Jump to content

Oculus Rift


syver
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Minos said:

Man, to be honest I'm much more excited about the weird crazy demos people are going to make than those games. I love my oculus and I love being in VR, however there isn't a really single demo right now that really blows me away. I don't think we have seen yet even a glimpse of what this media will be able to offer :)

Also, we really need to come up with a better solution for player movement. You can't have camera bob because that makes people feel sick, however the "floating" feeling you get right now is very unsettling too.

Have you tried CV1 with Touch or the Vive?

 

Also trailers just suck for describing any vr experiences.

Edited by AtsEst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a DK2 and been developing some VR projects, but even the demos out there are pretty lame compared to what the media will offer in a few years I think :)

I'm curious to try touch though, I'm usually a bit lazy with motion controls so I want to see how that's going to work in a real life scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Minos said:

I have a DK2 and been developing some VR projects, but even the demos out there are pretty lame compared to what the media will offer in a few years I think :)

I'm curious to try touch though, I'm usually a bit lazy with motion controls so I want to see how that's going to work in a real life scenario.

Being able to stand up and "touch" things is pretty freaking incredible in VR I do not want to oversell it, but

Spoiler

I'd even go as far as to say that you have not really experienced VR until you have had a proper room scale demo. Because (if it is a good experience) after 5 minutes you have absolutely no idea or direction where you are in the real world.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 8 months later...
28 minutes ago, marks said:

Seriously read the details, jury came down conclusively on Oculus not having stolen any trade secrets from Zenimax, the fines were all to do with random other breaches of contract and shit.

Half a billion is a lot of cheese tho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah that must be like 25% of what facebook bought them for? I don't think anyone's questioning some seriously shady stuff went down, but realistically it does look like zenimax were trying to save face after carmack left more than them thinking their claims were actually true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

John Carmack

The Zenimax vs Oculus trial is over. I disagreed with their characterization, misdirection, and selective omissions. I never tried to hide or wipe any evidence, and all of my data is accounted for, contrary to some stories being spread.

Being sued sucks. For the most part, the process went as I expected.

The exception was the plaintiff’s expert that said Oculus’s implementations of the techniques at issue were “non-literally copied” from the source code I wrote while at Id Software.

This is just not true. The authors at Oculus never had access to the Id C++ VR code, only a tiny bit of plaintext shader code from the demo. I was genuinely interested in hearing how the paid expert would spin a web of code DNA between completely unrelated codebases.

Early on in his testimony, I wanted to stand up say “Sir! As a man of (computer) science, I challenge you to defend the efficacy of your methodology with data, including false positive and negative rates.” After he had said he was “Absolutely certain there was non-literal copying” in several cases, I just wanted to shout “You lie!”. By the end, after seven cases of “absolutely certain”, I was wondering if gangsters had kidnapped his grandchildren and were holding them for ransom.

If he had said “this supports a determination of”, or dozens of other possible phrases, then it would have fit in with everything else, but I am offended that a distinguished academic would say that his ad-hoc textual analysis makes him “absolutely certain” of anything. That isn’t the language of scientific inquiry.

The notion of non-literal copying is probably delicious to many lawyers, since a sufficient application of abstraction and filtering can show that just about everything is related. There are certainly some cases where it is true, such as when you translate a book into another language, but copyright explicitly does not apply to concepts or algorithms, so you can’t abstract very far from literal copying before comparing. As with many legal questions, there isn’t a bright clear line where you need to stop.

The analogy that the expert gave to the jury was that if someone wrote a book that was basically Harry Potter with the names changed, it would still be copyright infringement. I agree; that is the literary equivalent of changing the variable names when you copy source code. However, if you abstract Harry Potter up a notch or two, you get Campbell’s Hero’s Journey, which also maps well onto Star Wars and hundreds of other stories. These are not copyright infringement.

There are objective measures of code similarity that can be quoted, like the edit distance between abstract syntax trees, but here the expert hand identified the abstract steps that the code fragments were performing, made slides that nobody in the courtroom could actually read, filled with colored boxes outlining the purportedly analogous code in each case. In some cases, the abstractions he came up with were longer than the actual code they were supposed to be abstracting.

It was ridiculous. Even without being able to read the code on the slides, you could tell the steps varied widely in operation count, were often split up and in different order, and just looked different.

The following week, our side’s code expert basically just took the same slides their expert produced (the judge had to order them to be turned over) and blew each of them up across several slides so you could actually read them. I had hoped that would have demolished the credibility of the testimony, but I guess I overestimated the impact.

Notably, I wasn’t allowed to read the full expert report, only listen to him in trial, and even his expert testimony in trial is under seal, rather than in the public record. This is surely intentional -- if the code examples were released publicly, the internet would have viciously mocked the analysis. I still have a level of morbid curiosity about the several hundred-page report.

The expert witness circuit is surely tempting for many academics, since a distinguished expert can get paid $600+ an hour to prepare a weighty report that supports a lawyer’s case. I don’t have any issue with that, but testifying in court as an expert should be as much a part of your permanent public record as the journal papers you publish. In many cases, the consequences are significant. There should be a danger to your reputation if you are imprudent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...