|
Pham Nuwen posted:I'd really like to try a VR CAD program, because I imagine it would be easier for my brain if I could look at the parts in actual 3D instead of projected onto my screen. I imagine AR is a better solution for that, you can project the parts over your table without the additional burden of having to process a separate reality.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:the problem with VR isn't cost (i thought my quest 2 was very cool, briefly, and i own it so it's costless to keep playing with...yet I don't). it's that strapping a screen to your face such that you are cut off from the outside world is...well, the people who can do that often are limited to basically "people with large open spaces in their homes" and the people willing to do that are largely going to be, uh, single people who don't live with anyone else (who, well, tend not to have large open spaces in their home) Comedian Dara O'Briain does a bit about how the porn industry drives technology adoption and no one wants to jerk off
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Comedian Dara O'Briain does a bit about how the porn industry drives technology adoption and no one wants to jerk off Had my wife walk in on me
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
porn as a pusher for tech is actually a bit exaggerated and mostly just a good joke/factoid to tell. also maybe only do VR porn in your room with your door close?? Also imo even AR is going to be a niche thing only for work or hobbyist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
busalover posted:I imagine AR is a better solution for that, you can project the parts over your table without the additional burden of having to process a separate reality. The VR industry's problem here is you don't really need the cutting edge hardware or virtual presence software they want to sell for weekly 30 minute stakeholder reviews so all those headsets they sold 5 years ago are still in circulation at any firm already embracing the tech. This kind of highlights what is probably the core problem with trying to spin VR into a phone-esque consumer market: most people are going to want to spend minutes in it. Not hours and days. It's a specialty tool and not the next generation of display UI. I've always said if they can crack the nut to make it what you buy instead of a TV they'll be in business. But it looks like they're trying that between some of the hardware revisions to make wearing it more social with people around you and presence apps to make it more social with people far from you and it's still not competitive with just sitting with my wife on the couch watching TV. So like, why not use crypto?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
remember magic leap? the tech they started with was huge and they couldnt shrink it down
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the problem with VR isn't cost (i thought my quest 2 was very cool, briefly, and i own it so it's costless to keep playing with...yet I don't). it's that strapping a screen to your face such that you are cut off from the outside world is...well, the people who can do that often are limited to basically "people with large open spaces in their homes" and the people willing to do that are largely going to be, uh, single people who don't live with anyone else (who, well, tend not to have large open spaces in their home) The problem isn't that putting the device on your head is too big of an ask (to be clear - it IS a huge ask), it's that there's not much that's good enough to be worth that ask for most people. The problem is in the software and in the imaginations of the people making the software, most stuff boils down to "let's put an existing kind of flatscreen game and adapt it for VR" and most people just end up wanting to play the flatscreen games, because why wouldn't you? They're already perfect fits for those mediums. VR needs new thinking and imagination, which is pretty at odds with any kind of large investment, because those companies just want to keep making the same stuff that's already proven it makes a bunch of money. On its face it seems like VR should be the coolest loving thing ever - the ability to transport a player to a world that you can fully realize. The problem is these worlds have no imagination whatsoever put into them, so why would people want to spend time in there at all? I do think at some point people will start figuring it out and then it will be cool, but there's not really any clear roadmap to getting there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
imo it's not a lack of imagination or the fact that normal video games already have an acceptable interface--the problem is the novelty cap. both the hardware and the software have huge limitations on what you can and can't do with it, and once you've slapped one VR rear end, you've slapped them all. from your beat sabers to your vr skyrims, the actual physical gameplay element really isn't that different from flailing your arms with a wiimote to play tennis in 2008. you aren't actually experiencing anything new unless you missed the nintendo wii, and even then once you've played one or two of these games, that's it, you've already reached the experiential limits of what modern virtual reality can provide. companies speak of peripherals and porn devs have these elaborate setups with silicon titty rigs and violently sucking masturbators, but a truly revolutionary VR would provide simulated sensory feedback without the need for bulky extra hardware. and we are nowhere near that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
Your app can be as killer as you can imagine it to be and you're still in trouble because as soon as I enter the room scale VR chamber and put on a hood you're now single threaded and competing with the full stack of multiplexed fun having including talking to family, playing with your phone, watching TV, playing video games, walking to the park, going to the bar, doing arts and crafts, laughing at buying and selling cryptocurrency. A list out of which people are often choosing 3-4 or more and doing at once or in quick succession.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
Fur20 posted:imo it's not a lack of imagination or the fact that normal video games already have an acceptable interface--the problem is the novelty cap. both the hardware and the software have huge limitations on what you can and can't do with it, and once you've slapped one VR rear end, you've slapped them all. from your beat sabers to your vr skyrims, the actual physical gameplay element really isn't that different from flailing your arms with a wiimote to play tennis in 2008. you aren't actually experiencing anything new unless you missed the nintendo wii, and even then once you've played one or two of these games, that's it, you've already reached the experiential limits of what modern virtual reality can provide. Yes, that is what I'm saying the current problem is, but it's only because that's how developers are making the games. The hardware is nuts - it can accurately track all the precise movements of your body. It's *not* waggle, but most games are made as waggle because developers have set that as their goal. The ceiling is way, way higher than that. Check out Echo Arena: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEF9Zq2OeNY&t=40s Fully 3d movement, extremely precise and high speed gameplay, with full tactical depth like a real sport. Passing, communication, shooting, brawling, etc. This game came out in 2017 (lmao) and while I agree the vast, vast majority of what's out there is Wii tier waggle, it's just further proof that anything insanely cool will be hamstrung by a bunch of tech bros who just want to make shitloads of money and have no imagination zedprime posted:Your app can be as killer as you can imagine it to be and you're still in trouble because as soon as I enter the room scale VR chamber and put on a hood you're now single threaded and competing with the full stack of multiplexed fun having including talking to family, playing with your phone, watching TV, playing video games, walking to the park, going to the bar, doing arts and crafts, laughing at buying and selling cryptocurrency. A list out of which people are often choosing 3-4 or more and doing at once or in quick succession. Yeah but the advantage is that VR is cool as gently caress, and that it's losing to all of those things is an indictment of the imagination of the people who make the software, not what the hardware itself is capable of
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
I worked with a company that was right into vr architectural and lighting design. Basically making a full 3d model with intense lightsource rendering so you could play with different luminaires and daylight interactions. Pretty cool and very niche. There's been a few time where an AR headset would have been a benefit to me, but they still mostly seem to miss the hurdle of being easy and intuitive to control without using your hands. And the moment I have to use my hands I may as well use a tablet or phone anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Your app can be as killer as you can imagine it to be and you're still in trouble because as soon as I enter the room scale VR chamber and put on a hood you're now single threaded and competing with the full stack of multiplexed fun having including talking to family, playing with your phone, watching TV, playing video games, walking to the park, going to the bar, doing arts and crafts, laughing at buying and selling cryptocurrency. A list out of which people are often choosing 3-4 or more and doing at once or in quick succession. Yeah, this is pretty spot on. Right now I am typing this poo poo post, I've got Vampire Survivors paused over on the second monitor, my wife's sitting on the couch behind my chair, we're both kinda half-watching trashy HGTV renovation shows (she's surfing her phone), and we're both bullshitting and heckling these people's taste. That's doable because I can just pop one of the ears off my headphones and be in-tuned enough to what's going on around me to engage with all that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The problem isn't that putting the device on your head is too big of an ask (to be clear - it IS a huge ask), it's that there's not much that's good enough to be worth that ask for most people. The problem is in the software and in the imaginations of the people making the software, most stuff boils down to "let's put an existing kind of flatscreen game and adapt it for VR" and most people just end up wanting to play the flatscreen games, because why wouldn't you? They're already perfect fits for those mediums. VR needs new thinking and imagination, which is pretty at odds with any kind of large investment, because those companies just want to keep making the same stuff that's already proven it makes a bunch of money. As a game developer, it's because making a fully realized world is goddamn expensive. The big players either do it by throwing tons of manpower and reused assets at it (Ubi) or by destroying lives through crunch (Rockstar). Anyone else has to make compromises on fidelity, size, or gameplay, then hope they sell 10 million units so they can break even. If it works you get to do it again, if it doesn't your studio gets closed down. Taking a $200 million risk to make The Game that Makes VR Happen just isn't a thing anyone's going to do, so you get toys (Beatsaber), VR Chat, cut-down experiences (Horizon: Call of the Mountain), passion projects (Colossal Cave VR), or Work Stuff like the genuinely really cool tech employed in modern skyscraper construction. Stepping back from VR, it takes probably $40 million to ship a console-quality game of any type. While that much "money" "exists" within the cryptosphere, no one who "has" that much is offering to fund games that don't tie themselves back into whatever crypto ecosystem they want to push, and frankly no developer who's capable of making a successful game is going to risk their studio on a compromised vision. This leaves true believers and crypto-centric developers, and... Decentraland is about what you can expect from that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
One of the stories I have from when I was talking to the crypto VC types was, they were easily wowed by anything technical. Not that this is news to anyone who's aware of what goes on with chatGPT, but I mean they would be protective of the purse until there was something shiny. Enter: https://www.victoriavr.com . Yep, crypto VR! Not the first I've mentioned, as holoride was another one and that weird sketchy as gently caress AI fursona thing was another. The "powered by" list at the bottom of their page should be clue enough that none of those companies are sponsoring them. Yep, this poo poo was a big hit in a lot of the crypto circles, they all believed in it, and it's 10 year development timeline. Yep, invest today, early stages, so that....everyone you invest with takes a cut, and maybe in 10 years there will be....something? Yeah, that's about it. They've raised $5m because crypto obviously. There was literally a promo to lock in your tokens for 10 years and get more tokens later. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/victoria-vr/company_financials. None of these groups are the part that I saw, which was all people underneath that. I've literally never heard of any of the 5 seed groups but whatever. So people dumped thousands upon thousands of dollars into this poo poo - I would suspect well over $5m if not to the grand total of probably 10-20 mil all to get that original 5 mil allocation. I know a group of probably 3000 people who were airdropped some $100 in this VVR token it represents (IE: funbucks), and, yep. That's it. They have more or less disappeared all presence after 7/2022 if the blog posts are a decent indicator. https://blog.victoriavr.com So clearly, $5m is enough to launch, right? right? notwithoutmyanus fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
Tricky Ed posted:As a game developer, it's because making a fully realized world is goddamn expensive. The big players either do it by throwing tons of manpower and reused assets at it (Ubi) or by destroying lives through crunch (Rockstar). Anyone else has to make compromises on fidelity, size, or gameplay, then hope they sell 10 million units so they can break even. If it works you get to do it again, if it doesn't your studio gets closed down. Taking a $200 million risk to make The Game that Makes VR Happen just isn't a thing anyone's going to do, so you get toys (Beatsaber), VR Chat, cut-down experiences (Horizon: Call of the Mountain), passion projects (Colossal Cave VR), or Work Stuff like the genuinely really cool tech employed in modern skyscraper construction. I agree, but I think that fundamental issue is that the video game industry has been consolidated and refined and compacted to the degree that yeah it's hard to do anything genuinely new, because everything has to be a crazy 200 million dollar project, and that is not an environment that is conducive to innovation or new thinking. AAA has been either making sequels in their already successful franchises or straight ripping off anything that has any amount of indie success, and since VR doesn't have that much developed for it there's largely nothing amazing to build on. That said I think what success there has been in VR, which has largely come from the indie realm, shows that if you make something genuinely dope there is a market for it. The only reason I'm still optimistic for VR is that I feel like I've seen a few things that are genuinely insanely cool, so there's a concrete reason to believe that there's something there. As opposed to other bullshit like crypto which is transparently stupid and has never produced anything even vaguely interesting
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
I work in games, my company actually did a PSVR port, as well as a pitch to Oculus and the other headset manufacturers. We're a mid-sized (250ish) indie outfit mostly doing co-development and ports, with some original stuff, so we're pitching constantly. There's just no money out there in VR at the moment. One of the larger headset manufacturers offered us Twenty Thousand American Dollars to make an exclusive game for their platform. We'll work on anything that isn't actively harmful (so no crypto bullshit), we'll work on any platform, any genre. There's just not publishers or hardware manufacturers willing to spend money on VR projects. It's a chicken/egg thing -- if there were more consumers buying headsets and wanting games for them, there'd be more games, which would mean more consumers wanting to buy them. It's maybe a little better than it was during the first wave of the original Oculus Rift/HTC Vive/PSVR1, but not much. It has the theoretical potential to be pretty cool, but the market's just not there yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
more falafel please posted:I work in games, my company actually did a PSVR port, as well as a pitch to Oculus and the other headset manufacturers. We're a mid-sized (250ish) indie outfit mostly doing co-development and ports, with some original stuff, so we're pitching constantly. Outa curiosity what kinda money would your company want to make a title for VR?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
Ups_rail posted:Outa curiosity I'm not in bizdev and I'm not usually that involved in pitching, and it completely depends on scope, but for a full-on AAA-style game, $1m/month wouldn't be abnormal. $20k is like, one programmer and one artist for a month, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
The main problem with VR gaming, based on my experience with buying 2 VR headsets, is that very few devs are making traditional games that take advantage of VR - it's all gimmick DDR motion controller room-scale stuff. Anecdotally everyone I know who bought a VR headset feels the same way: They went in expecting it to be a new dimension of immersion for traditional videogames but instead it's like a novelty party game thing. I would buy the gently caress out of PC VR games that were designed around the idea of me sitting at my desk playing a traditional PC game with mouse+keyboard or whatever but having the headset for added immersion. Elite Dangerous is a great example, or Wipeout/Ace Combat for PSVR. Give me RTS games where I can lean down and view my units as if they were little miniatures on a tabletop in front of me. Give me sports games where I can sit up in the box and manage my team from there. Give me a standard traditional FPS where I'm sitting in the cockpit of a mech. Even the VR fanatics who rant and rave about how motion control and roomscale are the way of the future will agree that Elite: Dangerous and Wipeout are some of the best VR implementations to date, even if they don't like the games. Right now it's like using VR requires blocking out an entirely different kind of "game time" where I am not around my pets and I go to my garage because it's the only place in the house I have enough free space to play most VR games, when it would function better as an accessory I can use during my regular gaming free time without putting my pets or immediate surroundings in danger. e: Overall it reminds me of the crypto economy: a whole lot of devs who are making VR content are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist: "Existing control mechanisms for videogames are bad", and they pump out novelty content that doesn't actually do anything except make you say "yeah, you sure used this new control mechanism to make a piece of software, I guess." deep dish peat moss fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
VR is only good for porn, and even then it's not that good for porn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
It's not about the quality of the assets or gameplay mechanics or how cool the monkey jpgs look because most people just aren't that interested in big RPGs or being a loving landlord, and they never will be. There needs to be a reason for everyone to have one. A virtual version of the Louvre would be interesting to way more people than a virtual version of Whiterun. The part of the retail sector they ought to focus on is the bit where people, you know, look at products and buy the ones they like, not the bit where someone leases the store space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
jokes posted:VR is only good for porn, and even then it's not that good for porn. It's also good for playing Doom 2  Unironically the best game on VR https://sidequestvr.com/app/796/questzdoom
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
Doom 3 is also a fantastic VR experience. Like, not even joking, the bullshit monster closet and "the lights went out and the level is pitch black" are goddamn amazing in VR. https://github.com/KozGit/DOOM-3-BFG-VR
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:The main problem with VR gaming, based on my experience with buying 2 VR headsets, is that very few devs are making traditional games that take advantage of VR - it's all gimmick DDR motion controller room-scale stuff. Anecdotally everyone I know who bought a VR headset feels the same way: They went in expecting it to be a new dimension of immersion for traditional videogames but instead it's like a novelty party game thing. This is like, completely backwards. Trying to do traditional style games but in VR is so much worse than just doing traditional style games not in VR. The problem is that most games that especially the bigger devs try to make are traditional style games but VR-ified, which tends to not be satisfying at all. It's not that VR is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, it's a completely new medium, and the thinking about how to make stuff for it needs to reflect that. While it's true that a lot of games have extremely gimmicky, unsatisfying input, that's because good understanding about how to make stuff is hard to come by because there isn't a huge wealth of examples of those things being done well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 23:00
|
|
|
I think VR is good for games where you pilot things from a seated position probably. Coincidentally the name for the thing you use to pilot planes is a joystick because in the cockpit it's where your penis is so, again, the only thing VR is good for is porn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
I've been playing VR games since goddamn 1993 and "traditional game but with VR headset" is the only thing I've ever wanted out of it and the only thing anyone I know who has ever bought a VR headset wanted out of it  e: I spent like a decade looking for footage of that dumb 1993 BubbleYum VR game I played and this is the only clip I've ever found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3gTNrhgN7c&t=600s deep dish peat moss fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:I've been playing VR games since goddamn 1993 and "traditional game but with VR headset" is the only thing I've ever wanted out of it and the only thing anyone I know who has ever bought a VR headset wanted out of it Then why aren't those games as successful as the more physically interactive ones? I really think that because it's such a new medium, if you try to think about what would be cool with them a priori, you're really going to miss the mark (this is the *entire* reason why all the Metaverse poo poo is falling flat on its face - people think "oh, Snow Crash and Ready Player One are cool, therefore the Metaverses that they contain as plot points must be inherently cool if they're just implemented as described in the story, where the author just decided how things worked and didn't need to actually work in practice" and then oops that's completely wrong). Looking at what has actually been the most successful, it's been things that incorporate the hand tracked controllers in interesting ways. Interestingly one of my biggest takeaways is that the headset itself is not the actual most important component - it's nice to be able to see the world when you move your head around, but without the controllers that let you directly interface with that world, it's just kind of neat and not super compelling on its own. Games that focus on using the VR as an enhancement to regular gameplay are often better as experiences if you just play it on a traditional screen, because then you don't need to gently caress around with the VR bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
It's because no one has been making those games. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are the ones I listed: E:D, Wipeout, and Ace Combat (Ace Combat only had one VR mission). Every dev who tries to make a more "traditional" VR game experience ends up shoehorning in motion controls and stuff like that; I've played dozens of indie VR games that are just an RTS except you use motion controls or hand tracking, and it has 3 different unit types, or whatever. Most VR experiences with traditional game style controls are mods, like the Subnautica VR mod (which is excellent), not commercial products. Basically what I'm saying is: Exactly what you are saying is what 100% of VR devs have been saying, and that's the exact reason VR has been an utter failure in gaming, because every gamer I know wants the exact opposite out of VR before committing to it, and everyone I know who has committed to it was disappointed that the type of experience you're describing is the only thing available on VR. That type of game needs to chase an entirely different market (like non-gamers on facebook who want a Ready Player One metaverse) before the hardware userbase will grow, because it's not what the traditional gaming market wants. e: Some games with motion control are fun, like Superhot VR is incredibly good. The Doom ports technically use motion controls but you use them similarly to how you use a gamepad (you're not manipulating things with your hands, you use joysticks to move around and you aim by pointing the motion controls like a lightgun) and they fuckin' own. But the whole "interactive world where you use these new control mechanisms! Also you can't walk because we think it will make you sick so you only move by teleporting." part of VR is supremely bad, and that's the only thing devs want to make for VR. The hardware is nowhere near that being a realistic possibility and they all feel clumsy and awkward as gently caress to play - maybe once we have tactile haptic gloves and someone works out a good locomotion solution they'll be cool but right now they are just terrible as anything beyond a tech demo novelty. deep dish peat moss fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:It's because no one has been making those games. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are the ones I listed: E:D, Wipeout, and Ace Combat (Ace Combat only had one VR mission). You can already play lots of traditional games on PC in VR through stuff like vorpx, but nobody does because it's not really worth it. Again, I agree that there aren't that many extremely compelling things in VR, and most experiences are pretty thin. I don't think it's really worth it, by and large, for most people to get into it at this point because the games mostly aren't that interesting. But there is enough out there to be able to learn what is interesting and why, and I think a lot of the things that have been extremely successful are interesting in at least one or two important ways. The way forward is for devs to really knuckle down and actually pay attention and learn, and then apply those lessons to new software. But most devs aren't interested in doing that for all the aforementioned reasons. You aren't going to hear any arguments from me that devs being complacent with things like teleporting or joystick sliding locomotion (which are both dogshit) aren't going to be able to make things that push the medium into the mainstream. But there's enough evidence out there that the hardware is capable of a lot of incredibly dope things, and I think there's a path forward to there being a lot more compelling stuff to do. It's probably not going to look very metaverse-y or ports of traditional games-y, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
8one6 posted:Doom 3 is also a fantastic VR experience. Like, not even joking, the bullshit monster closet and "the lights went out and the level is pitch black" are goddamn amazing in VR. In 2005 I made a VR helmet for my senior project in computer engineering. One of the very first things I did was make it work with doom 3 and it was cool af.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:It's because no one has been making those games. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are the ones I listed: E:D, Wipeout, and Ace Combat (Ace Combat only had one VR mission). Add me to that - the only reason I was interested in PSVR2 was that I figured it would be an affordable way to dabble in VR after getting a PS5, and I heard that Star Wars: Squadrons (a space sim) was loving amazing in VR. Lol on both those accounts - it costs more than the console it plugs into and has no backwards comparability for PSVR1 titles, like SW:Squadrons
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
Yeah, ultimately I don't feel like "games" will be the market for VR. It will be excellent for classrooms and for job training. My retired dad uses VR in Flight Sim a lot (okay there's another traditional game with VR) to just travel the world in his retirement. Stuff like that has a ton of potential. I've just seen a very clear parallels between VR development and the crypto ecosystem all along; the vast majority of VR game content is stuff that no one is asking for, that no one particularly wants, it's just devs playing with novel new technology that doesn't actually solve any problems that people are asking to have solved. It's using new tech for the sake of using new tech in the hopes of selling people on how cool that new tech might be one day. You're absolutely right that the new tech has a ton of potential, I just don't think it will be realized in games (at least not without significant hardware advances). Meanwhile a lot of gamers would kill to just have a VR headset on in their cockpit-sitter games or whatever. e: There are also tons of other absurdly cool applications of VR tech, like using it to treat Amblyopia (which I have first-hand experience with - I have a refractive amblyopia and by using VR I was able to find a way to 'trick' that eye into seeing clearly. I stopped doing it because I tore my retina  But it was wild being able to clearly see out of my right eye for literally the first time in my life while I had a VR headset on)
deep dish peat moss fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Apr 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
VR is great and used a lot in the hardcore flightsim/racing sim (DCS/iRacing) world. It works really well because you sit still in both, and the greater spacial awareness it affords helps a lot. WWI dogfighting in VR is a crazy experience. It gave me a newfound appreciation for just how close the planes got to each other in aerial combat back then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
i love how every bitcoin chart ends with the price going up 10x for no apparent reason
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
bonus chart
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
Both axes of that first chart are incredible. Speculation of the future on the x, inconsistent metric on the y. If someone wrote a modern version of How To Lie With Statistics the author could pull infinite examples from the crypto space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 00:46
|
|
|
Every single Bitcoin chart expects it to perform as it did the last cycle. Which isn't realistic for anything. There are some aspect of bullish market > Bitcoin gets propped but the lack of liquidity and volume fading since 2021 is very telling. Also trying to pay taxes on old crypto transactions is a goddamn nightmare. Between exchange failures and lack of historical statement access I wouldn't wish this on anyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
this chartist shows real ambition YOU ARE AMAZING for creating bitcoin
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
You know how in Snow Crash, there's like an image that gets shown to people and crashes the language center of their brain or whatever so they just kinda fall into a coma looking at it? I feel like, despite Stephenson saying it looked like static, this may be more like what he was talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
Looks like static to me 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 01:45
|
|