Lets make a SDK 0.4 Linux nagging thread!

"cybereality" wrote:
OSX is actually fairly close to being ready. Linux may be a little further out. Sorry I can't be more specific.

thanks.

These times I wonder if Zuck has one of these things driving around your office. :)

"PathogenDavid" wrote:

"jherico" wrote:
No, what sucks is that they've withheld the source code for the runtime.

I agree with this, I really hope we see the source code for the Oculus service and the drivers released soon. They've effectively made a large part of the SDK closed source now by offloading tasks into the service.

I've been looking at the mechanism the runtime uses to convey information to the application. It wouldn't be impossible to produce a Mac / Linux runtime that provided the same services for orientation tracking, just a massive pain in the ass. Position tracking would be much harder though since a) don't have the code that Oculus uses to turn the image from the camera into a position value and b) don't know the interface to the camera to fetch the images in the first place.

If we had that code (for the Win32 Oculus Runtime), I could probably cobble something together in a week or two using Boost, based on how long it took me to do the same thing with the original Windows only 0.2.x SDK. Not the Direct HMD mode, mind you.... just head pose tracking. Given how much people are having problems with Direct HMD mode, I'm doubting the wisdom of releasing it concurrently with the DK2 support and position tracking. It feels insufficiently tested and fragile. Still, I guess you can only get the sort of broad testing they need by releasing it, and at least it's optional.

"jherico" wrote:

I've been looking at the mechanism the runtime uses to convey information to the application. It wouldn't be impossible to produce a Mac / Linux runtime that provided the same services for orientation tracking, just a massive pain in the ass. Position tracking would be much harder though since a) don't have the code that Oculus uses to turn the image from the camera into a position value and ...

There was an interview with Palmer at CES where he was talking about that code. IIRC he mentioned that the idea was not to come up with their own approach on visual motion tracking but rather to license some (expensive?) state-of-the-art tracking system. This probably makes sense since it is pretty tough to reach the quality of top tracking systems. This might also be the reason why going open source is no longer that easy.

Hire more OSX and Linux developers, this company is now owned by Facebook. Money shouldn't be a problem.
This is sad that *nix users have to wait for SDK.

"jherico" wrote:

No, what sucks is that they've withheld the source code for the runtime. Even if they'd only released the windows source code for the runtime along with the SDK, I'm sure someone would have hacked something together by now to allow OSX and Linux developers to work.

I didn't actually realise that. This is beginning to sound extremely worrying.

If they really are incrementally closing the source in this way, my DK2 is going straight back.

Firstly, the DK2 was sold as explicitly Linux compatible. Secondly, while I assume it was never explicitly stated that the drivers would remain open source, the kind of work I do (I work in academia) can't be done if major parts of the drivers are closed off.

Also, thanks as ever for your updates cybereality. I assume you're doing the best with the info you have and it's great to have a responsive company voice on the forum.

"Watercycle" wrote:
Dual booting is always an option.

No, it isn't.

Thanks for the clarification on the Mac Runtime, @cyberreality. Much appreciated! I just got my DK2 and was crushed to find that I didn't have a machine that would run it. I need to be restrained right now to keep me from running to Fry's and building a Windows box.

I'm on a nearly 2-year old MacBook Pro, so chances are I'm going to need new hardware anyhow, but I at least wanted some idea of how poor performance on my MBP was going to be before I rushed off and spent a bunch of money I really shouldn't.

When you say the Mac runtime is close, are we talking just a matter of days? Maybe this week even?

I thought waiting for DK2 was horrible but getting it on Thursday and not able to test is nightmare! :cry:

"bluenote" wrote:

"jherico" wrote:

I've been looking at the mechanism the runtime uses to convey information to the application. It wouldn't be impossible to produce a Mac / Linux runtime that provided the same services for orientation tracking, just a massive pain in the ass. Position tracking would be much harder though since a) don't have the code that Oculus uses to turn the image from the camera into a position value and ...

There was an interview with Palmer at CES where he was talking about that code. IIRC he mentioned that the idea was not to come up with their own approach on visual motion tracking but rather to license some (expensive?) state-of-the-art tracking system. This probably makes sense since it is pretty tough to reach the quality of top tracking systems. This might also be the reason why going open source is no longer that easy.

Do you have a clip of said interview? I was under the impression that the LED/Camera system was their idea not some licensed tech.

It might have been their idea in this specific context, but it's an area where lots of existing work has been done by a lot of other companies... Much better to buy the best off the shelf rather than reinventing the wheel, especially if you're in a rush.