Skip to main content
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

    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    No. Let someone else develop it and make it optional. I'm more than happy using a controller or keyboard and mouse for gaming. If some games come out that make it worth the additional investment then maybe I'd buy one. Let Oculus focus on actually bringing the CV1 out. :)
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    That's just it - software support.

    But see - it's much easier when there's some standards. There's a standard for a gamepad controller type, for a flight stick controller type, for a racing wheel controller type, etc. You can see shitloads of different models of those, but they all fall into these categories, they are standardized. So the developer just implements a "gamepad" or "racing wheel" support and exactly what device they will use is completely irrelevant, people will just setup their own control scheme. The thing is, Razer Hydra and pals just haven't made it to the standard, and they don't seem to go in that direction either - they develop their own incompatible APIs. Instead, they should all comply to some standard API. And for modern VR controllers to take place as another "input type" category, a global API must be developed and enforced. If massive amount of VR input devices will adopt it, there will no longer be a problem with "gazillion of input devices to support". And until then, everything will be exactly as it is now - shitloads of incompatible devices who nobody bothers to support.
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    "raidho36" wrote:
    That's just it - software support.

    But see - it's much easier when there's some standards. There's a standard for a gamepad controller type, for a flight stick controller type, for a racing wheel controller type, etc. You can see shitloads of different models of those, but they all fall into these categories, they are standardized. So the developer just implements a "gamepad" or "racing wheel" support and exactly what device they will use is completely irrelevant, people will just setup their own control scheme. The thing is, Razer Hydra and pals just haven't made it to the standard, and they don't seem to go in that direction either - they develop their own incompatible APIs. Instead, they should all comply to some standard API. And for modern VR controllers to take place as another "input type" category, a global API must be developed and enforced. If massive amount of VR input devices will adopt it, there will no longer be a problem with "gazillion of input devices to support". And until then, everything will be exactly as it is now - shitloads of incompatible devices who nobody bothers to support.


    Exactly, and it seems like industries are getting on the bandwagon with the Rift. It's pretty accessible and doesn't even replace fundamental controls so the idea is for instance a gamer could go buy one and play his games that support it, but they'll just have moar awesome. Look at war thunder for one example of that scenario - plays fine without, significantly better with it and requires only a checkbox to use.

    If it was this giant VR mega-kit then nobody would adopt it as standard.

    Look at things like Leap, Hydra and Omni that are pretty amazing, but practically useless. Cool on their own but can't be adopted or used without major effort or a very specific game catered around that controller and consumers at large do not embrace them. All of them are pretty cool but if there were some big bundle of a vr setup it doesn't mean they would be more accepted. Not many people are interested in advanced hardware setups and there are many people that like simple setups and accessibility over immersion and presence. I don't know anyone with a bigass racing arcade setup in their office.
    Brevis / DevBlog Twitter
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    "Lane" wrote:
    Not many people are interested in advanced hardware setups and there are many people that like simple setups and accessibility over immersion and presence.

    So what is more simple and accessible than being able to see and control your own hands inside VR?
    Keyboard and mouse? An Xbox controller?
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    "PatimPatam" wrote:
    "Lane" wrote:
    Not many people are interested in advanced hardware setups and there are many people that like simple setups and accessibility over immersion and presence.

    So what is more simple and accessible than being able to see and control your own hands inside VR?
    Keyboard and mouse? An Xbox controller?


    Is every game going to be Surgeon Simulator now then?
    Brevis / DevBlog Twitter
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    "Lane" wrote:
    "PatimPatam" wrote:
    "Lane" wrote:
    Not many people are interested in advanced hardware setups and there are many people that like simple setups and accessibility over immersion and presence.

    So what is more simple and accessible than being able to see and control your own hands inside VR?
    Keyboard and mouse? An Xbox controller?


    Is every game going to be Surgeon Simulator now then?


    Is a Surgeon simulator the only example you can think of that a hand control input would be good for?

    How about:

    - A gun, where you can aim and shoot?
    - Some other instrument that requires you to manipulate in the virtual world (sword, fishing rod, shield, staff, HAND)
    - Simple interactions with your environment, such as pick up an object, open a door, etc...

    Not to mention that one of the most immersion breaking elements in current VR is not being able to see your hands.

    Having a control come out with the Rift, is not about saving money or anything like that. It's about letting content creators give their users the ability to properly manipulate their environment in an organic and intuitive way. Without this, it's impossible, when half your customers will have keyboard and xbox controllers. There needs to be a minimum common denominator in VR input capabilities.
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    Maybe. I own G27 racing wheel to drive iRacing. And practically, iRacing simply requires you to own a racing wheel, you won't get out of Sunday Drivers league no matter how hard you try. The game concept doesn't requires body tracking, but if it could track my hand going around the cockpit and reaching for stuff, it would be more immerive.

    Either way, yes, a megakit is what we need. Everybody WILL adopt it. Everybody adopted OpenGL and DirectX. Everybody adopted USB. Everybody adopted HDMI. Etc.
    Inspiring
    January 29, 2014
    "Lane" wrote:
    "PatimPatam" wrote:
    "Lane" wrote:
    Not many people are interested in advanced hardware setups and there are many people that like simple setups and accessibility over immersion and presence.

    So what is more simple and accessible than being able to see and control your own hands inside VR?
    Keyboard and mouse? An Xbox controller?


    Is every game going to be Surgeon Simulator now then?

    Only surgeons use their hands? ;)

    I get what you're saying and that you don't necessarily need 1:1 hands controls to play Mario Kart and whatnot but it still could be applied to a lot of gameplay scenarios outside of surgeon simulators. Aiming with a gun, opening a chest, swing a sword, grab a boob err.. bottle! I mean bottle!
    Up and Coming
    January 29, 2014
    "mrgreen72" wrote:
    Only surgeons use their hands? ;)

    I get what you're saying and that you don't necessarily need 1:1 hands controls to play Mario Kart and whatnot but it still could be applied to a lot of gameplay scenarios outside of surgeon simulators. Aiming with a gun, opening a chest, swing a sword, grab a boob err.. bottle! I mean bottle!


    ;)

    Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I am constraining its potential application for the sake of illustration, but with a controller like that it's not going to fit into nearly as many applications as the Rift and it wouldn't be as consistent/smooth in them.

    I always had an issue with that kind of freedom, even in surgeon simulator you notice that your pulling the hand somewhere doesn't always work because its stuck. That happening with gloves in the Rift would be very disorienting and confusing whereas with traditional Joystick/Mouse/Keyboard controls you always have consistent Input>Reaction mechanics and you can predict what will happen. Like if I open that chest its going to feel weird because my hand may not be going where the on screen game hand is going. I always noticed this on the Wii, it was constantly twitching things around and acting up. I wouldn't expect VR Gloves to react significantly different especially considering that most of the responsibility for good interaction would be placed on the developer.
    Brevis / DevBlog Twitter
    Inspiring
    January 29, 2014
    Yes it would have to work flawlessly that's for sure. Otherwise it's the Wiimote/Kinect uncanny valley of motion controls all over again. Motion controls can add to the experience A LOT but as soon as it doesn't do exactly what you wanted to do you say fuck that and you grab back your controller.

    But for the sake of discussion, let's assume we're talking about flawless hand controls. ;)