cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

What is the "Optimal" Virtual Reality Experience/Future

Markystal
Explorer
I've been dancing around this question a bit in my VR musings and at this point, I think just plain old getting a discussion on the matter would be of some value. To start, I posit the question: "How do we want to experience virtual reality?" With gaming, movies, and other such media, we have a set of well defined, standard user interfacing systems. With games, people frequently sight the console gaming couch, gamepad, and TV. Movies have their theatres (home or cinema), and reading has the book and web article. So where does VR stand?

Right now, I see VR in a giant tornado of interfacing options, peripherals, and sci fi madness. Oculus has made their effort by positing the Oculus Rift as a seated experience, yet things like PrioVR, the Kinect, Leap Motion, or in other words, motion controls don't seem compatible with this line of thinking. I think we need to get things sorted out ahead of time right now before things get too out of hand and we risk damaging VR on the lines of motion controls, gaming's last big "innovation" that currently has the reputation of the Virtual Boy with "core" gamers.

In my opinion, I think the best route for virtual reality is a stationary, private system/pod/safe environment just for one user with a brain computer interface for preferably controls and immersion. The alternatives just don't add up to me.

Motion controls in the way we're currently trying to shoe horn into virtual reality and have been using in past years, seems counter intuitive. Think about it, what games work best with the Kinect? Typically, many people would say dance and fitness games right? Fundamentally, these are full body, ENCLOSED SPACE activities. Dancing is usually done indoors in club or party, a la the theme of most dance games, and fitness games tend to work best with their dance like or yoga based activities which yet again, don't require a lot of space. The enclosed space inherent to most optically based motion control systems don't mesh well with the very exploratory, high space necessitating gaming experiences most gamers crave (traversing, engaging with, and changing massive virtual worlds). Even room to room scale activities are too big for most people in real life. Newer, wearable based motion controls increase the mobility, but now bring into the fore that larger open spaces aren't infinite and will eventually bring hazards into the fore. With our heads in a virtual world, these can't be accounted for. Thus, I've concluded that motion controls are really best if left to the realm of Augmented Reality rather than virtual reality.

Game pads also don't sit well with me as a good alternative in the realm of controls as they tend to lend themselves to an almost ludonarrative dissonance-esque issue where our actions to control our avatar don't mesh with what we're doing. Even then, game pads are nowhere near capable of providing us controls that allow us to enjoy Virtual Reality for all it's capable of (god like workflow (literally), IRL replacment, sex, lightsaber battles, matrix, etc.) Not to mention that this would drastically limit the mass market appeal of VR as it's nowhere near as intuitive as things like touch screens, motion controls and BCI's can be.

As for the experiencing of the VR world, I think this is the one area where a surface brain/spinal cord stimulation is the only practical method possible that doesn't involve either surgery, matrix pods, or millions of nanobots. The rift and headphones are certainly good enough in my opinion for sight and sound, but the question remains on what we'll do for the rest of the senses (mechanoreception, smell, taste, thermoception, nocioception, proprioception, kinesthesia, etc.) No matter how much musing I do, the only thing I can think of in this region would be full body VR suit, but I think that people are troubled enough as it is just getting a rift and headphone on, let alone adding in things like and EEG, EOG, and now a full on outfit (likely a skin tight onesee with built in slippers and gloves...). I'm pretty sure scuba diving didn't become a popular pastime during it's giant Bioshock suit era.

Well, those are my overly long thoughts, it'd be great if we could get more input in on the matter. Perhaps people will open up to the idea of brain chips, implants and nanobots in the future and I'm just being to closed minded. Share the goods everyone. Glory on the path to the VR Paradise.

TL;DR
- How do you want to use VR in the future (BCI, HMD, Helmet, Brain chip, Hive-mind, cyberspace, mind upload, holodeck, anyhow, etc)
- Where do you want to use VR in the future (On the go, at home, private room, booth, VR cafe, life support pod, anywhere, etc)
- Who do you want to use VR in the future (set individuals, children, adults, licensed people, AI, families/communities together, anyone, etc)
- What do you want VR to be used for (Medicine, Entertainment, Education, Military, Productivity, anything)
20 REPLIES 20

Astrocyte
Honored Guest
Lots to think about!

Well, to take your first question, I think we will want to experience VR in all the ways you mention, and probably many others that haven't been thought of yet. I suspect that there will be an increasing market for "be me" type experiences as the tech gets better and integrates more sensory systems over subsequent generations (" I'll be you in the rift"!). And, if this lets us experience what it's like to be another (see early steps of this at, http://www.themachinetobeanother.org), that can be a powerful thing for good, although the darker side of humanity will sadly benefit too. Right now though I agree that motion controllers and game pads are not ideal for exploring VR, but, they may be useful as stopgaps until something better comes along. I don't know what that is, but necessity is often the mother of invention.

EEG is far to crude a technique to be a viable means of a brain machine interface. Movement and ambient electrical interference are also serious issues to contend with. Right now, Brain chip interfaces are problematic for a host of reasons. Aside from being technically challenging (no computer chip can equal the computing power of a neuron), anything that involves actually opening the head comes with serious medical risks, including infection and brain damage. As we are some ways from understanding how the brain creates complex subjective experiences, I don't see these being chipped any time soon. But, I'm confident that stepping stone achievements will be made before the holy grail is reached. See for example this: http://www.natalneuro.org.br/imprensa/pdf/2013-02-financial-times-telepathic-rats-solve-problems-tog.... Still, as most of these are likely to be highly invasive for some time yet, I don't see widespread adoption.

Another problem is that each brain is to some extent unique, so what works for one person will likely not work optimally for another ( at the least this will require neuroscans and adaptive AI). Unfortunately, the brain is not plug and play. However, if we could tap (hijack) and manipulate the raw sensory streams into the CNS, we may be able to fool the brain more easily within a VR environment. One may not need a suit to do this if it was possible to communicate directly with peripheral and possibly cranial nerves, see for example work using transcranial pulsed ultrasound. But even then this is challenging and risky, as any malfunction could have serious consequences.

Currently, all we can do is cherish reality whilst enjoying what VR has to offer. Maybe one day though, VR will be more like lucid dreaming. Funny, none of us get motion sick in dreams....

Markystal
Explorer
Fascinating insight Astrocyte. I actually concur that such there is certainly a market for getting to see the world throuogh the lens of others. Honestly, I think that's going to lead to a revolution in the development of films in so far that it will allow people to experience exactly what the director wants them to feel. All of a sudden, a director would now have the power to craft an entire life that others can experience. Add on to that the valuable philosophical and a social questions that can be explored with the technology. The nature of qualia, the expansion of sympathy, the possibilities are endless and I certainly hope that a metaverse or cyberspace can be used to help people truly interface with each other with genuine communication of feelings rather than our current methods that can be misconstrued.

On the note of EEGs, I can agree without a doubt that their current state isn't right for virtual reality controls, but I actually think that further development, optimization, computational improvements, and data can help us craft it to be a technology that can meet the required purpose. I don't think complete mind reading would be something achievable with EEGs, but something more along the lines of reliable muscle coordination tracking could be inferred if we examine the current "noise" that's plaguing the data. I may be mistaken on the nature of some of EEGs issues, but I recall reading somewhere that EEG suffers from latency due to data processing and the noise that even slight movements of the head can create. I'd actually like to further examine this due to the possibility that this noise could be tied to motor event related potentials that could be attributed to precise actions if we use EMGs, EKGs, and EOGs to track the occurrence of particular actions. Processing wise, I suppose that Moore's law may give us hope (though admittedly that is scheduled to die off within this decade/century which could put a damper on things), but in the event that this doesn't work, I think optimizing the EEG approach would be the best route I can see now. If another, better method comes about that is easily implantable and or non invasive, by all means I'll be the first to sign up and through my wallet around for a test run (not that the wallet is that heavy...). Personally, I'm not sure I fancy the idea of direct brain implants of chips just yet. I don't want my to modify my body in any way until I'm sure that the change renders the body obsolete.

On your note of the differences between brains, this is one region where I think some kind of calibration process will be required as you're right, every brain and by extension, everyone is different. Hijacking the central neural system is probably a necessary part of developing the optimal BCI. I honestly think that the part of the body we aren't paying enough attention to is the surrounding nerves that lead into the spinal cord. Peripheral nerves are capable of regeneration and even the spinal cord itself has seen some progress in the realm of regeneration in labs. Though, direct neural interfaces do imply we want direct access to the brain so in a way, so you're probably right to note the need to tread carefully. I spent a bit of yesterday researching the anime Sword Art Online's Nerve Gear interface for a video and found that the cited method the story mentioned (microwaves) would likely result in blindness frequently, before doing what the show displayed in cooking the brain, and by extension the user to death. Well, I suppose that's what research and discussions are for. To help put the questions on the table and help us get closer to a solution. Honestly your TPU suggestion, and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), Transscranial Electrotherapy and Nanobots seem to be the only technologies that can get the desired effect. At this point, I'm more than comfortable with just having something of a hybrid between a complete BCI and series of natural body pathway immersion systems for my own VR solutions in the near future.

Thanks for the information. I hope we can get a bit more weighing in on the actual experience part of the system rather than the development. I'm trying to think more along the lines of how people will use this stuff rather than stuff itself. I'm pretty sure most people don't want their friends drawing all over them, taking pictures of them, or to be burned to death in a housefire due to VR immersion. On a similar line, I'm pretty sure that using VR on the go is about as smart as sleeping on the go, if not worse due to the lack of worldly connections.

cerebral
Honored Guest
The problem with nerve interfaces is obviously the surgical expense.
So what would need to change.
Well, i think in 2-3 decades most of the work that is now done by humans will be done by robots/AI.(if we like)
That means mass unemployement(50-70%). Society is shifting more and more to an academic society.
That means many more surgeons, thus peripheral nerve interfaces become affordable.
Problem solved. HA!

Astrocyte
Honored Guest
"Markystal" wrote:
Fascinating insight Astrocyte. The nature of qualia, the expansion of sympathy, the possibilities are endless and I certainly hope that a metaverse or cyberspace can be used to help people truly interface with each other with genuine communication of feelings rather than our current methods that can be misconstrued.


I certainly hope so to. But, it will largely depend on how we implement and (where appropriate) monitor such a metaverse/cyberspace construct. Career trolls, whilst a minority, can cause a disproportionate amount of trouble for everyone through their relentless bullying and abuse (these are often people with a serious personality disorder). Just look at the problems this forum has had with "trolling" over the Easter weekend. Now imagine this happening in VR. The potential for psychological harm with VR is very real, and we all need to consider how people can be best protected in the future.

EEG whilst useful in some contexts, has several issues that optimization and computational improvements can only take us so far in solving. Your right that mind reading using EEG is impossible. As a measure of post-synaptic neural activity, the strongest advantage to using EEG is that it has excellent temporal resolution (i.e. millisecond-range resolution which is not possible with CT or MRI). For this reason derivatives of the EEG technique such as Event-Related Potentials (ERPs), which involve recording neural activity time-locked to the presentation of a stimulus (i.e. visual, somatosensory, or auditory), are useful for answering certain types of questions in cognitive neuroscience research. However, such responses need to be averaged over many hundreds of trials, and this takes time and significant computational resources to accomplish, so yes, there is latency in this regard. The main disadvantage of EEG is its poor spatial resolution. Even though in most cases, high density arrays are essential if one is going to have a sensible estimate of where particular signals are coming from in the brain, there is always the problem that voltages spread out across the scalp and thus, become blurred. Using computational algorithms can correct for this, but only so much. In addition, the best systems also need a small amplifier in each electrode in order to help with the problem of ambient electrical noise. Your correct that slight movements of the head can create artifacts in the data. I'd also add to that jaw clenching, eye-blinks and movement from the body generally. All these cause artifacts that usually need to be removed during the pre-processing stage before one can get useful data to play with. I don't know much about using EEG, EMGs, EKGs, and EOGs to track the occurrence of particular body actions, but it would be interesting to try. But, I would expect the signal to noise ratio to be a variable thing depending on what the actions were, what environment one was in, the degree of adipose tissue (fat) and, what type of electrode setup one was using. The ambient temperature may also be an issue as sweating often causes changes in skin conductivity. Processing wise, I really think it depends on how well today's basic quantum computers scale up in the longer-term. This could potentially take us beyond Moore's law, but currently, hard evidence is scarce in terms of the relative advantages of such systems over conventional computers. I'd like to think that in the future, we could harness the computational power of biological neural networks (perhaps even our brains) for rendering virtual environments, but that is some pipe dream at present! 😉 . I agree with Palmer that input devices will need to allow two way real-time communication. This is a significant challenge when one considers brain machine interfaces, or indeed muscle/nerve rift interfaces.

TMS is an interesting approach to brain stimulation, but, its effectiveness varies across people. One factor which affects the fidelity of TMS is differences accross people with respect to cortical folding patterns. Also, currently most TMS systems cannot hit deep into the brain, so their application is restricted to outer cortical layers. I am aware that people are experimenting with different shaped electromagnetic coils, but not sure how these fare in terms of stimulation depth. As I don't see technology surpassing biological neural tissue for some time, I agree that at this point, I'd rather stick with non-invasive technologies! Thinking of how people will use this stuff rather than stuff itself is of value. For real immersion I suspect that one will have to find ways of dimming awareness of the body and its immediate environment. But, as you point out, most people don't want to be burned to death in a house-fire whilst in VR! So, in very immerse environments good monitoring via A.I. is going to be central to safely, although that is a big ask since multiple fail safe protocols would need to be present before most people would even consider it. And, what if you cheese that A.I off? I agree that VR on the go is unwise, but AR through the rift may be a different matter if it is sufficiently un-entrusive. For that to happen though the rift will have to shrink to little more than eye glasses, and, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

"cerebral" wrote:
The problem with nerve interfaces is obviously the surgical expense.


Its not just a matter of expense in so much as what is also technically possible, particularly with non-invasive technologies. For most A.I., surgical or not, human supervision is likely to stay a significant feature for some time to come I think. Even then, I suspect that many people will prefer to be treated by a human, unless of course it becomes impossible for most people to know for sure that the "person" they are talking to is not human....

Fascinating discussion from both of you. Thankyou! 😄

Markystal
Explorer
Astrocyte wrote:
But, it will largely depend on how we implement and (where appropriate) monitor such a metaverse/cyberspace construct.

I agree with you one hundred percent. I recall being mortified by these kinds of issues several a while back because of the sheer severity this technology could have on some levels (for every good, an equal bad). The situation of Easter was quite lamentable and I certainly hope that we can figure out ways to fix this in the future. The true terror I can imagine is people hacking other people's simulations and causing true havoc on an experiential level. How does one quantify VR torture or rape on a legal and social scale? These are the nightmares that VR enthusiasts and pioneers will have to face if we want to bring out the mediums true potential.
http://kotaku.com/dying-woman-uses-oculus-rift-to-go-outside-one-last-tim-1565687625
This link truly pulled at my heart strings yesterday and further solidified my resolve to make VR prosper. The darkside may be dark for social VR, but it's bright is so massive, I feel that it's worth fighting for to the bitter end. I'm actually hoping that the next season of the show Sword Art Online includes their "Mother's Rosario" arc that deals somewhat in a non game use for the technology that is similarly sweet so the younger generation can get a bit of taste of that idea along side the entertainment factor that many are currently fans of. Good to take a look from time to time at the non game uses the tech has, even at this stage.

On the note of the EEG usage, I'll be honest in that even I think it's a stretch. Up to this point last week even I was still doubtful, but I've garnered a renewed interest thanks to hearing that a good bit of the latency comes from the processing, which I think can be dealt with depending on how much power we throw on it. I actually found an interesting document (see link below) where some researchers attempted to do just what I described in detecting muscle coordination (wrist and finger movements) in the EEG and if I'm reading it right, managed to prove it possible to identify between the two. This also brought to mind that Emotiv, the company right now that's most known for trying to bring EEG control to the consumer space with their EPOC, EEG, and Insight product lines seems to be using a similar approach to figure out certain facial actions the user is performing (right winks, left winks). In terms of information, my own VR rig set up design intends to keep track of this data constantly during play and record it to update calibration systems for accurate play. A las, this is still mainly a hypothesis at this point and I'll want to do some personal testing on the matter later this year to get a better grasp of my thoughts on the matter. I'll probably share the results on this forum on the section for the input thread I put up or on the thread I made in regards to my VR rig for this year.

Now sensory stimulation/immersion is one area where I'm am genuinely just plain stumped. I've looked up every method I could possibly find on the matter, none of which bear the kinds of results I think many of us are looking for. I'm going to spend some time researching every possible approach I can find before I make a conclusion, but honestly, I think we're going to need either a genius to appear in coming years, breakthrough in the understanding of the brain and nervous system, breakthrough in non invasive body interaction, and or just plain luck. Who knows, 2 out of those four may come about in the field of medicine and us VR enthusiasts will just have to catch it should it happen. Otherwise, I've got nothing. I'm not even sure implants will be able to achieve the kind of fidelity we're looking for, to note your point Cerebral.

As a general rule of thumb, I've actually already determined that creating VR that can work as a plug and play solution for anyone is to much a stretch in these early days and would be best left till VR matures. In the mean time, I'm dedicating my efforts to having VR grow in a steady progression and figuring out methods to tailor suit designs to specific people. Even my own rig design will probably have a lengthy calibration process involving body scans, synchronization tests, and execution prompts. Admittedly, part of this is fueled by my own personal desire to enjoy SAO/The Matrix/Log Horizon/ Ready Player One/etc before everyone else get's a shot 😄

Astrocyte wrote:
Fascinating discussion from both of you. Thankyou! 😄

Likewise! I'm loving this discussion and your points have been enlightening. 😄

EEG Paper:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1108/1108.5250.pdf

MrMonkeybat
Explorer
Full body tracking would be good but the lack of tactile feedback will sometimes limit imersion, if you dont invent forcefields or tractor beams for holodeck type interaction the only route to full tactile feedback would be a complete robotic exoskeleton, which would be expensive.

Despite being quite keen on VR and games I think you would have a difficult time convincing me to risk implants. I asked Steve Perlman whever with the right frequencies Pcells could be made small enough to to read and stimulate individual nerve fibers wirelessly he refused to comment but kind of hinted it might be posible Directly contoling nerves you could not only experience virtual places but virtual bodies, try out being a lion or dragon etc. Or robots in hazardous enviroments

Astrocyte
Honored Guest
" Markystal " wrote:
The true terror I can imagine is people hacking other people's simulations and causing true havoc on an experiential level. How does one quantify VR torture or rape on a legal and social scale? These are the nightmares that VR enthusiasts and pioneers will have to face if we want to bring out the mediums true potential.


Thanks for your thoughtful reply :D. I imagine that there are all sorts of issues to be explored with respect to VR and self-identity, and by extension, identity theft. Considering these issues now before one is able to easily use a life-like avatar within a VR environment will help people to prepare (at least that is my hope). SIM personification has a number of interesting psychological and technical dimensions. For example, on the tech side we need low error facial recognition algorithms for delivering real-time non-verbal information in VR (not an easy task!). Also, the ‘uncanny valley’ issue, something which may well be strong enough to perturb some people from using a personalised SIM (at least until they become realistic enough to be visually indistinguishable from life). On the psychological side, one would expect an owner to identify more with a very realistic SIM, although the threshold for this will likely vary from person-to-person. But, since some people get touchy now when another person deliberately uses the same online name and avatar in a web forum, one can imagine what will happen when that person has their SIM identity stolen (I’m assuming preventative security as rigorous as that used for on-line banking would be a necessary here). I’m no lawyer, but I also agree 100% that quantifying VR torture or rape would be complex. As these sickening real-life crimes often mean that a victim cannot escape the situation, this aspect is more complex in VR, particularly if a SIM has been hijacked. But, broadly speaking, I would expect VR to be covered by current laws regarding online interactions, although trolling is clearly a grey area. New legislation will of course be needed as the field matures and threats are identified. It also remains an open question as to the extent to which frequent use of a personalised SIM would induce depersonalisation effects, especially if the SIM becomes an ‘idealised’ version of the self rather than a faithful reproduction. I’m thinking that this could be particularly dangerous territory for someone with say, body dimorphic syndrome. I hope that any downside to VR will be surpassed by the mediums true potential for good. But, we will need safeguards to encourage people to engage with reality, not withdraw from it. Personally, I find mindfulness meditation to be of great help, but that’s just me. If done right, I’m hopeful that people will come to cherish reality more, as VR is likely to remain an imperfect experience for some time to come. Yes, I see potential for VR if one is unable to have a particular ‘real’ experience due to illness. See also https://developer.oculusvr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7980

Thanks for the link on the EEG paper, it looks interesting and I will read it 😄 . Here’s one you may like on Transcranial Pulsed Ultrasound: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0896627310003764/1-s2.0-S0896627310003764-main.pdf?_tid=314dbdb6-cb3e-11e3-ab...

" Markystal " wrote:
In terms of information, my own VR rig set up design intends to keep track of this data constantly during play and record it to update calibration systems for accurate play. A las, this is still mainly a hypothesis at this point and I'll want to do some personal testing on the matter later this year to get a better grasp of my thoughts on the matter. I'll probably share the results on this forum on the section for the input thread I put up or on the thread I made in regards to my VR rig for this year.


I look forward to hearing about that! 🙂 I also agree that we will need a genius to appear in coming years as well as major breakthroughs in the understanding of the brain and in particular, how subjective experiences cascade through the brains neural-glial networks. On that, my personal view is that consciousness is probably what it feels like when information is processed in a particular (integrated) way. If interested see an excellent article on this at: http://www.architalbiol.org/aib/article/view/15056/23165867

" mrmonkeybat " wrote:
Full body tracking would be good but the lack of tactile feedback will sometimes limit imersion, if you dont invent forcefields or tractor beams for holodeck type interaction the only route to full tactile feedback would be a complete robotic exoskeleton, which would be expensive.


Great to hear your thoughts 🙂 . I’m not holding my breath for forcefields or tractor beams though! But interesting work being is being done by Japanese scientists using sound waves to levitate objects, so who knows! Not familiar with how Pcells could read/stimulate individual nerve fibres. At the least I think one would need some sort of interface devise on the nerve to start with relaying impulse data. However, I’m thinking this tech may be useful for helping high density electrode arrays (used in some EEG studies) to be wireless, which would be a great help! Personally I’m also hoping that synthetic biology will one day enable novel proteins to be incorporated into biological tissues allowing them to interface more easily with non-invasive stimulation tech.

Markystal
Explorer
Astrocyte wrote:
I imagine that there are all sorts of issues to be explored with respect to VR and self-identity, and by extension, identity theft. Considering these issues now before one is able to easily use a life-like avatar within a VR environment will help people to prepare

Ah yes, this is actually one of those issues that hits really close to home on me on quite a few levels. Me and a friend actually plan on doing a webcomic on that issue one day, but that's a story for another time. In the now, the degree in which VR will impact the current already difficult matter of a digital identity will probably be more profound than many of us anticipate. I often pondered as I work on my current project how the hub worlds (Sanctuaries) I design would impact the player experience. One of the interesting questions I began to ask myself is how VR will change people's treatment of digital value. With current interaction methods, we don't really apply much value to digital files. We delete, rewrite, create and copy them with little thought placed into the acts and observe our online statistics with a very loose sense of value. With VR however, these seemingly meaningless data values can gain a whole new dimension (literally) of meaning to us. The trophies you get on PSN or the model viewers many games feature may now become a lot more meaningful as their experience to us is reminiscent to that we have in real life. Will I gaze upon my damaged in game custom weapon model with the same care I'd place into a real tool? Could I gaze upon the world of an RPG I've finished with a more heartfelt set of eyes rather than seeing it as only another save file? These questions are the ones that I want VR perfected to answer as they'll allow for a great deal of personal introspection on the part of those who take the digital plunge.

Astrocyte wrote:
But, we will need safeguards to encourage people to engage with reality, not withdraw from it.

This may actually be the very first big issue to face the coming VR medium. As with all VR mediums before it, VR will probably get a lot of negative press and be targeted for "its" negative impacts on society, as movies, comics, cartoons and video games before them. But at the same time, this is one case where I think the opposing side may unfortunately have more credibility than in the past. Training to kill in Call of Duty is absurd, but in a VR military sim? The military certainly doesn't think so. Add in the social dogmas VR will challenge to this could very will significantly impact how people even perceive virtual reality to begin with. Will it cause a wave of cultural understanding and empathy the likes of which we've never seen, or suffer the same fate as the internet before it and be tainted by the world instead. I stutter to think about what the "addiction" crowd will have to deal to this industry as games still face this issue on some level (Recently there's a story circulating about a man that killed their infant child to keep playing games/using their console). Full on VR could actually be so tantalizing that people choose to forsake their real lives and identities entirely and immerse themselves in their own little bubbles. I even suspect many of us here on this forum probably have had this question on our minds at some point, I know it certainly doesn't want/"can't" to leave mine any time soon. (can't because my current project has dealing with the question of self identity and purpose at the core of it's design)

mrmonkeybat wrote:
Full body tracking would be good but the lack of tactile feedback will sometimes limit imersion, if you dont invent forcefields or tractor beams for holodeck type interaction the only route to full tactile feedback would be a complete robotic exoskeleton, which would be expensive.


Indeed. It's this very issue that keeps bringing me back to tactile feedback research even though I already know it's going to be a head ache to deal with. For now, even my own rig only has a light implementation of haptics for the purpose of identifying some stimuli, but I'm going into more depth on the matter right now to possibly invent my own solution. I'm currently thinking Sensory Substitution mapping, though I'll probably do a new thread for something like that or add an additional post here or in the general discussion forum. Hmm, this is almost making me think we may need a subsection for sensory immersion on the forum. For now, this is good enough for me. Also, I can concur on the whole exoskeleton cost issue. For a little while I was actually convinced this was the best route in the near term, but after realizing just how annoying a vibration motor filled suite would be to construct and how uncomfortable it would probably be to wear (skin tight, one piece pajamas with foots, toes, fingers and head), I quickly realized that no amount of haptics would get me to wear something like that every day, let alone the market.

Great stuff everyone. This has really reminded me of just how much there really is to the concept of VR as a whole. I'd been thinking in a more physical "How do I want to go into VR? Matrix needle or Nerve Gear" sense, but this discussion as a whole has reminded me that the entirety of the VR OS, Interface, Software, Social etiquette and Experience are just as important towards the question of "What is the optimal virtual reality experience/future?" It an absolute pleasure. 😄

Astrocyte
Honored Guest
"Markystal" wrote:
One of the interesting questions I began to ask myself is how VR will change people's treatment of digital value. With current interaction methods, we don't really apply much value to digital files. We delete, rewrite, create and copy them with little thought placed into the acts and observe our online statistics with a very loose sense of value. With VR however, these seemingly meaningless data values can gain a whole new dimension (literally) of meaning to us. The trophies you get on PSN or the model viewers many games feature may now become a lot more meaningful as their experience to us is reminiscent to that we have in real life. Will I gaze upon my damaged in game custom weapon model with the same care I'd place into a real tool? Could I gaze upon the world of an RPG I've finished with a more heartfelt set of eyes rather than seeing it as only another save file? These questions are the ones that I want VR perfected to answer as they'll allow for a great deal of personal introspection.


Indeed, I agree, and I think it will change the way we see digital files. I read somewhere that there are museums dedicated to preserving forms of digital art, so I wonder if we will include some types of VR programs in that also. Maybe various design stages of some future VR classics so that one could directly experience the programs evolution over time. That would be neat! We do this with other media such as books for example, where the various versions of a script charts the progress of the author in crafting the final product. I think that once we start to experience virtual objects in tactile visceral ways (as opposed to abstract), they will likely acquire a different meaning to us. An object in VR may appear real, especially if that is reinforced by haptic feedback. Thus, we may come to treat a VR object in a similar way to the real world equivalent. This will be particularly fun to explore in terms of social interactions in VR which like most real world ones, will embodied Experiences. On hepatic feedback, check out this link to an article on Ultrahaptics!

http://www.technology-review.com/news/526651/using-ultrasound-to-feel-virtual-objects/

"Markystal" wrote:
. Full on VR could actually be so tantalizing that people choose to forsake their real lives and identities entirely and immerse themselves in their own little bubbles.


Although each of us is already lost in our own sensory world, I think you may have a point there. Time will tell I guess. What interests me is also how skills acquired in VR will translate into real world actions. Also, whether partaking in a VR education environment will be as effective as partaking in a real world one. I read recently that some people seem to absorb less info from reading things on a LCD screen relative to having real paper, but will this prove to be the case in VR, particularly if we are using OLED?

As always, a pleasure to discus these topics! 😄