Since the advent of Oculus Rift and many other VR hardware, more and more apps are being made. Do you guys thing that leaning towards VR dev is the right step for the future? Or is it just another gimmick?
it's definitely the future.
only thing standing in its way is uncomfortable interface
maybe at some point we will be able to just bypass our sensory neurons altogether and communicate data with our brains directly
>>52546616
OP here, so like The matrix?
Also, how does one get into VR app dev? I'm fairly familiar with programming concepts and have only played around with arduino and some generic webdev projects.
>>52546555
Definitely the future
But won't be relevant in 2016 yet
>>52546616
>it's definitely the future.
Why?
>only thing standing in its way is uncomfortable interface
How is this the "only"?
>>52546705
>Definitely the future
How?
>>52546747
It allows you to do the things you're already doing (or not) with less effort and better results
Huge upgrade for anything 3d related
And takes entertainment to the next level
>>52546747
Porn
>>52546838
>It allows you to do the things you're already doing (or not) with less effort and better results
How so?
>Huge upgrade for anything 3d related
How will anyone play games when VR wants you to be on a swivel chair and constantly look behind you? What if you're a fat fuck or lying in bed?
>And takes entertainment to the next level
How so? Do you want us to be constantly turning around for 120+ minutes?
What would be the point on non-entertainment based VR apps?
I can just see it becoming something like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4iQfJftmOU
>>52546885
>How so?
>How will anyone play games when VR
I'm talking more about 3d modeling and arch viz
It's a huge advantage if your 3d model is right in front of you in the same room rather than on some 2d screen without scale or depth
>Do you want us to be constantly turning around for 120+ minutes?
I guess the main action will still be in front of you unless you're in the middle of a large battle or something
So turning/walking around is optional
You can just look ahead the whole movie
>>52546962
>It's a huge advantage if your 3d model is right in front of you in the same room rather than on some 2d screen without scale or depth
But existing models already look excellent and if you want to you can use active or passive 3d glasses that you can get for cheap. The problem with 3d is the animation, not the modelling. In fact, most modells are actually scanned data...
>I guess the main action will still be in front of you unless you're in the middle of a large battle or something
But your "front" is relative to where you're looking. Have you even tried VR?
>>52546962
>It's a huge advantage if your 3d model is right in front of you in the same room rather than on some 2d screen without scale or depth
I'm not so sure actually. 3D modeling requires a lot of precision and you get a hell of a lot of precision from a 2D screen and a mouse I'd wager. That and being able to see more than one angle at the same time is really important.
>>52546991
I think this could be done with a grid system and anti aliasing features into the VR. Introducing vectors between the grid points too. People will find a way.
>>52547026
Again, 3d modelling isnt a problem that needs to be solved. Its already excellent.
>>52546986
3d glasses don't give the model real-world scale and don't allow you to look at it naturally to get a good sense of its shape
>But your "front" is relative to where you're looking. Have you even tried VR?
Front is where you want it to be
I could ask you the same thing
>>52546991
Motion controllers give you a lot more precision than a mouse
And while the resolution is a bit lower than a 2d screen you still get a lot more useful info from a HMD
>>52547067
But it could be improved. Graphic development is never stagnant. Imagine that you want to build a car. Won't it be better to view the model in real life ratio while you build it to get a better sense of it ?
>>52547140
>3d glasses don't give the model real-world scale and don't allow you to look at it naturally to get a good sense of its shape
You what? 3d glasses will give you as good a result as Avatar gave, which is pretty damn good imo. With VR you actually won't be able to see below your nose or above your forehead. Nor will you be able to see reference you have on your desk or other monitors.
>Motion controllers give you a lot more precision than a mouse
Come now. You want to be waving your arm around for hours?
>>52547259
3d glasses won't make you feel like you're inside the movie nor help much with modeling
>Come now. You want to be waving your arm around for hours?
Motion controllers can be used with your elbow being on some arm rest or just hanging down
>>52547409
>3d glasses won't make you feel like you're inside the movie nor help much with modeling
but neither does VR, since - again - you cant look below your nose, or above the lower part of your forehead.
>Motion controllers can be used with your elbow being on some arm rest or just hanging down
But this is inferior to using a wacom intuos with the 6D art pen which has pressure sensitivity, rotation sensitivity and tilt sensitivity while you look in front of you to your regular IPS monitor.
>>52547458
Great arguments
You have defeated me
>>52547489
I know I did.
