Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Zuckerberg releases image of upgraded Horizon's graphics

Level 15


Since Horizon's inception, the graphics have been very simplistic. Cartoonish and flat, with less focus on visuals and more focus on functionality.


Despite how long these relatively lackluster visuals have been in place, it seems that in recent weeks a plethora of criticism received the attention of Meta. In response, Zuckerberg released a statement along with a screenshot of some of the future updated graphics we can expect to see. Aside from more realistic looking Avatars, I found the environment upgrade worth a share. 😊


"Major updates to Horizon and avatar graphics coming soon. I'll share more at Connect. Also, I know the photo I posted earlier this week was pretty basic -- it was taken very quickly to celebrate a launch. The graphics in Horizon are capable of much more -- even on headsets -- and Horizon is improving very quickly."





Not too shabby, and really looking forward to jumping back in to Horizon once these visual upgrades are in place.


Personally, I have always been able to relate to focusing on features and functionality over visuals. I've been a software dev for over 20 years, and long before there was such a thing as Facebook - or even MySpace (lol?) - most of my dev projects suffered the same approach. If I created a Desktop Application, it was a Grey Form with a White Button. If I created a Web Application, it was a White Form with a Grey Button. And all my buttons said the same thing: Click me!


The low-grade approach to visuals never bothered me, since there was so much magic behind the scenes. I've built buttons that connected global mainframes and performed QA checks for Rockets. Ugly buttons sitting on ugly backgrounds, but magical buttons nonetheless! Most of the other developers senior level developers I've encountered throughout my career had a very similar behavior with their work. Hell, some of the developers that I personally looked up to in my career didn't even bother with an interface; all their magic was executed at the Command Line.


Adding pretty graphics should always be one of the last things implemented. In fact, I typically worry when I see a new software product advertised in a way that overly highlights its visuals. That's usually a sign that there isn't anything behind the imagery that's really worth the users time. Smoke and mirrors.


Anywho, sorry for the random digression 😋


It sounds like the next Meta Connect conference will have some rather enticing reveals.


Volunteer Moderator
Volunteer Moderator

Yeah, I have a perfectly functioning Rift-S but am using my Quest 2 more for PCVR these days because it's untethered and graphically better.

I still use the Rift-S for seated long sessions because of the comfort, but now that I have 2 Quest 2's, I'll probably get a Halo type headstrap for one of them and that'll then replace the Rift-S permanently for PCVR.

Intel 5820K OC@4Ghz, Titan X (Maxwell), 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v21H2 (19044.2075)

@willxlove wrote:

 The oculus quest two is very much a mobile platform. That’s entirely the point and how I would have to say most users play on the platform.


Quest 2 is the most popular PCVR headset for nearly 2 years now (as Kojack pointed out), based on the reported Steam stats.


Your original comment seems to intentionally limit the scope of the Quest 2's capabilities in order to draw the otherwise false conclusion that Quest 2 is merely a mid-range android phone. 


Even if we were to ignore Quest 2's PCVR capabilities, it is still far more capable of immersive VR than what a mid-range android phone can produce. Did you ever try actual Mobile VR? Such as the GearVR?


Mid-range mobile VR can only achieve 3 degrees of freedom (3DoF), whereas the Quest 2 is fully capable of producing 6DoF. And that's just one of several examples we can use to illustrate the limitations of actual "mid-range android phone VR."


The differences between true MobileVR and Quest 2's VR is quite vast even when ignoring its PCVR capabilities.



@willxlove wrote:

As Meta doesn’t sell you an additional PC to go with the headset so when we were discussing power, it was based on the unit as is. Make sense?

The lack of inclusive PC is not relevant at all. The HTC Vive and Valve Index are also not sold with a PC... yet they are clearly PCVR units. The PlayStation 5 isn't sold with a television to play it on, yet it is still a console.