You will. Remember when nobody was asking for more than 640k?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Glass Jaw revealed by Steam VR test
- Thread starter MacVidCards
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You will. Remember when nobody was asking for more than 640k?
I know how dumb that SOUNDS if that was the case, not one call filed in our system (= not me personally) contains the words "virtual reality" in it. We have "thousands" of customers (since that is a measurement you used as well)
But how does VR help more than a structural drawing on a screen? How is this better in your case, or even further, a "godsend"? How can your engineers detect an error faster by just drifting about in an installation, if it's a big structure you might be looking for hours, where you can (and should) let the CAD package calculate possible issues? How can it be that the fastest way now for an engineer to look at a structure is to fly him over?
And my single point data is perhaps just as single pointed as anyone saying "me and thousands of engineers"
This point differs from Tuxon's. I could see how you can make a case for VR in combination with CAD to get a "feel" of a structure. A feel is not something a machine can get or you can easily translate to a customer. However, most of subjective human judgement can also be given by means of a drawing on the screen, there VR is still gimmicky and time-consuming instead of a tool to increase efficiency.
Anyway, I'll rest my case since my two cents are mistaken for ego. We'll see where VR is heading, I'll report in when anyone in our market jumps onto the VR bandwagon.
This is the point, you aren't the whole market. That your limited client based aren't interested doesn't mean that other aren't. As for VR vs a structural drawing on a screen... VR is 3D, a screen is 2D, if you don't even understand that difference than I guess it is hopeless for me to continue this discussion with you. You don't get full spatial relation by looking at a 2D screen, especially when there are more than one viewer.
Take for example some cooperative work:
You have two engineer working on a powerstation refection. If one want to look at the ceiling while another want to look at the floor when discussing how to install a high voltage conduit, how do you do it on a single screen. Even with two station and two screen, the lack of spatial relation to all the other equipment in the room is quite problematic. With VR, both engineer can be "virtually" in the station looking all around them and seing it all as if they were physically there, something no 2D screen can gives you. And your company also saves on the airplane ticket as a bonus.
No need to visit Egypt. I got my fill of denial from this thread.
Is there a sub forum where people get together and come up with a standard response? How do we get so many people with the same parroted response of "that's not what it was meant for" so damn quickly? Just curious how we got to this point.
And in response to the "that's not what it's built for" crowd: I don't even know where to begin... It's just a silly sentiment. The next thing you'll be telling me is that I should just use as 4-12k box for it's intended editing purposes and then go off and buy the Apple VR unit when that ships.... That's so insane. It's like you guys want to be taken advantage of.
Is there a sub forum where people get together and come up with a standard response? How do we get so many people with the same parroted response of "that's not what it was meant for" so damn quickly? Just curious how we got to this point.
And in response to the "that's not what it's built for" crowd: I don't even know where to begin... It's just a silly sentiment. The next thing you'll be telling me is that I should just use as 4-12k box for it's intended editing purposes and then go off and buy the Apple VR unit when that ships.... That's so insane. It's like you guys want to be taken advantage of.
You do realize that you create a 3D instance of your structure on a 2D screen right? No need to go search for low level stupidity. Obviously this is not about the difference between 2D and 3D.
Ok, sure.
Maybe you should read up a bit on the subject before passing judgment... Your knowledge of what VR is and its application seems to be outdated. I've been actively following it since 1992... you?
I think there is a market for VR...
NOT being a gamer, I will not talk about that.
But writing "there will ONLY be education and ...." seems for me as a big underestimation of future markets...
Education is a vast and growing market.
For architects VR will be a phantastic (not to say revolutionary) utility for working much faster and efficient.
Every Developer who works on ergonomy (simply every interface between man and machine) will use it.
And step by step VR will help to demonstrate solutions to customers.
Today you show customers 2-dimensional drawings With 3D perspective to sell appartmemts, houses yet to be constructed - or kitchens and so on. I bet, if you have 2 shops selling kitchens and one of them has VR to let the customers walk around to be sure that the kotchen fits their needs, THIS shop will win on the market.
Same for architecture, even whole big projects like buildings for enterprises and so on and on...
The more this tech will be available and affordable the VR will enter In lower level markets.
Developers ---> sellers ---> entertainment --> daily life.
Humans are highly fixed on vision to communicate with the world around.
As for visual innovation, until now, EVERY new tech has won over older ones:
Photography, film, color photography, color film, video, static 3D pictures/film.
Personally, I have no doubt that VR will enter the market in some years.
By the way: ZEISS showed already a AR device in form of simple spectacles...
And it is only a question of time until it will be VR as well...
In the Audio world this exists already: it is called Dolby 5.1 and now even 7.1
20 years ago this was only a small niche for big cinemas.... And now since 10 years
This is consumer ware...
And it is getting further using the individual HRTF for VR-audio with simple headphones or in-ears... Better VR for a fraction of the prise for a similar performing room with high- tech acoustics...
You can virtualize now every room acoustic you want to... In combination with your personal HRTF this blows Dolby away...
http://www.smyth-research.com/products.html
NOT being a gamer, I will not talk about that.
But writing "there will ONLY be education and ...." seems for me as a big underestimation of future markets...
Education is a vast and growing market.
For architects VR will be a phantastic (not to say revolutionary) utility for working much faster and efficient.
Every Developer who works on ergonomy (simply every interface between man and machine) will use it.
And step by step VR will help to demonstrate solutions to customers.
Today you show customers 2-dimensional drawings With 3D perspective to sell appartmemts, houses yet to be constructed - or kitchens and so on. I bet, if you have 2 shops selling kitchens and one of them has VR to let the customers walk around to be sure that the kotchen fits their needs, THIS shop will win on the market.
Same for architecture, even whole big projects like buildings for enterprises and so on and on...
The more this tech will be available and affordable the VR will enter In lower level markets.
Developers ---> sellers ---> entertainment --> daily life.
Humans are highly fixed on vision to communicate with the world around.
As for visual innovation, until now, EVERY new tech has won over older ones:
Photography, film, color photography, color film, video, static 3D pictures/film.
Personally, I have no doubt that VR will enter the market in some years.
By the way: ZEISS showed already a AR device in form of simple spectacles...
And it is only a question of time until it will be VR as well...
In the Audio world this exists already: it is called Dolby 5.1 and now even 7.1
20 years ago this was only a small niche for big cinemas.... And now since 10 years
This is consumer ware...
And it is getting further using the individual HRTF for VR-audio with simple headphones or in-ears... Better VR for a fraction of the prise for a similar performing room with high- tech acoustics...
You can virtualize now every room acoustic you want to... In combination with your personal HRTF this blows Dolby away...
http://www.smyth-research.com/products.html
Last edited:
Yes. And I'll bet it doesn't use DirectX 12 yet which is the point.
OpenGL on mac, and directX prior to 12 on Windows are not very good at multi-GPU. Plus, AMD drivers in general are not very good for OpenGL or pre-12 DirectX as far as driving the hardware goes, even in single GPU configurations.
Not to say that it will instantly solve all the problems, but R9 290s are performing as well or better than GTX980s in tests under directX 12 with games that support it, and getting better scores when run in pairs than a pair of 980s under Windows 10.
source: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/...lly-work-together-but-amd-still-has-the-lead/
[doublepost=1456848888][/doublepost]
Apple is pushing Metal to OS X in the last version because OpenGL is a dog - this is not news, and the same is also true of OpenGL on Windows. Yes, i hope they actually get Vulkan support as well.
Last edited:
Maybe, the reason is: It's a truck, not a racing car.
Oh, yes we all just wait for the truck manufacturer to sell an F1 engine for the truck, and we just blindly will buy it.
Sure, you're totally right.
Can you cite some real world examples where today VR is used in anything mainstream other than gaming?
How will it be useful to those who actually work with their computers.
I just don't see it.
Now pitch your tent, dust off your crystal ball and tell all ! ! !
Oh and serious gamers don't use Mac workstations for gaming!
Can you cite some real world examples where today VR is used in anything mainstream other than gaming?
How will it be useful to those who actually work with their computers.
I just don't see it.
Now pitch your tent, dust off your crystal ball and tell all ! ! !
Oh and serious gamers don't use Mac workstations for gaming!
Engineering, Medical science, Physics... just to name a few.
Education, corporate training, teleconferencing, sports entertainment, design simulation, construction prototyping, travel promotion, real estate, medical research, space exploration and on and on.
Sure thing, you'll just start skype/facetime and boom, VR? Honestly, there are a lot of hurdles before any of this is on a level which is anything near good enough of an experience. Gaming is relatively "simple" as an example but even in that field a lot of people experience motion sickness.
Also just imagine what needs to be simulated for your eyes and mind to be tricked, it will not be a smooth sale on something as experience based like travel promotion, buying a kitchen or an estate. Sure it might add a bit of a feeling perhaps, but would that make the experience as a whole really better, taking drawbacks like motion sickness in consideration?
There is no freely walking around real estate without the whole place being scanned in 3D (a 360 camera wouldnt cut it for a scan), given certain parameters after that and carefully filled in with pictures to represent colours, not even mentioning lighting (a whole other dimension to take in account). Does that sound really efficient? More efficient than, let's say, a carefully recorded promotional video highlighting the qualities of the estate? Same for a travel destination? Space exploration?
Does VR add value to a teleconference? I mean, I do not want to be the backward person here, I adopt technology that I find usefull as soon as it is on the market. I just really feel like VR is a bit like what 3D monitors were in 2008-2009; another gimmicky dimension (literally) to entertainment. A lot of people were enthousiastic like with VR now, but 8 years later 3D supporting monitors are widespread but feature usage not so much. I heard Tuxon say his piece on what he thinks it will add to engineering, I'm doubtful to be honest of the actual efficience in practice and couldnt find the arguments mentioned compelling still. (Him being an engineering-pro with thousands of engineering colleagues for a gigantic waterpower company in the US flying all over the place to see structures now because of the lack of VR, since a display just doesnt cut it apparently. Engineering is mostly getting-a-feeling-for-the-structure/space based, much less on figures, calculations, common uses and norm-values, I learned from this thread)
Could be that I am totally wrong of course, but let's see in ~6-8 years where VR stands.. I rather hope to see development in for example small semi-robotics in medical, even better error-recognition and load/pressure simulation in CAD software, development in 360 videos for tours (like YouTube is now already supporting on mobile devices), higher resolution screens with more affordable OLED technology and near life like colour representation. Again, just my opinion and hopes for future technology rather than VR.
6-8 years?
I bet VR and AR hardware and content are going to be huge starting this holiday and into the next few years.
I think it's going to be as revolutionary as the GUI.
It's the killer app for high performance desktops, laptops, tablets and phones
and will be responsible for a huge hardware upgrade cycle.
We'll see soon enough.
Last edited:
Guess what Charlie, $800 gaming GPUs aren't mainstream either yet they exist and they sell quite well. In fact Apple overpriced and under performing computers priced as they are and at around 7 or 8% market share could also be considered not being mainstream yet you aren't complaining about them.
Not everything that exist has to be geared toward your lonely little self needs. Don't worry, if you don't buy into VR somebody else will... Sheesh...
It's a huge obstacle that simply cannot be overcome. It's why 3D movies have flopped because of the same issue. The stereoscopic illusion used for 3D & VR is just that an illusion just like those Magic Eye posters. It fools the brain to an extent but it's not the same as viewing real life & the inconsistencies induce motion sickness.
[doublepost=1456990510][/doublepost]
I predict that VR is going to be as big a flop as 3D.
So your argument is that, because $800 gaming GPU exists, therefore Apple has to build computers, which support VR, although you correctly state they are not mainstream anyway.
Your argument has non-sequitor written all over it.
Wow, that is a stunning failure for Apple. How do they get away with selling overpriced junk?
What a load of crap. People and companies buy what suits their desires and their budget. How many people that buy 4x4 vehicles go off road?
Very few, but they spend all that money because that’s what they like, want and can afford.
Drop the crap car anologies.....
This is the dumbest analogy I have seen for a long time, majority of 4x4s are made for urban use and completely not suitable for off road use, it's funny you think these have anything to do with off road use lol.... Actually if you took those off road it would be dangerous, especially if u roll one.
A gaming PC is the most suitable tool for VR currently, if you have too much money, yeah but a workstation CPU/GPU, good knows why, cause a gaming PC you can over clock while a workstation you cannot....why would extra CPU/GPU grunt be useful in VR eh????
Let me guess, you would take a BMW X5 off road ? Ha ha ha.
I can guarantee you, very very very few people would buy an actual off road vechicle and use it for urban use, it is not comfortable or a joy to drive in the cities.....those that do, would actually use it off road.