M-VR and W-VR can coexist


#1

I’ve been posting articles on my blog about exploration of the Virtual Reality worlds. In the beginning, I wrote mainly about Playstation-home, recently about Second Life.
However, the current topics of VR are mostly referred to stereoscopic vision. There seems to be some confusion on the web information regarding these issues.

Therefore, let me define M-VR as a one screen and W-VR as 2 screens.

M-VR stands for Mono-screen Virtual Reality. Image is displayed on a screen of personal computer or tablet, you can overlook by manipulating the screen images or videos by 360 degrees panoramic according to the movement of the controller or mouse.

W-VR stands for Double-screen Virtual Reality. By the images or videos with a parallax on two screens in same size.,we can see three-dimensional view by head up display or goggles type of viewer. Of course, it is also possible to overlooking the surrounding area by turning our head.

By making a distinction like this, we can avoid confusing these two VRs and make it easier to understand them.

Playstation-home and Second Life can be called as M-VR. Since M-VR has only one screen, you can easily display an image on the game console, personal computer and tablet screen. More than one person can watch it at the same time, by projector we can share it with many people. Street view of Google would also be nice to say M-VR in a broad sense.

Of course, two screens of the goggles type of viewer can display the same image of M-VR, panoramic viewing is available by movement of the head. We already have a large number of published recordings around the sports and museums.

HighFidelitry showes us the further refine images and stereoscopic viewing by goggles . M-VR and W-VR will co-exist on it. Unlike the recorded images or videos I mentioned above, re-calculating different data for each eyes in a flash of time cannot prevent terminal computers or server computers from heavy load.

W-VR is going to be practical in games, architectural and medical fields. It is booming and market size is expected to growing up significantly. But Mr.M. from a game maker said “W-VR is not suitable for family to enjoy. Long game play with goggles should be painful. "

In addition, the age restriction was set for W-VR against too much immersion. Motion sickness is also alerted.

To consider these things, existing M-VR and future type W-VR should coexist. I think the users themselves should make a choice between them.
And this maybe the important key for much population on HiFidelity.


#2

You are joking, right?

There is only one kind of VR. Even single camera 360 photo spheres and videos are not truly VR. By your definition, all video games are “M-VR” which they are obviously not, in any broad or narrow sense. Making up names for stuff does not make it true.

And HiFi already works in desktop/non-VR mode, so what exactly are you saying?


#3

I keep seeing this misuse or misunderstanding about the term VR aka Virtual Reality. There is a standard definition for VR and what you described, @Arianne, is but a small subset.

vir·tu·al re·al·i·ty
ref: Computing
noun: virtual reality

the computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment, such as a helmet with a screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors.

or

Webster: virtual reality
1 an artificial environment which is experienced through sensory stimuli (as sights and sounds) provided by a computer and in which one’s actions partially determine what happens in the environment; also : the technology used to create or access a virtual reality

There is a lot of marketing hype and meaning stretch going on try to include 360 movies and/or user focused video-sphere as VR. Those mostly passive techniques are not VR.

You can have mono-vision VR if there is interactivity. There is a not so small percentage of the population who have a mono-vision real life too. I know of many people for whom getting on a vehicle on single screen virtual world racing causes them to develop nausea. There are also a myriad of studies describing these effects and what really makes them happen (notably sensoria incongruence).

My advice to you is to dispense with the non-standard definitions, as they are not helpful in either the academic or commercial discussions. If your main point is that face hugger VR gear leads to a slow adoption, I can partly agree with that, but then that issue is being worked on by many people and companies. The issue of how the visuals are presented is a well understood area. Much of it is constrained by technology which is developing presently.

But, the interactivity is far more important than visuals.


#4

Would you mind read it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality


#5

twa_Hinkle::“And HiFi already works in desktop/non-VR mode, so what exactly are you saying?”

I visited HiFi in M-VR mode without a headset. I saw some people wear headsets by their actions.
However, I could see and hear, and I enjoyed a different world than before.
What I want to say is that HiFi is not an exclusive world but a place to welcome all people


#6

VR Is wot u has with that thingstrapped to ur face .
No thing on face no vr
End of


#7

My advice to you is to dispense with the non-standard definitions

Thanks to your good advice.
The development of VR has just begun. The standard definition must be said to be ambiguous. Someday the dictionary will be revised. We are on the way.


#8

Oh dear, I just noticed you recently joined this forum. Welcome to High Fidelity, @Arianne!


#9

Just remember this:
John Parker uploaded this image to


#10

Welcome!

The Term Virtual Reality is a hotly contended issue because most of the the time, the term VR has been misappropriated to cover pretty much anything that incorporate a Virtual Environment, and this has propagated even to the Modern Academics.

My Bachelor Thesis Project’s background section actually hit this subject up even if I am not proud of its quality. (books are just damn expensive and local libraries dont have any in english, which is why I can only give it request only :slight_smile: )

But out of the sources it which pertains to this particulate definition would Paul Milgram / Fumio Kishino 's 1994 paper on the Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. It defines a Milgram-Kishino Continuum which defines everything quite decently.

Virtual Reality (VR) environment is one in which the participant-observer is totally immersed in, and able to interact with, a completely synthetic world. Such a world may mimic the properties of some real-world environments, either existing or fictional; however, it can also exceed the bounds of physical reality by creating a world in which the physical laws ordinarily governing space, time, mechanics, material properties, etc. no longer hold. What may be overlooked in this view, however, is that the VR label is also frequently used in association with a variety of other environments, to which total immersion and complete synthesis do not necessarily pertain, but which fall somewhere along a virtuality continuum.

There is even a 2003 book , Understanding Virtual Reality. Interface, Application and Design by William R. Sherman, Alan B. Craig that definines this similarly.

But Philip Brey, also refers in “The ethics of representation and action in virtual reality”, as he doesnt seem to know about the earlier Milgram’s Continuum.

The term ‘virtual reality’ has no standard meaning, not even within the self-labeled virtual reality industry. There are extremely liberal uses of the term according to which any visual representational medium, including television and even paintings qualify as instances of virtual reality. More common are very restrictive uses of the term, in which virtual reality systems are defined as systems that employ head-mounted displays, datagloves and datasuits to simulate an immersive, interactive computer-generated environment.

Retrospectively, Now days, I disagree however with the next line he says in the next sentence, as he doesnt source it.

It is now recognized in the virtual reality industry that this use of the term is too restrictive, and that there are forms of virtual reality that do not involve head-mounted displays or total immersion
As even now its very, very contended.

Later on, 2008 paper on Virtual Reality and Computer Simulation he refers back to his Broader term of Virtual Reality referring to his own work, even other he quotes Sherman-Craig.

I could basically conclude that even in the Academic world they cant decide on this. But I suggested using:

  • Immersive Virtual Environment, Basically your definition of W-VR
  • Non-Immersive Virtual environment. Basically your definition of M-VR

As they are nowdays less broad and conflicted than the term Virtual Reality.


#11

This thread reminds me of the poster on the library " experience virtual reality inside" you go in and it’s just crappy books.


#12

Those books are bloody expensive.


#13

I don’t know. I enjoyed the Myst games. The blue pages, no, the red pages.


#14

NASA’s definition is more to my liking and also more to my experience of VR since the 70s:
You are working with “Things as opposed to Pictures of Things.”

https://www.nas.nasa.gov/Software/VWT/vr.html


#15

Welcome to the forums! :slight_smile:

Not sure whether I followed your entire post, but the overall distinction seems reasonable to me.

A related observation is how indie “W-VR” experiences appear to almost exclusively be built right now using “M-VR” space tools (Blender, Maya, Texturing software, Code Editors, YouTube tutorials, webpage docs, etc.).


#16

Your scientific consideration and analysis is wonderful. It is a good representation of what I was thinking. .thank you very much.


#17

Thanks. Very nice refering to NASA’s site. It reveales another technical factors of VR.
The frame rate and Response time.


#18

I’m very happy to see you used my terms :xD