• 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.

New patent for Microsoft's "Fortaleza" glasses appear.

d0g_bear

Member
Jan 21, 2008
664
0
960
Based on the patent images this is AR, not VR. They're entirely different - this might compete with the rift for mindshare, but it doesn't do the same thing at all.

If you haven't read it already, here's a link to Michael Abrash's blog on the different technical challenges of AR and VR (and why VR will succeed way before AR will)

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/two-possible-paths-into-the-future-of-wearable-computing-part-1-vr/

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/two-possible-paths-into-the-future-of-wearable-computing-part-2-ar/
 

iceatcs

Junior Member
Jul 9, 2007
10,615
0
980
London
Ah man, AR. no no no. I want VR because gaming is different world.

I want to be in the virtual world, not bring some to my real world.
 

MrGerbils

Member
Nov 27, 2010
1,706
0
0
Knowing Microsoft this will be at least 300 € because they think they can compete with Oculus Rift (hey, you can even walk around with it), killing it instantly just like every other cool product MS has had in the last seven years.
Judging by the tech supposedly in these, I'd expect it to cost way more than that. These sound downright futuristic.
 

Nightengale

Member
Jun 12, 2013
21,443
0
500
If these glasses can put polygons in open space, why wouldn't they be able to program those polygons to be all around you, VR style?
Transparency, processing power & bandwidth.

Even at the static level like Oculus Rift, the VR requires a connection to the system to be able to effectively render the graphics onto the your field of vision.

This is more than just 'streaming polygons' onto the glasses, because the slightest movement will require the VR or AR to recalibrate the positioning of what you're overlaying/viewing.

There's always the possibility that MS has found a breakthrough technology to make this happen, but based on current technology implications shared by people working on similar stuff ( Oculus, Valve AR, Google Glass ), MS's vision is at least 5 years ahead of where the rest of these people are.
 

flyinpiranha

Member
Aug 25, 2009
11,261
0
0
This would be pretty cool in combination with Kinect. Would be able to track you and correspond with things. I'd love to have a HUD for a game overlaid in this and be able to quickly use a healthpack or some shit by tapping on it in the "open" world while still using my HDTV for the main part of the game. It could literally free up the entire screen to be "HUD-Free". You could scale it to be "closer" or "further" from your main viewing screen.
 

Sciz

Member
Oct 9, 2007
11,041
0
920
does every thread have to be shat on with these kind of posts? this tech looks awesome. surprised more people aren't posting in here.
We're still quite a ways out from this becoming a commercial product unless they've had a breakthrough in AR that all the other companies working on it haven't.

pre-edit: ^ what Nightengale said, basically. Abrash's articles on the subject break down the technical complexities well too.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Jun 22, 2004
7,611
103
1,710
d0g_bear said:
Based on the patent images this is AR, not VR.
Ok if you define AR as any sort of augmentation at all. But I prefer AR-VR joined term because it depicts that you can in fact - have a virtual surroundings around you, even though they blend with real world.

There are good reasons why I say this has a better reach to the masses if done right though - lightweight spectacles in place of a helmet/rig, and 3d imagery that is still tethered to real world.
Essentially you get illusion of holographic images, and if you've ever seen the effect, it can be frighteningly impressive in a different way from total immersion of Occulus.

Whether they can work out technical challenges of having this work in home environment I wouldn't know though - my only experience with such a thing was in controlled setup/room, so it was undoubtedly easier to make it work convincingly well.
 

iceatcs

Junior Member
Jul 9, 2007
10,615
0
980
London
If these glasses can put polygons in open space, why wouldn't they be able to program those polygons to be all around you, VR style?
The patient seem not doing that. It could be work but it is depend how much it will block the transparency problem.
 

Xbudz

Member
Sep 9, 2008
3,217
4
930
Victoria, BC, Canada
twitter.com
It could be work but it is depend how much it will block the transparency problem.
Transparency, processing power & bandwidth.
Are you guys suggesting all 3D objects seen will be transparent? I didn't read that. So if given enough processing power and bandwidth (IE: At home, connected to Xbox One) is there any reason these glasses can't provide a VR experience?
 

Oshimai

Member
Feb 28, 2012
1,460
0
0

So this is Microsoft's Google Glass..
I'm going to bug-out if I see a park full of people playing Kinect.
Lol same. People are going to the park to chill at the park. Not play some goofy kinect game.
 

jeff_rigby

Banned
Aug 7, 2010
3,825
0
0
Florida
So what's the deal with the AT&T logo on these pics? Are they partnering with MS to shift X1 top boxes?
X1 is Xfinity and Comcast but I've wondered at the Xbox 361 and finally the Xbox One. Is the One significant? The X1 Platform does have many of the features touted for the Xbox One.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/05/29/look-out-microsoft-comcast-has-had-its-own-x1-for-a-year.aspx said:
Last week was all about Microsoft and its new console, the Xbox One. We missed a big story, though. Comcast stepped up to the plate on the very same day with a new video for its own media monster. Meet… the X1.

We're not sure why Microsoft would risk the brand confusion, especially as there are likely going to be many Comcast customers that will use that service through their Xbox One.
 

Alx

Member
Jan 22, 2007
18,726
983
1,350
If these glasses can put polygons in open space, why wouldn't they be able to program those polygons to be all around you, VR style?
Because the display is designed to be see-through, so you'll always see the "real world" behind the generated images, even if those are unrelated.
And that's not a bad thing in my opinion. Full immersion is cool in theory, but not very accepted in a social environment. At least while wearing AR glasses you're still able to interact with your environment, including other people.
I'm more intrigued by AR glasses than VR glasses right now, even if I'm not sure I'd use them. It's a pity MS didn't communicate on them, even if the product is not ready yet. It would have given us a little more to dream about, and they would have kept the high-tech edge that they seemingly lost with the specs of the console itself.

Lol same. People are going to the park to chill at the park. Not play some goofy kinect game.
Well, people also go to the park to play frisbee, or soccer, or practice tai chi... which they can perfectly do without AR glasses, though, but the activities are not necessarily very far from a kinect game.
 

d0g_bear

Member
Jan 21, 2008
664
0
960
Ok if you define AR as any sort of augmentation at all. But I prefer AR-VR joined term because it depicts that you can in fact - have a virtual surroundings around you, even though they blend with real world.

There are good reasons why I say this has a better reach to the masses if done right though - lightweight spectacles in place of a helmet/rig, and 3d imagery that is still tethered to real world.
Essentially you get illusion of holographic images, and if you've ever seen the effect, it can be frighteningly impressive in a different way from total immersion of Occulus.

Whether they can work out technical challenges of having this work in home environment I wouldn't know though - my only experience with such a thing was in controlled setup/room, so it was undoubtedly easier to make it work convincingly well.
I agree that AR has more mass market potential than VR. However, the tech for good at-home VR is very close, but the tech for good walk-around AR (or even tethered-to-computer AR) is very very far away.

Abrash talks about this is his blog I posted at the top of the page. Like even if you have enough processing power and battery life in a mobile device, even if you get good weight, focus and resolution with sunglasses-like OLED screens (and those are both big "if"s), you still can only add light. There's currently no way to make anything darker because there's no way to occlude the transparent screen. All your AR images will be translucent.
 

Alx

Member
Jan 22, 2007
18,726
983
1,350
The good thing about that patent being public now is that MS people will now be able to talk about it, hopefully. I wouldn't raise my hopes for an appearance at Gamescom, but it would be nice nevertheless.