Windows Mixed Reality Headsets
OK. I'm still disappointed... but I'm growing more and more interested. Watched some early reviews with the Acer unit and I'm still annoyed that they call these "Mixed Reality". It really is just VR. And I still think that there are other issues and questions. If those can, in time, be addressed though, I'm in!
Firstly the questionable. The hardware specs recommended for the dev kits, which were already away and above average PC specs actually got worse. How do I know? Because they now list Ryzen 7 processors as recommended on the AMD side and they didn't even exist when the specs were originally published.
What isn't obvious is whether this is just recommended because they expect developers will need beefy GPU's to write 3D intensive games and apps, or if that requirement is tied to the rendering as well. If so, they are very far off their stated goals still. And that is a bit concerning.
I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. But it would be nice to have someone nail this down, as I'm actually getting a little interested in these devices.
My next primary issue is actually with what I think is just an app. But if no one writes a better one, then the problem never goes away. And the app in question is, what appears to be the "default" one. When you put on the headset you are placed in a virtual room. But the virtual room has really nothing to do with the real room the headset lives in.
It uses some overlay to let you know when you're hitting the boundaries you've defined in the room... which is nice? But it would really be a ton better if A) the room were procedurally generated based on the floor area you indicated when you configured it B) you could change the layout of the room to more closely match reality or C) scan in your room and have it exactly match reality.
C seems the least likely. And while it probably sounds the best on paper is probably the worst in real life. For instance, you would probably be more likely to trip over things out of place due to a lack of caution caused by the rendering looking more like where you actually are. But it still seems like it would be a hell of a lot better than being immersed in a loft that likely has nothing in common with the room the headset is confined too.
Option A would make the best default layout in my opinion. The confines of the room could match reality. Walls would be where you expect them. If the room is clean you can safely traverse the entirety of it. And the immersion would then feel a lot more real.
Option B would be best if it took A as a starting point with maybe some optional templates as well.
For me, as I've said previously, what I really want is a virtual office. HoloLens would be ideal because I could see my work computer and my holograms without switching anything. HoloLens is primarily help back for me by it's FoV and lack of a tethered option. Cost is a little prohibitive but even if an alternate model with this cost the same, I would still buy if it had a bigger view port and a tethered option. Though, frankly one should think it should be cheaper since a tethered device could easily hold a more powerful computer and not need a big battery (if any at all).
Anyway... that is the state of things with me and the current collection of Windows Mixed Reality headsets. The price point makes it compelling. It looks good. But there are some areas both HoloLens and these miss and some questions on the VR devices to be ironed out. All in all though, I would say this is heading in the right direction.
Firstly the questionable. The hardware specs recommended for the dev kits, which were already away and above average PC specs actually got worse. How do I know? Because they now list Ryzen 7 processors as recommended on the AMD side and they didn't even exist when the specs were originally published.
What isn't obvious is whether this is just recommended because they expect developers will need beefy GPU's to write 3D intensive games and apps, or if that requirement is tied to the rendering as well. If so, they are very far off their stated goals still. And that is a bit concerning.
I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. But it would be nice to have someone nail this down, as I'm actually getting a little interested in these devices.
My next primary issue is actually with what I think is just an app. But if no one writes a better one, then the problem never goes away. And the app in question is, what appears to be the "default" one. When you put on the headset you are placed in a virtual room. But the virtual room has really nothing to do with the real room the headset lives in.
It uses some overlay to let you know when you're hitting the boundaries you've defined in the room... which is nice? But it would really be a ton better if A) the room were procedurally generated based on the floor area you indicated when you configured it B) you could change the layout of the room to more closely match reality or C) scan in your room and have it exactly match reality.
C seems the least likely. And while it probably sounds the best on paper is probably the worst in real life. For instance, you would probably be more likely to trip over things out of place due to a lack of caution caused by the rendering looking more like where you actually are. But it still seems like it would be a hell of a lot better than being immersed in a loft that likely has nothing in common with the room the headset is confined too.
Option A would make the best default layout in my opinion. The confines of the room could match reality. Walls would be where you expect them. If the room is clean you can safely traverse the entirety of it. And the immersion would then feel a lot more real.
Option B would be best if it took A as a starting point with maybe some optional templates as well.
For me, as I've said previously, what I really want is a virtual office. HoloLens would be ideal because I could see my work computer and my holograms without switching anything. HoloLens is primarily help back for me by it's FoV and lack of a tethered option. Cost is a little prohibitive but even if an alternate model with this cost the same, I would still buy if it had a bigger view port and a tethered option. Though, frankly one should think it should be cheaper since a tethered device could easily hold a more powerful computer and not need a big battery (if any at all).
Anyway... that is the state of things with me and the current collection of Windows Mixed Reality headsets. The price point makes it compelling. It looks good. But there are some areas both HoloLens and these miss and some questions on the VR devices to be ironed out. All in all though, I would say this is heading in the right direction.
Comments
Post a Comment