-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
HoloLens game "Project X-Ray" shown off, similar to Magic Leap demo video
- Thread starter Dreamwriter
- Start date
"And here is the super heavy stabilized 4K RED steadycam with custom tracking solution that will show you how it will look like from another person's POV with unrestricted FOV and not in your hololens display."
LOL
EDIT: why is the player moving super careful in slowmotion and why does the environment look like a tracking dream come true with 90 degree angles everywhere and clean surfaces without any stray lighting?
LOL
EDIT: why is the player moving super careful in slowmotion and why does the environment look like a tracking dream come true with 90 degree angles everywhere and clean surfaces without any stray lighting?
It's not that bad - Microsoft released a video actually showing the visible area, and people who have tried it said it looked pretty accurate (aside from letterboxing the video)
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3856064/holo2.0.gif)
I bet it's actually a bit less limiting than that IRL when you can look around and see whatever you want.
Still hoping it's better further down the line.
Dreamwriter
Member
Microsoft said it was going to be better in the final device, but not much better. I'm hoping Magic Leap has a better field of view, assuming it ever gets officially announced.
J
JeremyEtcetera
Unconfirmed Member
It's not that bad - Microsoft released a video actually showing the visible area, and people who have tried it said it looked pretty accurate (aside from letterboxing the video)
Can't wait for the next generations of this tech. I'm seeing the benefits of studies and design rather than with gaming.
No it's MR Mixed Reality.
1. Product will come out for consumers and it will sell a lot.
2. It will be cool to try some demo games for a little bit.
3. Novelty wears off soon.
4. Next version comes out but people won't care anymore.
5. Product will be abandoned by devs shortly after.
6. Microsoft will insist you NEED it to stay alive.
7. Microsoft will abandon it shortly after.
8. Microsoft releases their own VR solution.
2. It will be cool to try some demo games for a little bit.
3. Novelty wears off soon.
4. Next version comes out but people won't care anymore.
5. Product will be abandoned by devs shortly after.
6. Microsoft will insist you NEED it to stay alive.
7. Microsoft will abandon it shortly after.
8. Microsoft releases their own VR solution.
It's a shitty pic but it conveys the FOV a lot more clearly than that screenshot from the official video that people keep dreaming about.
Human FOV: I made a panorama of what my eyes can see when I look straight ahead.
VR: I plotted a 90 degree angle from where I was standing and widened it about 10% to approximate the 100-110 degree FOV of the Rift CV1 and Vive respectively. I could have widened it more for Vive but it's more of an average.
Hololens: I held my hands out, thumbs touching like this guy did.
Human FOV: I made a panorama of what my eyes can see when I look straight ahead.
VR: I plotted a 90 degree angle from where I was standing and widened it about 10% to approximate the 100-110 degree FOV of the Rift CV1 and Vive respectively. I could have widened it more for Vive but it's more of an average.
Hololens: I held my hands out, thumbs touching like this guy did.
The_Almighty_Swan
Banned
This demo killed my hype for Hololens. I love the concept of it all but watching the demo and how slow it was reminded me of Kinect when it was first unveiled and how slow and unresponsive that was. Looks like they got a lot of kinks to work out before using it seriously for gaming.
neogaffer1
Banned
It's a shitty pic but it conveys the FOV a lot more clearly than that screenshot from the official video that people keep dreaming about.
Human FOV: I made a panorama of what my eyes can see when I look straight ahead.
VR: I plotted a 90 degree angle from where I was standing and widened it about 10% to approximate the 100-110 degree FOV of the Rift CV1 and Vive respectively. I could have widened it more for Vive but it's more of an average.
Hololens: I held my hands out, thumbs touching like this guy did.
that screenshot that people "keep dreaming about" is supposedly very close to the real thing according to third parties. whereas this pic you made is a bit misleading because a. you guesstimate how much hololens is based off of a secondary source and b. even if you have a large fov visible at all times most of the time you only focus on a very small part of it. hence why VR is able to work even though it isn't anywhere near as wide as the human fov.
edit: also at the very least your vr drawing isn't centered.
Stillmatic
Member
Cool demo. I don't see much value out of this for gaming outside of Kinect/Eyetoy type mini games, or HUD stuff, especially with the limited FoV.
I know they want that buzzword, but it's pretty misleading calling these holograms when it's AR.
I know they want that buzzword, but it's pretty misleading calling these holograms when it's AR.
rokkerkory
Member
I think hololens has the most potential as it mixes real life with VR
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
I'm not convinced one little bit by this. Not only is that camera showing us more than the player will be able to see but it looked really dull and ... well, early Kinect demo-like.
I'm curious to hear a valid reason for why you trust certain "third parties" and not "secondary sources." Especially when those third parties are looking at a mockup filmed with a camera that has an unknown field of view that snugly frames the Hololens area.
First off, let's establish some context so your "very small" term makes sense. When I'm looking at my phone, I'd call that very small. iPad, that's medium. When I'm looking at a fullscreen game on my monitor at my desk, that's large. When I'm playing VR, that's huge. When I'm looking out from the top of a mountain, that's gargantuan. Now, when it comes to what's necessary for videogames, I don't mind if the game is a cell phone game or real life sports, as long as the game is designed with those perspective limitations in mind. But when I'm playing something that's supposed to augment/emulate reality, and things are supposed to come out of my walls, I don't want to be limited to slow-paced simplistic gameplay like this demo. I and others have an expectation that if something is claiming to augment your reality anywhere you look, there's a major disconnect when things are invisible outside a small to medium sized window.
The VR frame centering was deliberate. The natural right angle that i referenced was my multimedia rack and the bathroom doorway. I took the panorama without thinking 2 steps ahead about the VR reference points. I can shift both VR borders to the left a little to make it centered, if it's bugging you.
It isn't ready for gaming. The first version will not focus on gaming and will stick to enterprise use cases. I have no idea why they keep doing these misleading demos. It's like they are selling some future vision that won't be ready for 3-5 years, just to get everyone excited and keep the hype going.
neogaffer1
Banned
i meant third parties as people who have used the headset, giving their opinion on the image. your image is one step removed from that, as you used the explanation of some guy who used it to guestimate what hololens looks like. your whole blurb about complaining that "augmenting things should be everything instead of a small space" doesn't really connect when the whole point of this device isn't just gaming; in fact that's at most a small side of what the device does.
Auto-Reply
Member
I like the idea and concept of a game like this, but even if it works exactly as shown there. It would get boring pretty quick in a room layout as mine. I mean players get bored of complex dungeons and temples/castles in every game when they spend enough time in them. How is a living room, you already know inside out, going to be more exciting if it will always be those 4 walls.
It needs to transform your entire room and at that point, what's the difference between this and VR?
It needs to transform your entire room and at that point, what's the difference between this and VR?
Cave Johnson
Member
I always thought AR would be the next-evolution when it comes to controllers. They are completely customizable, and not restricted to a specific input system. This guy probably has a simple trigger handle, just imagine the possibilities with it if you had a more elaborate anchor controller.
NoPiece
Member
Oculus Rift dev kit is $350, and they are saying the consumer version will be more.
Using "some guy's guesstimate" is easier for anyone to understand, as they can do it themselves. The MS gif on the other hand is much more difficult to replicate, because it's a composite hand, composite hololens feed, and a zoomed view overall. If we take it as "pretty accurate," then you have to be like 12 feet away to see the approximately 6 foot tall cabinets in the background, so you have to have a lot of space if you want to see those big aliens crashing through your wall.
It's hard not to focus on and point out the fov ramifications when MS keeps putting out gaming videos that portray a full-scale holographic experience taking over your living room, shot by a third person camera with a deceptively larger field of view.
Frozenprince
Banned
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
Microsoft devkits are about support. You don't pay for the hardware cost, it's about tools and service for developing.
About that FOV pic: Shouldn't the human FOV be closer to 180 degrees?
Phat Michael
Banned
The haters have arrived!
That looked absolutely incredible. This would be so amazing for kids running around the house and shooting things. Really impressive demo of this stuff.
For some reason i think i would prefer this kind of stuff to total VR.
neogaffer1
Banned
i can't even tell what you're talking about in the first paragraph. your image was made using one guy's quick rule of thumb to describe what he saw when he used hololens, which means, at best, it's three steps removed and unverified by anyone else. the ms image comes from the same people who make the device, and other people who used the device and do not work for ms describe it as highly accurate.
as for the second part, they're doing that so that a year or two down the line when they make version two that has much better fov, people will have been already sold on the idea instead of consumers being incredibly vary because of stuff like kinect. they've made it very clear that hololens gen 1 is for enterprise and other similar uses only.
edit: even if you read more of that link you're using to guesstimate hololens, the author explains that "It is very hard to sell completely new media to an unaware public" and that "What I am saying is: good job Microsoft at explaining AR to a mass audience at an intuitive level. The only real gripe I have is that Microsoft chose to highlight several applications that probably won’t work well with the current state of technology, to wit: watching movies on a virtual big screen, playing Minecraft on a living room table, “holographic” life-size anatomy atlas (see Figures 5 and 6)." And the gripe he has is something that MS could concievably get rid of in a year or two, based off of the fact that the very, very early devkits they showed to press had a much, much larger FoV, even if they required being wired to a desktop.
edit 2: and reading even closer, it doesn't even seem like he's actually used the device himself. so your picture is one step further removed from the actual hololens experience.
Phat Michael
Banned
ok that magic leap demo is like the greatest thing i hav eever seen. Like real life Horde mode!
Here's what 3DO was promising with their second generation system (M2) in 1995:
Yea.
Atlas AS7-K
Banned
For me, its an interesting look at the future of AR, which I think has so much more potential overall than VR, particularly for practical applications outside of gaming. Tho I'm looking forward to VR becoming mainstream too for how immersive it looks to be. Contrary to what some seem to believe when the Hololens is discussed it isn't in competition with VR headsets and the world will have a place for both VR and AR.
I'm not sure why so many are so focused on the FOV thing. Yes, its true that the 3rd person camera view with full FOV use of the holograms is possibly a bit misleading, but who cares. Nobody is gonna have hands on with this thing outside of events/demos for quite some time. Its a demonstration of the concept, of the potential that AR has in the future and every thing I've read from people who've actually had hands on has said that even in spite of the FOV limitations they were blown away. Personally I dream of a future with AR tabletop wargaming, when the tech is cheap enough that all the participants have their own visor for the action, yes I know how it would look to outside observer, no I don't care.
All this harping and putting in overtime on FOV just feels like people trying to buzzkill what appears to be a really slick piece of kit.
I'm not sure why so many are so focused on the FOV thing. Yes, its true that the 3rd person camera view with full FOV use of the holograms is possibly a bit misleading, but who cares. Nobody is gonna have hands on with this thing outside of events/demos for quite some time. Its a demonstration of the concept, of the potential that AR has in the future and every thing I've read from people who've actually had hands on has said that even in spite of the FOV limitations they were blown away. Personally I dream of a future with AR tabletop wargaming, when the tech is cheap enough that all the participants have their own visor for the action, yes I know how it would look to outside observer, no I don't care.
All this harping and putting in overtime on FOV just feels like people trying to buzzkill what appears to be a really slick piece of kit.
with AR you could block out the transparency and have a VR experience, so it is the future since it a much more versatile technology. However VR is a more useable product right now whereas the technology behind AR still has a lot of maturing to do and wont really be a consumer product for a few years minimum.
My kids will have kids by the time anyone can run anywhere and do things with this.
Hololens seems like it has great possibilities in interaction with a UI... they should stop shoehorning terrible game demo's onto it and focus on where it is ideally suited in the next few years
Atlas AS7-K
Banned
In fairness he didn't say which kids...
Everyone knows this is in its infancy man. Its still pretty amazing.
i just think they can do more "realistic" things with it then these demo's they keep throwing up. Tabletop games, augmentation of existing game systems if they want to focus on gaming, but the general use case of this outside of gaming is much more interesting and much more realistic
Atlas AS7-K
Banned
I'm sure you're right, my first thought on seeing it was wow that would be awesome for Battletech, Warhammer, Xwing minis, whatever. I'd be more worried about how realistic the demos were if they weren't letting people go hands on and see and write about the difference between the video and the hands on.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
I tried out HaloLens a few hours ago... the Polygon article is pretty accurate with their depiction. I have no clue wtf that shit cakefoo posted is supposed to represent.
It isn't nearly as sluggish as it appears in the video. From what I played, the enemies actually moved around a lot faster and a lot less predictable. The stage demo is also missing at least three different enemy types that make it more challenging.
It isn't nearly as sluggish as it appears in the video. From what I played, the enemies actually moved around a lot faster and a lot less predictable. The stage demo is also missing at least three different enemy types that make it more challenging.
All I'm saying is that the MS image masks how much of the player's field of view resides outside the active area. I'm not arguing that it's inaccurate- just liable to confuse people who don't understand cameras. If you hold your hand out like that demo shows, and then you bring your other hand into frame and touch your thumbs together and measure as shown in the method shown by the blogger I quoted, you'll find that the hand:screen scale is very similar to MS's own visualization. So it's not like I'm saying one is more accurate than the other- just that the thumbs-together method will give you a better idea of how big the active area is because you can see it with your own eyes in your own environment.
You keep giving that blogger flak but he's well educated in the field and has a long history developing experimental VR and AR software. You might even recognize him from one of his Kinect experiments.
I don't think anyone has published a definitive solution to the fov issue or a timeline for when they're going to improve it and by how much. All we know is that the early version had an estimated 45 degree fov and the consumer version will be more like 30 degrees. If they can get it back up to 45 for V2, that's 50% more space and can be approximated by spreading your hands apart to accommodate an invisible third outstreched hand. That's an improvement, but you'd still have to be about 10 feet away to fit a 6 foot creature coming out of your wall. And we're still talking less than half of VR's fov.
Sure he has, he points it out pretty late in the post:
In my HoloLens experience, on the other hand, this didn’t kick in. During the demo I noticed that I was feeling disoriented when working with virtual objects. For example, I was asked to place a control panel on the wall to my left, and use it to change the appearance of an object in front of me. But the moment I looked away from the panel and at the object, my brain immediately forgot where the panel was, and I got a sense of unease because my tools had just been taken away. And when I tried to look back at the panel, I didn’t find it immediately; I had to look around a bit until it happened to (partially) pop back into view. I didn’t really notice this at a conscious level at the time.
Alx
Member
There is depth occlusion at least for the environment, since you can see the spiders hiding behind the couch. And I'll have to check the video in details, but since the blaster is semi transparent, you should be able to see if the parts on the back are hidden by the users hand.
Me too. Seems about as interesting. Lame.
Still it has a lot of potential when the technology will be able to scan farther away, with a full view screen and scanning outdoors. Augmented laser tag
Alx
Member
After closer checking, there is occlusion handling of the user's body. You can see when he switches his "blaster" to vortex thingie and it opens, when seen from the inside the hand is hiding the "petals" on the back.
Can't wait for the next generations of this tech. I'm seeing the benefits of studies and design rather than with gaming.
These are my thoughts as well.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Why do some people seem to always forget this part?
Alx
Member
Because the cool factor overshadows the technical limitations ?
Also you're not seeing the world through a small window, you can see it fine with your full field of view. It's the simulated objects that you only see within a window.
Which is a positive aspect of AR actually : even if the fake data is limited, you still have the real world around you to fill your perception.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Why would the guy appear in front of the rendered stuff? I'm not sure I get what you're saying at all.