Windows Mixed Reality Misses
I may or may not jump in on the Windows Mixed Reality bandwagon. The price is good, but not great. And the same it seems can be said of the experience. And as I read through articles on it, I can't help but feel like they missed out on some opportunities. I think the two biggest missed opportunities are optional external sensors and live camera feed for a lower quality AR experience compared to HoloLens.
Firstly, the external sensor. This is both a big pro and a con for the headsets. Yes, it means you don't need anything setup externally in the house, but it also means a lack of precision such systems can have. But, why can't such a thing be optional? The tracking seems "close", so I imagine a single unit, perhaps with 2 BT sensors spaced some distance apart within the unit would be able to help triangulate and correct sensor data from the headset. Add in a third sensor and it would be even more reliable in 3 dimensions. I mean, it seems like everyone agrees that the cost is better than the alternatives for desktop VR. And it seems like the impressions are generally OK to good. But the primary complaint is the same with anything depending solely on accelerometers and other spatial sensors in most modern devices. They are flaky.
To my mind, a simple, optional, external device to provide additional information to help correct/calibrate the sensors in the headset would likely boost this thing to the next level.
The next missed opportunity is the loss of the AR experience. Having some headsets able to support a live feed and perhaps some measure of HoloLens's experience would make a compelling device. I still think head mounted AR, or in eye, is the way of the future. Sure, I think phone AR, and car HUD's and things like that have a place too. But as a generalized AR experience, it has to be something direct to the eyes.
Given the price tag on HoloLens, this could even be reserved for premium headsets. Combine it with the optional external sensor and BAM! People with a fast enough computer can get a simulated full field of view HoloLens. And maybe that is the reason for not allowing it. But I hope not.
Firstly, the external sensor. This is both a big pro and a con for the headsets. Yes, it means you don't need anything setup externally in the house, but it also means a lack of precision such systems can have. But, why can't such a thing be optional? The tracking seems "close", so I imagine a single unit, perhaps with 2 BT sensors spaced some distance apart within the unit would be able to help triangulate and correct sensor data from the headset. Add in a third sensor and it would be even more reliable in 3 dimensions. I mean, it seems like everyone agrees that the cost is better than the alternatives for desktop VR. And it seems like the impressions are generally OK to good. But the primary complaint is the same with anything depending solely on accelerometers and other spatial sensors in most modern devices. They are flaky.
To my mind, a simple, optional, external device to provide additional information to help correct/calibrate the sensors in the headset would likely boost this thing to the next level.
The next missed opportunity is the loss of the AR experience. Having some headsets able to support a live feed and perhaps some measure of HoloLens's experience would make a compelling device. I still think head mounted AR, or in eye, is the way of the future. Sure, I think phone AR, and car HUD's and things like that have a place too. But as a generalized AR experience, it has to be something direct to the eyes.
Given the price tag on HoloLens, this could even be reserved for premium headsets. Combine it with the optional external sensor and BAM! People with a fast enough computer can get a simulated full field of view HoloLens. And maybe that is the reason for not allowing it. But I hope not.
Comments
Post a Comment