great, though, because you could use it for steering. If you added that to a wide field of view, it would be amazing. Of course, the reality seldom meets up with what we imagine it would be like. I can’t go to those theaters with the rounded view because I come out with splitting head aches. I haven’t seen a 3d movie in ages, but those always gave me headaches because I would see double. I could sort of make it work, but it was a strain.

6837d514b487de395be51432d9cdd078
0
TheNut 179 Aug 10, 2013 at 02:34

When it comes to “3D” movies, nothing beats Imax. No need for fancy gizmos or headaches (can’t guarantee no stomach aches tho :). Just walk in, slide back in your chair and relax. The 180 degree monster dome will do the rest. Well, that is if you’re lucky to have access to one of those and not those cheep flat screens :) Nice thing about Imax is the movie selections are often educational. I enjoy watching and listening to BBC’s David Attenborough while gazing at wildlife 20 times my size.

Actually, there’s a cool 3D theater at the Vancouver aquarium too. What sets it apart from the rest is that they have built in effects. So when water splashes they actually sprinkle the audience with water. Or when the camera flies over a forest, they fill the room with a nice pine scent. It’s really cool. All this rift talk is starting to feel outdated now :D