cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Scale and the "zero one infinity" principle

JakemanOculus
Heroic Explorer
The computer scientists among us will have heard of the ZOI principle of software design:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_one_infinity_rule

I always think about this principle when considering the problem of physical scale in VR.

Zero:
A stationary experience.  Typically seated or standing.

One:
Room scale.  Or more generally any tethered experience.  This can be a wired tether (Oculus / Vive) or a wireless tether (Vive Pro).  Either way you can physically walk around but you are limited by the length of the tether.

Infinity:
Stand-alone VR with inside out tracking (Oculus Santa Cruz).  This is tetherless 6DoF, not to be confused with a wireless tether.

I feel like many people are confused within the scope of One in VR.  Let's say you have two VR systems, a 10x10 room scale wired tether and a 50x50 room scale wireless tether.  People look at the 50x50 system and argue that it is hugely better than the 10x10 system.  But it isn't better.  Not at all.  10x10 is functionally identical to 50x50 for all intentions of VR applications.

Software applications must assume the general case.  If you are creating a room scale application then you are going to assume the smallest common room size which in this case is 10x10.  Not only that, but in many cases the contention between physical and virtual scale is going to result in a stationary experience despite the room scale ability.  There are so many room scale games where the real world experience is a stationary one.  Physical movement is basically worthless unless the virtual scale is extremely limited (ie 10x10) such that you can physically move through the entire virtual space.  If any part of the virtual space doesn't fit in your physical room (95% of room scale games) then you will end up with a stationary experience.

All Ones are the same.  You have one arbitrarily-sized room.  No additional value is gained by having bigger rooms.  The next value proposition is only realized at Infinity.
21 REPLIES 21

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
This is the first time I have seen the Zero one or infinity (ZOI) rule applied to virtual reality.
Was this your original idea or did you see it somewhere?
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

JakemanOculus
Heroic Explorer

kevinw729 said:

This is the first time I have seen the Zero one or infinity (ZOI) rule applied to virtual reality.
Was this your original idea or did you see it somewhere?


my idea

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
Any basis that the rule will work from a business position, or is it just a theory towards the best practise in establishing consumer VR? 
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

JakemanOculus
Heroic Explorer

kevinw729 said:

Any basis that the rule will work from a business position, or is it just a theory towards the best practise in establishing consumer VR? 


The principle is basically a recommendation of best practice.  For example, you will probably never see a VR system advertised as "2x room scale".  That is clearly a stupid idea.

My application of the principle is a little different though.  I am using it to group all room scale systems into a single value proposition.  With that grouping there is no additional value gained by increasing the size of the room, or by going wireless.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP
It is really great to see you back on the forums, Jakeman.

Agreed 100% on this analysis, and in fact, this is essentially what has driven my own System Development practices since I employ Relational Databases - which adhere to the strict "1-to-Many" and "Many-to-Many" relationships between Entities. This is a concept that very much coincides with the ZOI principle.

Interestingly enough, throughout my career I have encountered what I refer to as "bad developers" who are either unable or unwilling to conform to Relational Database design (when appropriate), and their logic very much parallels  those whom (as you mention here) believe that 50x50 is better than 10x10.

In my case, developers think that a single 100 column table with a large amount of duplicate records is better than a more refined and controlled Relational design.

The outcome tends to be quite similar:
  1. Relational Designs drive some of the most dominant systems on the market.
  2. The VR company who remained focused on a smaller space is currently the market leader on a global scale.

Sorry for the obvious left-field comparison, but your post really brought out my inner geek.

JakemanOculus
Heroic Explorer
My day job is DBA.  I feel u brother.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

JakemanOculus said:
....

The principle is basically a recommendation of best practice.  For example, you will probably never see a VR system advertised as "2x room scale".  That is clearly a stupid idea.

My application of the principle is a little different though.  I am using it to group all room scale systems into a single value proposition.  With that grouping there is no additional value gained by increasing the size of the room, or by going wireless.



Thank you for the clarification of how you see this as a best practise or standardised framework approach. Gave me some interesting reflection - appreciate you elaborating on this.

You may be aware my main focus in Out-of-Home entertainment, and you may know of the inroads to what we call 'Arena-scale' (also known as free-roaming) VR attraction experiences. We have described three different approaches to the Arena-Scale principle in our sector but from looking at your proposal I can see a convergence. 

If ever free would like to discuss this further with you via PM.

Thanks again.
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

JakemanOculus
Heroic Explorer

kevinw729 said:
If ever free would like to discuss this further with you via PM.


I love good critical discussion.  PM me any time.

Arena would basically be one massive room.  If the virtual world fits in the arena, great!  If not then obviously bad.

At "arena scale" you are probably increasing the value proposition a bit.  It's still not a good general case, but your application sounds like it might not be a general case.  A "VR attraction" at that scale can probably seek out specific applications to fit.  I envision a virtual dodgeball arena.

I think my application of ZOI is more intended for makers of general purpose VR systems.  Example, I see the Vive Pro and I'm like... who cares it's still room scale so it's the same value proposition.  But it sounds like you are creating a specific VR application.  That is a different ballgame.  Your system can be much more purposed than the general case.

WreckLuse68
Heroic Explorer
I am not the sharpest tool in the VR box so please excuse my ignorance but this is an incredibly interesting conversation (it was something that always bothered me about the Star Trek Holodecks lol) but could these treadmill devices go a little way to providing a larger virtual play area in a smaller real-world space?
Again...excuse my ignorance.
When Einstein was asked how it felt to be the smartest man on Earth, he replied, “I wouldn’t know. Ask Nikola Tesla”.