Skip to main content
PatimPatam
Up and Coming
January 13, 2014

Should Oculus bundle motion controllers with every Rift?

Hi there!

I've mentioned this a couple times back around September, but now that it's official that Oculus VR is focusing on a seated experience and that external optical tracking looks likely for CV1 i think it's become relevant again..

Also posted a comment on Reddit the other day, just thought i would create a new thread here to see if we can get a bit more feedback.
http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/1uw0nl/the_next_big_hurdle_for_vr_getting_your_hands_in

Here's a slightly edited version of my reply to the OP:
"PatimPatam" wrote:

Basically, i believe that the company in the best position to put our hands inside the game is actually Oculus VR itself.

I would love to have an affordable haptic feedback glove, but for the 1st generation of consumer VR i don't think we really need one; a motion controller similar to the PS-Move but where each finger rests in a separate analog button (with optional force feedback) should be enough to simulate our hands. For instance I can imagine it having the shape of a prism or a dumbbell, with several LEDs on both ends.

Having already an external camera for positional tracking this type of controller should be very cheap to produce for Oculus (basically just plastic, a few LEDs, a bluetooth transmitter, and one of the awesome IMUs they already developed to use inside the headset).

I think Oculus could perfectly bundle 2 of these controllers with every Rift sold, without adding more than $40 or $50 to the final price.

I know it may not sound like super-exciting high-tech at first, but the fact that EVERY Rift user would have the same VR input would make a MASSIVE difference. Developers could create VR games and applications with very intuitive interfaces from day 1 knowing that there is a standard input shared by all users.


And here's a very rough sketch i made to have an idea of what i mean. On top of that there should probably be a strap that goes around the back of your hand, so the controller stays in place even with the palm open.



Also optionally there could be a thumbstick instead of the thumb button, but i don't really think it's necessary since i believe avatar movement/rotation could be archived in more intuitive ways, like pressing a button and using positional tracking (lean forward to move forward for instance). Thumbsticks for movement have become quite standard between gamers but i don't think they are that intuitive for the average person.

More on that here:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=18694


Obviously the main technical difficulty with this solution would be how to differentiate controller LEDs from HMD LEDs. The more trivial approach would probably be using a visible spectrum camera instead of infrared and have different colors for each controller but that has it's own set of disadvantages.. anyway i think with the team of computer vision experts at Oculus this should be certainly doable.

I'm also quite certain that a system like this (if used at an optimal distance from the camera) could be much more accurate than alternatives like magnetic tracking (mainly due to the magnetic distortion problem).

At the same time systems like the STEM or PrioVR could still be useful for scenarios where the user wants to move around with more freedom within a confined space, or inside omni threadmills.


I've seen quite a few people complaining about the external camera solution.. Am i the only one INSANELY excited about it?? I believe this could potentially bring us one step closer to the Oasis console.

I honestly think this should be a no-brainer for Oculus, and actually i'm betting they already have some hand-controller internal prototypes; then again maybe i'm wrong :-)

Thoughts?


EDIT:

Like i mentioned later in this thread, if occlusion is too troublesome to sort out with only the existing front camera, a 2nd inside-out camera with a wide FOV could be used on the headset to help track the controllers. If the HMD is blocked by the controllers, the relative position between the external camera and the HMD could be calculated integrating the relative position between camera and controllers and the relative position between controllers and HMD.

Maybe this inside-out camera could be used at the same time for pass-through functionality similar to Gear VR. Obviously this would add both weight and cost to the HMD, but i don't see it as a show-stopper.

    132 replies

    Show previous replies
    Nukemarine
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    Here's a good question to determine if this can be a separate purchase, or maybe even a bundle - How much would something like the TWO crystal cove prototype cost WITHOUT the screen and optics but with four or five buttons attached? I think $25 is not pushing it. Now, with a reasonable battery life and some wireless ability, that price should not be more than $50.

    The control as the OP described with a natural hand grip. Buttons for each finger and a thumb control stick. Basically, more ergonomic Hydra or STEM controller. Of course, the LED sensors to take advantage of the optical positional tracking, and the controller design can have a hand guard for more sensors. On top of that, add in the Rift sensors as well. If the Rift sensors can track head rotation, why not put them in hand controllers to track hand rotation as well? After that, it's a small matter of making them wireless and rechargeable.

    For a very low price, you consumers one more thing that adds to immersion. Oculus would not be using any extra tech or expending excessive R&D. What hardware tracks the head can track the hands. Putting hands into VR is a very big step into immersion. They should seriously consider do this in house and not just depend on 3rd party hardware to pull it off in the initial release.
    PatimPatamAuthor
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    Ok, linking to nukemarine's Reddit post just for reference:
    http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/1wg437/its_simple_oculus_should_use_the_tech_for_crystal/

    Funny, so many downvotes but not a single convincing argument explaining why it would be such a bad idea..
    raidho36
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    Well it's reddit, what did you expect? Sanity? You're a funny guy aren't you.
    mrgreen72
    Inspiring
    January 29, 2014
    Yeah, reddit's voting system is broken. Sure it might be good at filtering out the dumbest trolls but you get insightful posts downvoted out of pure envy. Last week there was a post about a tweet from JC (Carmack, not the other one) and one of the posters in the thread clearly explained what Carmack was talking about in a way that made it very clear for people less knowledgeable on 3D rendering. Well by the time I replied to him he had received two downvotes. For fuck's sake.

    That and also well... fanboys.
    raidho36
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    And this is exactly why democracy doesn't work. Cool concept, but doesn't live up to it's purpose completely.
    Nukemarine
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    "PatimPatam" wrote:
    Ok, linking to nukemarine's Reddit post just for reference:
    http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/1wg437/its_simple_oculus_should_use_the_tech_for_crystal/

    Funny, so many downvotes but not a single convincing argument explaining why it would be such a bad idea..


    I titled it wrong making it sound like a fanboy who knows better than anyone else. If I had started it with "Could Oculus use ...." it might have had a better reception.

    There were some decent counters to the idea. The biggest of course is occlusion such as PC desk getting in the way of the camera; the limited area of tracking which hands could go way outside of without multiple cameras; problems with having multiple cameras themselves; and interference or confusion due to tracking multiple LEDs.

    Of course, you will always have those guys that think it's impossible for any company to work on multiple projects or even different phases of the same project. In their mind, any thoughts by Oculus toward a controller is completely sabotaging the ability to add 8k screens to the CV1 with 180 degree FOV. Same type of mindset that bitches whenever GRRM is doing anything other than writing another page for A Song of Ice and Fire series. Can't do much about them.
    Lane
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    The Rift is a product, Oculus is the company. The Rift is a headset, if OVR wants to make more VR products then great, but the Rift is intended to be an HMD. They should segregate their products and plan to make them cohesive with other products in the future, perhaps as a set.

    In other words you should be able to buy the Rift, then whatever else they have, like gloves if they make them and you want them, as a separate product that can work independent of each other. VR is great and is gaining lots of traction but it hasn't footed itself enough to start building more advanced, unusual products. It may catch on and turn into some really cool stuff but these sorts of things grow in steps.
    Brevis / DevBlog Twitter
    PatimPatamAuthor
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    "nukemarine" wrote:
    I titled it wrong making it sound like a fanboy who knows better than anyone else. If I had started it with "Could Oculus use ...." it might have had a better reception.

    There were some decent counters to the idea. The biggest of course is occlusion such as PC desk getting in the way of the camera; the limited area of tracking which hands could go way outside of without multiple cameras; problems with having multiple cameras themselves; and interference or confusion due to tracking multiple LEDs.

    Of course, you will always have those guys that think it's impossible for any company to work on multiple projects or even different phases of the same project. In their mind, any thoughts by Oculus toward a controller is completely sabotaging the ability to add 8k screens to the CV1 with 180 degree FOV. Same type of mindset that bitches whenever GRRM is doing anything other than writing another page for A Song of Ice and Fire series. Can't do much about them.

    Yeah i totally agree with your point, the biggest problem i can see with this solution is the computer desk being in the middle for some users.. that could be sorted if oculus had a camera with very wide FOV and advised that the system should be used at a minimum distance (btw i think using 2 cameras is a no-go).

    Most people are used to playing Wii/Kinect/Move, and perfectly understand the limitations of a system like this, so i don't think it's a real deal-breaker considering the benefits.


    The Reddit thing looks more like a case of "hit-and-run of the Sixense fanboys" to me, but who knows.. Not that bothered to be honest, that's why i didn't create a new Reddit post to begin with.

    Anyway most likely the decision about whether this is a good idea or not was already taken by Oculus some time ago. And in case this decision could change (or hasn't been taken already) i believe the people that should make it (Carmack, Andreessen, Mitchell, Palmer, etc) are clever enough to look at all the pros/cons, and see past Reddit's general "opinion".
    PatimPatamAuthor
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    "Lane" wrote:
    The Rift is a product, Oculus is the company. The Rift is a headset, if OVR wants to make more VR products then great, but the Rift is intended to be an HMD. They should segregate their products and plan to make them cohesive with other products in the future, perhaps as a set.

    In other words you should be able to buy the Rift, then whatever else they have, like gloves if they make them and you want them, as a separate product that can work independent of each other. VR is great and is gaining lots of traction but it hasn't footed itself enough to start building more advanced, unusual products. It may catch on and turn into some really cool stuff but these sorts of things grow in steps.

    Well yes that's the whole point of this discussion, i think Oculus VR main product should be a VR System (HMD + controls). Can't really see the problem with that if it doesn't drive the cost up by much, and many advantages.

    For me the fact that VR hasn't footed itself yet is precisely the reason why it should be sold as 1 product. With a system like this sold as a package developers could start creating incredible interactive VR wolds like the Oasis right now; if different companies tackle these issues separately it will be a long time before there are enough users that own all the pieces to justify the cost.


    To make an analogy (ok maybe not the best one): it would be like if when Apple presented their Macintosh line during the early 1980s, you needed to pay $300 extra to get a mouse from another company in order to make the most of the new GUI. Would it have been as succesful and revolutionary as it was?

    After the standard of personal computer + mouse was settled then you started having all sorts of companies making all sorts of personal computers and all sorts of mice.
    mrgreen72
    Inspiring
    January 29, 2014
    "Lane" wrote:
    In other words you should be able to buy the Rift, then whatever else they have, like gloves if they make them and you want them, as a separate product that can work independent of each other.

    I hate to be Captain Obvious, but the problem with this approach is getting software support. There are about a gazillion examples of good peripherals failing because of a lack of proper software support. The PS Move, for example.

    If everything is bundled together then the game developers know exactly what they can count on. Otherwise they risk having 12 different control methods to implement and chances are, they won't. Then, if you're lucky, you get some half-assed support via emulation. See: Razer Hydra.

    Of course, if everything is bundled together it'll be expensive and nobody will buy it...

    There's no perfect solution. It's about picking the lesser evil I guess.
    Show more replies
    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement