While AR might be more useful it’s still behind VR because all the existing solutions are limited to small projection area compared to the highest displays and FOV VR headsets. I also don’t believe AR will ever replace VR due the differences. Only maybe when the solutions can project directly in to the retina so that everything can be drawn over 
1 Like
Why is AR more useful? I would say the other way around. For visualization VR is far more useful for example. For example to visualize a home before its built.
1 Like
Why is it one or the other? XR is an umbrella term that does deserve to exist. The technology that drives both has considerable overlap too.
AR has more uses in the real world, and so I would have to - if pushed - say AR provides more use for more people in every day situations, while VR is selective.
Or, if only because if you can see out of VR it is AR.
1 Like
Since AR is dependant on the real world and VR is not I see more uses for VR outside gaming. Like I said visualization
AR has substantially more uses than VR outside gaming in my view. I think you mean’t has very specific uses. More would imply that 7 billion people would want to be using it. AR is set to replace phones. Think on that.
1 Like
AR is a gimick, for example no serious engineer would trust the output from a AR measurement tool. The tolerance is just ridiculous
2 Likes
Understand I am not biased. These are observations.
You mean like this ridiculous motion sickness and hardware requirement issue plaguing VR? These industries are the first example of them surviving their birth. The reason they’ve survived is thanks to other tech advances this time round that needed to be in place.
Historically both AR and VR haven’t survived because it’s been too expensive and delivered bad results. AR accuracy doesn’t need to improve quickly because AR is never going away, because everyone with a phone will have access to it. As phones get smaller, eventually worn or merely seen, you’ll understand it matters to most people more that they can see someone’s preferences, how they’d like to be addressed “him/her/they/etc” and so on, just looking at them. There are thousands of reasons why AR is good, and you can start with every single reason why you use a mobile phone, then extrapolate that out to having rich data about everything around you.
For most people this is of substantially more interest and use than the immersion tech of VR. I’m not much of a luddite but VR has different and less frequent, more specific uses mostly because it cannot work with day-to-day challenges while AR really will help in day-to-day challenges.
Therefore, logically, AR is way more useful.
Availability doesnt automatically make a thing useful or not a gimick. Sure REAL AR like the Holo lens is cool but the price tag isnt worth it. Cellphone AR is just a gimmick regardless of availability.
Motionsickness is a modern myth, sure most new comers might feel something the first few times but it goes away for 99%. For the minority there are solutions. Like FOV reduction
Long ago that you tried perhaps? These days there’s fields to set needed components, tons of classes are made for subclassing and even then everything is protected in the classes to allow easy extension.
Standards are years off probably, that’s why VRTK includes a lot to ease the work needed to try what works for your specific project. In the case of Locomotion we’ll probably see no clear winner anyway.
2 Likes
wait… newtonVR is not being worked on due to lack of funding?
SOURCE please.
You’re basically working from the point of view that everything is your game. It’s not. Fov reduction cripples the kinds of games you can make, and is a total band aid.
If everyone uses small Fov, which sure - does prevent distortion and sickness - you will limit to a very small set of experiences.
1 Like
I don’t know if that’s fully correct (funding part) but NewtonVR has been a while in a state where only minor additions and fixes are done every now and then but no “active” development has been happening for a long time.
Well if you are one of those 1 procenters then FOV reduction is better than not play the game at all right?
These forums seem to go off-topic often, so why not join I thought.
I’m doing work in, for and play VR stuff for more than 18 months now and I still get motion-sick from touchpad-walking, any game that puts me in something moving without offering a lot of stationary stuff in the peripheral vision (even Elite Dangerous doesn’t work in most ships). Same for any of my friends, my family and other devs I know.
Pulling numbers out of thin air: 90% of users are prone to motion-sickness. Put them in a virtual rollercoaster or in Project Cars and you’ll see 
1 Like
90 procent are prone to motionsickness yes, but only a very few of those will never grow out of it. Most people get their so called VR legs.
2 Likes
Says who? I’m gotta get out of this now. 
1 Like
the good people at r/vive and r/oculus
Before we launched our game we got a group of sensitive people to test our game. It was enough with just a few percentage of black border for them not to feel any motionsickness
It’s funny how that thread goes wild. VR versus AR, again ? My opinion is it won’t be a debate forever (unless it become ARVR vs MRAR vs wathever), tech is obviously constantly merging and blurring the lines. For sure it is an interesting topic i could dive more into in another thread. About VRTK, that’s a neat tool, but with its drawbacks like any other 3rd Party solution. Try it, AND NewtonVR, and SteamVR Interaction System, at the end you’ll have learned a lot and maybe you could start to setup your own system based upon those. We are used to take for granted others hard work but i don’t think that it can’t be reliable forever.
Just heard the VRTK dev is halting. Very sad. I have a nice immersive science application built on VRTK, and I wouldn’t have been able to do it with Harvey Ball’s (TheStoneFox) code.
Hey Harvey, if you are listening, check out ConfocalVR™ and see the Geekwire article here. All made possible by VRTK. Thanks for building an sharing it.
Well, I’ve never really been been bothered by touch pad walking just as long as the movement is in a straight line in the z axis (both walking forward or backward). I’ve only ever felt like I’m loosing my footing a bit when moving sideways fast, like in a curved path. But, I’ve never really had motion sickness in VR yet so it may just be me (doubt I’ll feel great on a VR racing game though). Only times I’ve felt sick when using the Rift is because the thing is giving me a migraine from the screen brightness. But that happens with my regular screen too, lol…
Anyway, I hope Unity comes up with it’s own core systems. I think I depend on VRTK mostly for the events manager and the player presence… An easy way to access haptic rumble and the compositor to dim or unfocus the screen during scene switching and headset collision fading would be great too (total darkening of the screen is horrible for headset collision fading…). Besides that I have my own hand interactions cause I wanted it to fit with the hand models I use, and Touchpad walking is no different than a character controller’s so not a big deal with that, same with teleport. Like it was mentioned before, people are still experimenting a lot with locomotion so it’s probably too soon to expect a standard…
Mind you, due to some custom stuff I’ve made I’m stuck with an older version of VRTK for now. Still, a native solution for some of these stuff would be awesome…