Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50265414 <comment><USER3> As a pilot, I use VR with the XPlane flight simulator and it seriously feels like I'm in a real Cessna. True, the flight controls are a little off (for example, stalls and landings don't feel like a real plane), but other than that, everything is absolutely spot on.

It's a great way to scratch my aviation itch and is also great for practicing procedures, especially when paired with a live air traffic control network like PilotEdge. My brain seriously forgets that it's a simulation when I'm in it.

This could be a way to revolutionize flight training, and make it more accessible. The entire cost of my PC build including VR gear and software is a fraction of what real-life flight training costs.

<comment><USER4> Since the release of the original Oculus I've been curious about this. I fly for a living which is a very rewarding and satisfying way to earn a paycheck but it does come with some monotony and takes away some of the 'fun' that can really only be had from GA flying low and slow and taking in the scenery. I'm not able to afford an actual aircraft yet but I'm wondering if a good VR simulator set up could scratch that itch.

I guess it depends what kind of flying you do in the sim but do you find it still provides a fun factor? Like is it immersive enough to go fly around in the mountains? Or hop around some lakes in a seaplane? Is manipulating switches and buttons other than the primary controls cumbersome within VR? I remember the original 'virtual cockpits' in MS Flight Sim and planning around go find the right switches and buttons to click really took away from the experience.

I'm really interested in this idea but haven't found a setup to try out and I'm hesitant to spend a bunch on it just to test it out.

<comment><USER3> You don't get any of the "seat of the pants" feeling of course, and the graphics, while super impressive, don't compare to real-life low and slow VFR flying (although hopefully MS Flight Sim 2020 changes that). It doesn't replace the real thing.

BUT I enjoy flying VFR in busy airspace with the PilotEdge network, and also IFR flying. For the communications and IFR flying, the mental tasks you do in the sim are identical to what you do for real. After an ILS approach to minimums in the sim, I feel like I got a workout. It definitely keeps my head in the game.

The controls become second nature very quickly.

<comment><USER5> What is VFR and IFR??

I know nothing about flying but it's something that I am always thinking about learning, but if VR is good enough to scratch that itch, I'm up for it.

<comment><USER3> Briefly, VFR = Visual Flight Rules. You control the aircraft by looking outside. IFR = Instrument Flight Rules. You control the aircraft strictly by reference to instruments (you need to do this in clouds, for example, when you can't see the horizon).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find that playing a game in VR is like listing to music in 5.1: It requires a lot of physical space and setup, which then limits the audience to a dedicated niche.

The limitation, in this case, is being affluent enough to have a large empty indoor space to dedicate to VR so you don't bump into things as you walk around; and the desire to calibrate the thing correctly. It's like setting up a really good sound system to listen to music in 5.1; really fun if you like that kind of thing, but "meh" to most people who are happy with a smart speaker.

In my case, when I played a friend's VR setup, he had to have his entire living room completely empty and the system calibrated correctly. Even though his living room was rather large for a Boston-area apartment, it just wasn't large enough, and I kept bumping into a specific wall where his system was miscalibrated.

Such a system will never work in a typical tiny Tokyo, NYC, or Hong Kong apartment; but I could see it selling being a good niche in suburban areas where it's common to have large basements.

<comment><USER7> That'S not an issue with the Occulus Quest anymore. You need a little space, but setup is very easy and requires no extra arrangements.

<comment><USER8> Can you project what you see on the headset only Oculus Quest to another screen? For example, if I am playing Beat Saber, can I project my view to TV so that family can watch? Or to a Chromecast/Alex/similar tech?

<comment><USER7> Yes and no - unfortunately the individual apps have to allow it, and Beat Saber doesn't allow it yet. It works for other apps, though (with Chromecast).

I really don't know why Beat Saber doesn't allow it, it would make so much sense.

<comment><USER9> Casting has been enabled in Beat Saber since june: [https://uploadvr.com/beat- saber-oculus-quest-casting/](https://uploadvr.com/beat-saber-oculus-quest- casting/)

<comment><USER7> Hm OK I didn't know, I was under the impression I tried it later than that, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I used to be a casual PC gamer, with a fairly good spec build. Then one day I played some VR games at a friend's house on PSVR, which blew my mind - <USER2> only how much fun I had, but how much fun our non gamer friends had!

After that my wife and me got a second hand Vive for 350, and it's been amazing. I never play regular games any more, and even she (who never played any games) now enjoys it a lot and plays with me from time to time.

All this is to say that I do think VR is here to stay, it just blows regular gaming out of the water... but it definitely is at its infancy - games look and feel the way PC games did 10 years ago..

<comment><USER11> The most accurate description that I've heard is that we're at the point where GUIs were in the 80s. The tech was just good enough for it and there were already several products on the market, but designers were still exploring the space and had not agreed on common metaphors yet. Which is exciting to witness, but shows that we're still squarely in the "early-adopter" phase of the curve.

(As for myself, I tried a friend's Oculus Quest extensively two weeks ago. Now I'm sitting at home, drawing up plans in Inkscape for how to rearrange my furniture to accommodate a room-scale VR area.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Why we've never fallen in love with 3-d glasses" -fixed the title.

Science fiction predictions of the future are almost universally comically bad. People should know this by now; we completely lack positronic brains, warp drives, moon bases and tricorders. VR is a science fiction prediction of the future, just like positronic brains. The fact that people won't pay lots of money for a cheesy 3-d glasses experience as a proxy for science fiction VR shouldn't surprise anyone.

<comment><USER13> But we do have personal communicators, which are _way_ better than sci fi ever depicted.

<comment><USER12> I never saw captain Kirk recharging his, nor fiddling with it when he was bored. Space1999 commlocks were also way better than an ipotato. [http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umcomlock.html](http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umcomlock.html)

<comment><USER14> > I never saw captain Kirk recharging his

Well, if the current trend of battery improvements holds, and considering the unfathomable amounts of money and time thrown at the problem, we're hopefully about 10 years away from devices that can last 1 week on a single charge. Not quite Captain Kirk material, but we have about 240 years to get there.

> nor fiddling with it when he was bored

Do you consider this a minus? Most people consider it a huge plus :-)

<comment><USER15> The iPhone 11 Pro Max has a 15 watt-hour battery. If it lasted a week on a single charge, it would need a 105 watt-hour battery. That's the same amount of energy in 90 grams of TNT.

<comment><USER12> >it would need a 105 watt-hour battery. That's the same amount of energy in 90 grams of TNT.

It's the same amount of energy as 11 milliliters of gasoline or a third of an ounce of fat on a piece of steak. Batteries (and explosives) are shitty at storing energy compared to hydrocarbons.

<comment><USER15> Danger comes from energy density and ability to release that energy quickly. Fat doesn't explode. Neither does gasoline, though I wouldn't be comfortable carrying 11ml of gasoline in my pocket. Existing batteries sometimes _do_ explode and cause injury. The problem would be far worse if they had 7x more energy in them.

<comment><USER12> I did use the example of gasoline, but I don't know why you'd be uncomfortable carrying 11ml of it in your pocket. Let's change it to 11ml of ethanol which is basically the same energy density. In principle you should be able to extract the energy using a fuel cell or even a heat engine. Since we're talking about futuristic cell phones, it seems more than possible to squeeze more energy into Captain Kirk's federationphone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > A major issue is that the price of headsets has remained very expensive.

They mention it in passing in a later paragraph, but the cost of the headset is peanuts compared to the cost of a system that can provide a consistent, high-framerate, high-quality image. While cheaper options exist (Daydream/Gear VR, Oculus Quest, PSVR) they just don't have the quality or framerate to really send home the "future of gaming" VR has been sold as.

I'd argue we're still _minimum_ three years away from seeing mass adoption of VR in the household/consumer market. With raytracing still being in its infancy and software optimizations for many-core CPUs just beginning, it'll still be some time before mid-level <$800 systems are capable of providing a _good_ VR experience.

<comment><USER17> > they just don't have the quality or framerate to really send home the > "future of gaming" VR has been sold as

Have you actually played with the Quest? I've had many people use mine, also people who used Vive or Rift before and nobody was disappointed with the quality of it. If realism and frame rate were the most important part of gaming, then Pokemon Go and Candy Crush wouldn't be as profitable as they are. The majority of people want simple, arcade style entertainment, not hyper realistic sagas that take hours to finish.

<comment><USER18> > The majority of people want [X current product] not [Y under active > development].

I've lost count of the number of times people have used that template and turned out to be humerously wrong. My favourite is probably when people tried to use it for Japanese phones > iPhones then the next generation iPhone wiped the competition in Japan.

People want good entertainment more than they want their senses stimulated, but it seems very likely that good entertainment which stimulates the senses more effectively will have a massive market.

We're dealing with something where the output can be strictly better than video in a fairly meaningful way. It'll turn out people want that when someone makes a compelling and high quality game/app. Sure, nobody is going to move over just because the visuals are good; but there is artistic space in VR that hasn't been touched before and some of it is going to be amazing.

I suppose the short version is you are right but we've seen people say that before and it presaged massive changes.

<comment><USER17> I'm not predicting though, I'm just observing. The most popular free games on mobile are consistently low quality arcade games. Also, I'm not saying it's the only thing people play, GTA and RDR are super high grossing franchises and they are high quality sagas. I'm mostly rebutting against the notion that lack of quality is holding back consumer grade VR.

<comment><USER19> I think performance in terms of keeping things consistent and smooth is really important, but visual realism or duplicating reality is overrated. Not only do you get into uncanny valley territory but more stylized art is often more compelling than imitation of reality. Beat Saber, Superhot, Sprint Vector, or I Expect You To Die for example have varying levels of unrealistic stabilization but are still immersive.

Call of Duty on consoles has long been described as feeling better than other shooters, partially because of it's 60fps target since Call of Duty 2. At the time few people would care if "60fps!" was a feature printed on the box, it was more behind the curtain magic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "We've never fallen in love"? Really?

This is he first time for me where an emergent new technology in the gaming world feels like a proper thing with actual potential, and not a just a novelty gimmick like motion controls, 3D and previous attempts at "VR" were. I had the chance to try the new Oculus Rift S and the HTC Vive over the holidays with some Beat Saber and Superhot and it was a really amazing experience. I have honestly never felt such awe for a game since my childhood days where I'd witness a brand new graphics engine like Source for the first time.

There is definitely a bright future for VR as the technology will only get better, cheaper and more accessible with time.

<comment><USER21> > "We've never fallen in love"? Really?

Yes, really, You are the exception. By now there is quite a few people who have tried VR in some place or another and the market has clearly shown sales are not skyrocketing at all. It's a very slow growth, we are talking about a few millions headsets per year, which is just pocket money market wise compared to smartphones or even PCs at large. Also, most of the software is utter crap (with a few exceptions like Beat Saber, Tetris Effect) and not convincing enough for anyone who cares about their spending.

<comment><USER22> there is no space for gaming to evolve at the moment without VR. The only thing that next generation consoles are bringing to the table is more advanced graphics. VR offers a truly innovative space for gaming to move into and whilst its not there yet in terms of hardware and software, I can see it being 'the future' as it were.

<comment><USER23> I think there's potential for things like Apple's U1 chip and Google's Soli chip to add cheap and accurate gesture control to consoles without the need to hold controllers at all. Add an array of mics and the next gen of Guitar Hero can be based on a group's singing and dancing but graded on a per-voice / per- body basis.

Because of a console's placement in front of a group instead of attached to a single person's head, I think it's better positioned for a wide variety of entertainment experiences.

Large TVs are now cheap enough that they can fill an entire group's field of vision with a shared experience as opposed to having to buy 1 headset per person. Obviously turning your head ruins the immersion of a TV, but I would argue that's not always a bad thing. Sometimes it's fun to be "trapped" in VR, but sometimes it just makes the experience more isolating and difficult to operate (eg how do I watch my kids playing on the other side of the room while I have a headset on?).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Sim racing, or for those unaware of it: basically racing games with realistic physics and usually a competitive online racing field, is incredible in VR.

The sense of speed and immersion with a good wheel and pedal setup in VR is unmatched by a monitor based setup. I tried it at a VR arcade and kept adding time to my session to keep playing.

I have a fairly nice and expensive sim racing setup at home right now, but my PC cant run any of the current sims in VR well enough for me to justify getting a headset. Between PC upgrades and headset im looking at $500+ in upgrades that I just haven't gotten around to doing, but you can bet its on my list

<comment><USER25> VR simracing can be hit and miss i.e. rf2 looks amazing but is rough around the edges (Hungaroring in the wet in a GT3 car is amazing in VR) but assetto Corsa looks awful.

Don't bother with anything worse than an Index these days, the Vive is amazing in beat Sabre but awful if you want to read the dials.

<comment><USER26> assetto corsa is great because of the modding community. there are some hybrid fantasy/real life maps that are amazing. You can have these great casual drives through "California" mountains that are inspired by real life. I had a blast playing it with a wheel setup

If you want a more realistic sim, iRacing is supposedly top dog, but it's subscription based.

<comment><USER27> I have both assetto corsa and iracing and high end equipment (fanatec highest end pedals, fanatec DD2 wheel and fanatec gearbox) and I'm not going to renew iRacing.

I enjoy Asetto Corsa better, regarding the physics, I consider they are about as good, graphics are so much better. The good thing of iRacing is the online competition, which is simply superior on every single aspect, but not worth the subscription model nor the costs.

It may make sense if you run ovals, dirt ovals or rally cross, but since I only run on circuits, it's not worth the money to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Truly immersive VR experiences are great. The park I went to in Tokyo recently had some fun licensed ones:

\+ A Shin Godzilla themed helicopter raid which required a customized "cockpit" to ride in with rumble capabilities, \+ A Dragon Quest free-roaming VR adventure which required a LOT of space to enable \+ A Mario Kart race which, again, required a customized "kart" to ride in which simulated the physics of every sharp turn I took.

The first and third attractions were about five minutes long each. I don't doubt that there was a lot of engineering effort required to even get to that much content nor the fact that I would likely grow very tired of having to play an extended version of each for, say, an hour or two.

I think for at least the time being, this is how VR is going to be adopted: As a theme park experience where short novelty experiences people want to have is made available with the space and props already provided to enjoy it.

<comment><USER29> Yes, this seems obvious to me.

Stuff like The Void[1], where a complete arena is built to supplement the visuals, with physical features that match the VR ones (like physical buttons on walls that match the VR projected ones, moving platforms), smells, wind, sounds, etc.

The future of this is going to be incredibly cool, I think. Just subtle stuff like blowing cold air on your face when you're standing on top of a VR mountain, will do wonders for the immersion.

[1] [https://www.thevoid.com/](https://www.thevoid.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I had a GearVR and it was pretty fun for a while but the battery life, overheating and lack of great apps made me lose interest.

I then got a mixed reality headset and Beat Saber was a game-changer for me. The controls are so simple and are perfectly suited to VR. No motion sickness etc. It's a great game. I've picked up loads of the best selling VR games on Steam and although some have been fun, none quite match up to Beat Saber.

Google Earth with room-scale VR is stunning. Being able to walk around your hometown as if you were a couple of hundred feet tall is an incredible experience.

I'm looking forward to MS Flight Simulator 2020 and it looks like the devs are making VR a priority. This could be a winner for me.

</comment><comment><USER31> Really, what a bad time to publish such article. Oculus Quest hit records with its' sales for Christmas, and out of stock for two months ahead.

<comment><USER32> Also, Valve will release _Half-Life: Alyx_ [1] in March 2020. It's the first game in the much-loved HL series released since Portal 2 in 2011.

I don't own a VR headset and I don't intend to any time soon - it's too expensive and nothing looks enjoyable enough to justify the cost. But once enough big-name games like Alyx get released, gamers previously on the fence (like me) will start to purchase VR headsets, and VR will eventually become the new gaming platform that publishers wants to release on.

[1] [https://store.steampowered.com/app/546560/HalfLife_Alyx/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/546560/HalfLife_Alyx/)

<comment><USER21> > and VR will eventually become the new gaming platform that publishers wants > to release on.

I predict the opposite. It will sell a few headsets maybe (a peak), but that alone will not change the course of the technology at all in 2020. Plus, Half Life's popularity in 2020 has nothing to do with its popularity 20 years ago.

<comment><USER33> It pretty much stole social media headlines with just a post saying "tune in a few days for our next VR game". Valve have plenty of clout still, and Half- Life still draws plenty of eyes.

<comment><USER21> Social media fanatism or outrage hardly reflects the market as a whole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Really surprised that neither the article nor the comments here mention the #1 barrier to entry. Your average person doesn't want to strap a big, heavy, sweaty contraption on their face that blocks their vision entirely. Analysts and enthusiasts seem to miss this point constantly.

<comment><USER35> People will do things that they aren't used to if the benefits outweigh the costs.

And of the list of things preventing people from doing VR right now, I doubt strapping the headset on is anywhere near the top (things like cost, PC, space, etc are).

<comment><USER36> > I doubt strapping the headset on is anywhere near the top

For me personally, a side effect of that is the reason I'm not excited about VR: it's anti-social. I'm shutting myself off from anyone else in my apartment in a way a normal video game doesn't do. It makes me way, way less excited about the potential of VR.

<comment><USER37> Interestingly, I've had the most impressive social experience in VR. I got the Oculus Go when it came out and bought Catan (the board game, but in VR). I then launched a game online, and ended up playing for an hour with a finish kid and a canadian dude. We talked like we were all together, and at the end I couldn't just leave without saying goodbye (usually I just quit a game, but here I felt some social pressure to do the right thing). We even shook hand.

<comment><USER36> That's a very different social experience, though. You're still blocking yourself off from other people in the room with you.

<comment><USER37> Sure but don't you do the same when you are watching a movie or playing a videogame?

There are games to interact with other people in the room btw and they are super fun as well! Check "keep talking and nobody explodes" and "acron: attack of the squirels ".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I agree with everyone here who is praising the Quest.

How they'd write an article like this and not mention the Oculus Quest even once is beyond me. It is a game changer and two of my friends have bought one after trying it out once. No cables, no PC, minimal setup, and incredibly immersive.

<comment><USER39> Yep. I have a friend who simply mocked my Gear VR who was looking up the price on Amazon minutes after trying out the Quest. Anybody trashing VR needs to try the Quest. Trash it afterwards if you like, but don't trash it based on the previous gen (either high end or low end) because they are not comparable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> What I think virtual reality would be immediately useful right now: for anyone working on 3D modeling/animating/CAD. It is very finicky to view and manipulate 3d data on a flat 2d monitor, VR headsets and manipulation devices should be a godsend to those professions. (Also, they have a lot more money to throw than ordinary consumers, they would be willing to pay thousands on a superior workflow.) If VR software developers would focus on those programs first, I would see VR being a must-buy for certain niche groups of people (which would be a solid foundation for the VR industry.) Too bad that many of the VR developers are tunnel-visioned and only care about flashy games/entertainment, where the real gold might be somewhere else.

<comment><USER41> I currently hack together a mini mesh modelling tool in VR for very specific reasons. I find that creating a UI for something moderately complex isn't all that easy. The common idiom is to treat your controllers as laser pointers, but precision is limited. So you need big UI elements to have easy to hit targets. With the number of simultaneous UI elements thus limited, you need to create hierarchies and menus fast, making interaction cumbersome.

Also, using VR controllers in thin air for a prolonged time becomes a workout. The human body isn't quite made for keeping arms in these poses for extended periods of time.

However, being able to view and manipulate a virtual object directly in 3d space is pretty darn sweet. Just bending your head or moving your hand beats manipulating virtual canera perspectives and gizmos for precision 3d interaction on a screen.

I nearly forgot: the Unreal Engine editor has a VR mode that brings in the nornal 2D GUI as floating windows. I didn't like that very much, but people seem to be OK with it. I don't know any other DCC software that has VR support.

<comment><USER42> Good observations. CAD users typically have one hand on the keyboard and one on the mouse or 3D mouse. If you took out the mouse-screen translation and directly manipulated the object/scene with your mouse hand, I think you'd have the best of old and new. This calls for mixed reality, or visibility of your keyboard in VR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The price. That's the only reason for me. Other than that it's wonderful; Once the prices reach affordable for the masses level, it will surely blow up, given the right apps come with it. People yearn to fantasize, break away from reality, new sensorial experiences etc. If VR offers that at good prices it'll be an explosion. That's my view on it.

<comment><USER44> Oculus Quest is $400, which is cheaper than original NES.

<comment><USER45> Yeah, it's weird how everyone is talking like it's a multi-thousand dollar investment. Even TFA, it closes with:

> "Mass adoption remains impeded by the hardware required to run it, in my > opinion. Take videogames - you need a very powerful PC, a good amount of > space, sensors set up around it, and of course the VR helmet itself.

> "The cost runs to thousands and for most it is completely impractical not to > mention too expensive.

I appreciate the space concern (I live with others in a condo), but the cost is 1/5th or 1/10th of what they suggest, and they are completely ignoring inside-out tracking with obviates the need for a dedicated room with a sensor setup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> For me personally I have tried it, and it gives me a headache and makes me feel bad. Now this could be like anything else that causes motion sickness where one would get accustomed to it, but I am not prepared to spend a lot of money on a headset not knowing if it ever would not give me a headache.

Also the experience isn't really mind-blowing either. We are still in a physical space where I'll walk into a wall. Virtual reality is far from reality and constrained by reality at the same time. I'd rather game with a large HD screen and use input devices so I still have my senses if I have to respond to the real world.

</comment><comment><USER47> Sensationalist article that is completely out of touch with reality on both social and technical levels. Oculus quest is a game changer - obvious to anyone that puts it on - and the fact that it's not even mentioned says a lot. I doubt she has even tried it.

On a social level, it is comical how myopic her vision for VR is and how far off the mark the focus on VR arcades lies. The big selling point of VR in the near and not so near future is not expensive social experiences on somebody else's commercial infrastructure but escapism and social experiences including work in the comfort of your own home.

Global warming, rising populations, terrorist attacks, widespread decoherence, pollution and decay in our urban centers are all powerful accelerators and extremely synergistic for the future of VR.

<comment><USER48> Are those use cases supposed to make VR sound good?

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Another issue is motion sickness. For a significant portion of us this is a huge problem.

<comment><USER50> Most people can reportedly get used to the discrepancy between the vision and balance senses and be rid of the motion sickness (with some training: keep playing until you start feeling uncomfortable, wait until the next day, go again).

Ginger can also help delay onset.

It can also be noted that motion sickness really only is a problem where the game character moves while you stand still physically (e.g. using a joystick to move around). Other forms of locomotion (like teleportation) are usually fine.

<comment><USER49> These are, unfortunately, falsehoods that keep getting perpetuated despite efforts to the contrary.

While you can become slightly more tolerant with repeated exposure (as you can with anything noxious), the the discomfort never goes away.

And it's not just game character motion. Any camera movement can trigger it, at different levels for different people. If you don't get triggered, count yourself lucky, and don't tell the rest of us to "just practice" or attempt to explain away that it's only X and not ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYZ. Listen to what we're actually SAYING.

I still remember Valve responding to complaints of motion sickness in Half Life 2 with the lame excuse "It's because our technology is so amazingly lifelike." I wanted to punch the guy in the face and ask him if that was lifelike enough for him.

<comment> GuB-42 > I still remember Valve responding to complaints of motion sickness in Half > Life 2 with the lame excuse "It's because our technology is so amazingly > lifelike."

That's interesting you bring adaptation and immersion together. I do feel motion sickness in VR in extreme cases. Interestingly I managed to become more tolerant of it but it came with a significant loss of immersion.

Oh and the "amazingly lifelike" argument for justifying motion sickness is indeed complete bullshit. If you experience motion sickness, it is because it is _not_ lifelike. Bad framerates, high latency, unnatural camera movement, etc... all contribute to motion sickness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> There are so many problems in this article.I don't know where to begin. Obviously she doesn't mention the Oculus Quest and Obviously she doesn't even mention popular VR games that everybody is actually buying.

There are VR devices for everyone and she seems to be basing her entire article on the shoddy VR mall experience she once got to try out.

The Quest is the best VR experience today for casual and semi-hardcore users and it changes the game entirely.

</comment><comment><USER52> I own an Oculus Quest, and it's not bad. But it does take up too much room to play, it's isolating, there's not enough content yet besides glorified tech demos, and both the hardware and the games are too expensive.

</comment><comment><USER53> About the only VR game that's ever seemed appealing to me is that table top simulator game.

[https://store.steampowered.com/app/286160/Tabletop_Simulator...](https://store.steampowered.com/app/286160/Tabletop_Simulator/)

Personally, I'd love to get a group of people together and play a DND campaign or something with it, but other than that, I don't have any interest in VR games.

If anything, these days, I prefer quicker, less immersive games I can pick up and play and put down again. VR's the opposite of that in just about every way.

<comment><USER54> Personally, I find Elite: Dangerous to be the best, most immersive VR game I've played. It's a 6DOF space sim set in a 1:1 scale version of the Milky Way that puts you in the pilot's seat, with a few dozen ships to choose from. The insides of the cockpit (or bridge on the larger ships) are fully modeled. Paired with a decent HOTAS or dual-stick setup, it's about as close as you're going to get to flying a futuristic spaceship. The game offers combat, trading, exploration, mining, rescue missions, surface exploration and you can have friends join you on your ship as either a gunner or ship-launched fighter pilot.

Development has stalled somewhat over the last 6 months -- the developer is actively releasing updates, but mostly catching up on bugfixes in anticipation of a new expansion later this year. But if you're new to the game, there are easily 100+ hours of gameplay available as long as you're ok that it's not a narrative-driven game. The community is very active, with player factions driving many of the activities in the game from public Discord servers, so the lack of content updates isn't necessarily as bad as it would be in other games. Only like 0.5% of the systems in the galaxy have been explored, so plenty left to discover!

<comment><USER53> I have to admit, a vr space sim could be pretty awesome. I've played a lot of oolite and I used to play another space Sim pretty heavily the name which escapes me right now.

>surface exploration and you can have friends join you on your ship as either a gunner or ship-launched fighter pilot.

This seems like it would be pretty fun. I find space Sims get boring though, they tend to get really repetitive. How does elite dangerous do with mission and system variety? I find in the end, with most games like that, different systems tend to boil down to different numbers on the trade screen, maybe a random event or two and a lot of flying around empty space to get to a planet or stations, load up on some trade goods or get a mission, head to the next system, repeat. Maybe mine an asteroid or two for minerals in between.

These things would definitely be prettier and more immersive in VR, but are they any more fun?

<comment><USER54> System variety is great; you can fly between the various stars / planets in a system, you can land on any rocky / ice planets without an atmosphere. They're all randomly generated when you get outside the "bubble" (a few hundred LY around Sol), but bound by the currently-understood laws of physics. I can't tell you how cool it feels to zoom around various star types in hyperspace or supercharge your jump drive in the jet cone of a neutron star. Asteroid mining is also really cool and engaging, especially in VR.

Mission variety is not-so-great, but I haven't taken an official mission in over a year. There is plenty to do if you're self-directed or you participate in community-driven content.

But yeah, ultimately it is a space sim and it can be played without VR (though a significant percentage of players do use VR). It's still by far the most immersive VR game I've ever played. It's also really pretty, especially with some of the shader mods applied (look up some screenshots for an idea).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> d--b FIELD OF VISION.

Why can't VR people understand that humans are used to ultra wide vision angle? Peeping into a VR headset removes all peripheral vision, meaning you have to rotate your head all over to see things. It's like playing quake with your neck.

Make a 180 angle headset and maybe people will feel transported to another place. Right now it's more like looking into a doll's house.

No wonder immersive rooms are better

<comment><USER54> The Valve Index is actually pretty good at this. It's not quite 180, but somewhere around 130 which is good enough to give you decent peripheral vision. I feel like the next generation of VR will be a lot closer.

Also, the main thing holding back VR right now is the amount of graphics horsepower required to run complex games at high resolutions and refresh rates of 90-120fps. I don't think there are any cards on the market that can run the Index at native resolution in most games (the software will scale the resolution to your hardware).

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Something about vr systems makes it not feel real to me. I'm thinking it's that I can't change the focus of my eyes. Everything is in the same focus. I forget what that's called but it makes it feel fake to me.

<comment><USER56> Varifocal VR headsets are in the R&D stage. A year or two ago Oculus showed off a headset called Half-dome that had varifocal displays. It'll get there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'm a firm believer that Oculus Quest is the new beginning of VR. I used to be a real skeptic but now I've turned.

I think it's futile to analyse the market pre-Quest and I'm excited of what's to come.

<comment><USER58> It sends everything you do to Facebook right? Occulus products are the one thing I'll never consider buying.

<comment><USER59> it evens transmits telemetry to facebook 24x7 when you are not using the headset itself. I have no idea what it is saying, but since I got an oculus, I can see traffic to graph.oculus.com more or less constantly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I am long on VR. It really does look good.

I think everyone's experience has been ruined by crappy. The 90s had a VR far but they sucked. Of you're putting a phone across your face, it sucks. The market was spoiled by crappy imitators and gimicks.

Anytime someone tries a real VR headset for the first time, they are usually amazed. I have personally sold 3 headsets just by having friends of mine try mine for a few minutes.

</comment><comment><USER61> I really enjoy VR games.

The problem I have is motion sickness. I can only play for very short periods of time, and I feel sick after playing.

I've had the Rift for about a year, and despite people telling me I would get used to it, I still get motion sickness.

Because I've had the experience so many times, now just thinking about playing the game will trigger the sensation of nausea, which prevents me from even wanting to play.

</comment><comment><USER62> I have the Quest and an empty basement set up for it. The games are all still too indie feeling but with the focus dialed in the experience is truly remarkable. Oculus is pushing in the right places too - standalone device with PC support, hands free capability (for older/elderly), and hopefully guardian- less mode (outside play).

I've had a number of friends and family members of different ages try it. The older ones struggled with the controls but once they got into Beat Saber they enjoyed it. With better content and games I see it finally taking off. I dream of the day we have parking lots/warehouses where people play MMOs on VR and stay fit.

</comment><comment><USER63> I put a PS4 VR set on my head at my relatives over the holidays and I could not have been more disappointed.

They had just been gifted it for Christmas and were trying out all of the demos.

I put it on and while I could rotate my head in any direction like I was living inside some google maps experiment almost...

The picture was extremely blurry and the entire experience gave me a headache... after probably only 10 minutes of use.

I am not surprised that experience hasn't "taken off" yet. It was terrible.

I can't believe somebody paid good money for that.

As soon as I put it on all I could think was "damnit, we're still 20 years out from this actually working like we expect it to".

<comment><USER56> The PSVR is the lowest-resolution "high end" VR headset out there, and is on the underpowered PS4 hardware, with poor controller tracking and lots of motion blur and downsampling to make the games even run.

You really ought to try an Oculus Quest or Rift S/Vive Pro. PSVR has 1080 vertical pixels, Quest has 1600 vertical pixels, much better lenses, and much better controllers. Not to mention the games run much more smoothly

<comment><USER63> Alright thanks for that! My hopes for an impending VR future are no longer as dim. I didn't realize the PSVR came out in 2016 when I tried it. I figured it was brand new this year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> It seems like a bulky novelty. Like something we would very much enjoy but because of the cost and involved setup I'd rather go to an arcade to experience VR than throw it into a room and turn gaming into an even more socially isolated thing than it already is. I also don't know how often I'd use it past. Seems fun for racing and flight games, but I also can't justify keeping a ton of simulation racing/flight gear around in my house. A simple handheld controller seems "good enough" for achieving 90% of the fun.

I do wish there'd be more VR availability in arcade-style places.

</comment><comment><USER65> > "Mass adoption remains impeded by the hardware required to run it, in my > opinion. Take videogames - you need a very powerful PC, a good amount of > space, sensors set up around it, and of course the VR helmet itself.

> "The cost runs to thousands and for most it is completely impractical not to > mention too expensive.

The Oculus Quest is about 50$ more than a PS4 Pro / Xbox X at launch. Still expensive but not in the thousands.

<comment><USER17> I think it's the same issue that's happening with electric cars. People remember only the disadvantages of old technology and aren't aware of new tech being much better and more user friendly. With VR, people think it's cables, bulky PC's and complex setup, because that's their first and only experience with it. With electric cars, it's range anxiety, slow charging and degrading batteries. Meanwhile, the media tends to strengthen this bias with articles like this one and reporting every single incident with a Tesla.

The only way to change people's minds is to let them experience the alternative, I see this both with my Quest and my Tesla. We recently had a game night at work, where multiple people brought VR headsets, but mine was the only tetherless one. I let people play Tea for God, which is a procedurally generated game that lets people walk a long distance in a restricted play area. Many of them had played VR games before, but nobody experienced anything like this and many people asked me more about it, even days later, because they weren't aware that the technology existed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I hope to build a system primarily for a Valve Index this year. I think VR is here to stay, and it reminds of the early days of PC's and pc gaming, when a PC could be 4k (I mean they still can be, but you get what I am saying), and games required the top level hardware and didn't always try to run on yesterdays potato, an artificial limitation put on way to many things today.

</comment><comment><USER67> I have the PSVR and in many ways it's great.

For example, it's tough to beat Wipeout VR as a future racing experience. The fact that you can look around/through the corners the way you do in the real world when you're driving a vehicle really changes the way the game plays and makes it much more immersive.

OTOH some games do seem to cause quite severe motion sickness (I forget the name of the one I'm particularly thinking of because I haven't played it in ages, for obvious reasons).

The other problem is that ergonomically it's an absolute arse-ache. I have the first gen PSVR which is just an festooning nightmare of cables. The lenses are also way too prone to fogging.

I believe the second gen headsets are better but there are still cable management issues.

It's also, frankly, not that comfortable to wear. It's not painful or anything like that, but I'm no fan of wearing hats because they tend to make me feel too hot, so you can imagine what having a bulky conglomeration of plastic and electronics strapped to my face for long periods feels like.

Really these things need to be wireless and rechargeable but then, of course, you open the system up to more latency issues.

One area I haven't had so many issues, which is touched on in the article, is the drop in quality, and in particular graphical fidelity.

Wipeout VR, I think, runs at 4K on a PS4 Pro but only 1080P with PSVR. I haven't found this to be something that bothers me at all, or at least not with this game.

On the other hand I have found the drop in quality with Driveclub VR to be noticeable to the point where it does detract from the experience.

It really does very much depend on the game though.

Still, overall impressions of the experiences on offer are fairly positive.

<comment><USER68> > but then, of course, you open the system up to more latency issues.

Nope. Maybe "of course", if they just lazily hack something together. But the tech is there, today, for low latency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I suspect the software has an effect too. There's certainly some neat stuff you can experience with VR headsets now, and apps have been made for it, but none of the things released so far have been a big enough hit to make people want go out and buy the systems to experiece them.

They just don't have their Super Mario Bros/Tetris/Wii Sports/Minecraft/whatever equivalent yet, the thing that'll set the world on fire enough that people will be all like "I'll have to buy a VR headset now, to experience this product everyone else is talking about"

<comment><USER70> The Valve Index (by Steam) has been sold out in December after they announced Half-Life Alyx which is included with every Index. This is won't be the time everyone goes VR yet but the market is expanding.

<comment><USER69> Yeah, the market certainly is. And Valve making a Half-Life game for their system was probably the best move they could make as far as increasing demand goes too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> It isn't ready yet. We have come a very long way, but the hype always sets expectations - too soon for the quality and price consumers demand.

Compare what was an amazing experience in 1995 with MechWarrior 2 VR ($3000 headset + $3000 PC in 1995 dollars) to the experience that Sony offers with the PS4 for less than 1/6th the cost today. I am still excited to see what comes next.

<comment><USER72> IMHO nothing matches the truly immersive experience of Battletech that they had at North Pier in Chicago when I was growing up.

It was a fully themed space and you'd walk into a room full of pods (cockpits) and they'd slide the hatch closed on you. Then lights and multiple monitors would come on and you had a joystick, throttle, foot pedals for rotating your turret, and a massive array of switches, buttons, and their associated little red digital displays for weapon assignments, etc.

It was unbelievable and at the end you all went into a room to watch a spectator view of the match and got a printout with every blow of the match described in log format.

I think I still have my membership card somewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> These comments (and inevitably, anywhere else there's discussions of VR) always find themselves with a 50/50 split on:

"Most people I know (love it / hate it / don't get motion sick / get motion sick), those who (hate it / love it / get motion sick / don't get motion sick) are the minority."

Does anyone have real data on this, or just anecdata?

</comment><comment><USER74> Elite Dangerous. There, now that's been said. Brilliant experience.

</comment><comment><USER75> vr is just expensive and requires fairly high end hardware still. There are also are all kinds of software issues with it. like when i was playing a well known racing game, very often the camera would be somewhere other than the driver's seat. And those are the kind of games that really are quite heavy on vr adoption and are the natural fit for this type of control.

many games do not naturally lend themself to vr, and by those i mean the most popular genres, like fps, rpg, action-adventure. Basically every game that requires your feet to move about in a virtual world. I don't think it is suitable for strategy or management games either. So that leaves simulation, racing and some very old genres like on-rails-shooters. which is a sizeable market, but not the mainstream gaming market.

<comment><USER57> > requires fairly high end hardware still

Not true with Oculus Quest which completely turned me from a skeptic to a believer. Just put it on and start playing. No external hardware required.

<comment><USER76> Not exactly sure why you are being downvoted here.

Oculus Quest really does not require an external computer (ie High-End Hardware), and it _is_ a really good experience (it's also really cheap compared to alternatives), specially the "tetherless" part of it. [You can see a lot of people in this exact thread talk about their experiences with it]

While there is still a lot to improve in terms of quality, not every game needs to look realistic (see: Fortinite - cartoon style).

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Digit-Al We need these[0], but better.

[0] [https://www.slashgear.com/panasonic-vr-glasses-are-a- steampu...](https://www.slashgear.com/panasonic-vr-glasses-are-a-steampunk- dream-for-5g-09606466/)

</comment><comment><USER77> For me personally VR it feels still weird, too cartoonish, not an immersive experience as expected. What I'd argue people would want is AR instead. That one is way more fun when done right

<comment><USER78> One big problem is what people expect, and what VR advocates describe, is basically the Holodeck from Star Trek. The immersivity of the experience is basically like being there. That's what people want, to jack in to the Matrix or some kind of old-school cyberpunk experience.

Except your brain _knows_ it's looking at a display and not an actual 3D space, and the cognitive dissonance between what it sees and proprioception are always going to limit how immersive VR can be. And that's not even getting into the other senses that VR can't simulate. Sight and sound are actually less important in terms of immersion than taste, touch and smell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Rez Infinite was, alone, enough to sell me on having a VR headset. But Rez Infinite and maybe Tetris Effect were the only applications so far to really hold my interest in VR also.

</comment><comment><USER80> VR is only going to become an obsession when we're jacked into it like the Matrix or The Beam. Otherwise it's just you wearing a screen on your face.

<comment><USER81> Saying it's just a screen on your face is an oversimplification. While that may be a somewhat accurate physical description, it doesn't capture the actual experience, anymore than saying a smart phone is just a phone in your pocket.

I've had vr sets since the oculus dk2, and admit that I probably haven't used it in over a year, because it's a bit cumbersome, locks you into a single experience, removes you from your environment, and the relatively lower quality of applications that are available.

There are some really great immersive applications though such as subnautica, google earth, and elite dangerous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> It's a simple matter of price performance ratio. Price meaning comfort and money. At some point that ratio will tip.

</comment><comment><USER83> I've gotten nauseous every time I put on a VR headset...no wonder I haven't fallen in love with it.

</comment><comment><USER84> "This could be a way to revolutionize flight training, and make it more accessible. "

I rather think this could revolutionize any expensive training. Everything with heavy machines would benefit. And every other sector where a beginner misstake can literaly blow something up.

</comment><comment><USER85> Uncomfortable to the point of sickening. Space and price are valid point but for me its the sickening impression of fake motion, staring at screen so close to your eyes, burrliness, wheight of the headset and silly looks.

<comment><USER33> Looking silly is the one critique of VR I just don't get. Your in the safety of your own home and either A) live alone or B) live with a significant other/parents/roommates. In which case, who cares what they think you might look like while enjoying yourself?

<comment><USER85> Years ago i remember working at a company where a vr presentation was cancelled because some high level automotive management folks refused to wear a headset because it might mess with their hair. Thats just one example. I personally dont like to put on these headsets too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> The very main reason VR isn't taking off is because it has no _killer app_ , that is, an app that other platforms can't have, and that people love. End-of- story.

What's to understand here is that it's not said that this killer app "exists". If VR is only a cooler screen, then it will sell like cooler screens. Now maybe it's a killer screen, that is a screen that everybody wants. I guess there is a competitive advantage of thinking like that, but right now, vendors think they are making a software/hardware platform when they have no killer app.

<comment><USER39> I don't know if it will happen, but a killer app that _ought_ to exist is exercise. I've never found anything that gamified exercise the way the Occulus Quest does. The kind of full body workout I get from ducking, weaving, dodging and swinging at fast moving opponents, all at 6:30am in the morning without leaving my home, is simply amazing.

<comment><USER87> You don't need VR for that, only motion controls. Some people have exercise streaks that go on for years on Nintendo's Wii Fit, and Ring Fit Adventure is on the same path.

<comment><USER88> I've never managed to stick with exercise until the Beat Saber (upper body) and Pistol Whip (lower body) combo. There's something particularly compelling about it - I can get my heart rate waaaaaay up without really noticing I'm working hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> VR won't ever be more than niche because there is no way to fake tactile feedback or motion. Games need to design around this. Beat Sanger is the best selling VR game because your character doesn't move and there is nothing to touch. God games, like black and white or the sims, and 4x games might work well too. Also if graphics get better people can set up virtual desk spaces and get rid of screens. Ultimately though the reason most games don't work is the tactile feedback and motion issues, which I can't imagine ways of solving at the moment.

<comment><USER90> >there is no way to fake tactile feedback or motion

Why not? There are quite a few companies working on these with some success. Virtuix for example (disclosure: I'm an investor) are seeing some steady commercial success in regards to addressing motion[0]. And in terms of feedback, there's a lot of interesting work done Fl around gloves in particular, including by Apple [1].

[0] [https://www.virtuix.com/](https://www.virtuix.com/) [1] [https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently- apple/2020/01/apple-a...](https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently- apple/2020/01/apple-adds-an-optical-sensor-to-its-optical-imaging-system-and- more-to-its-haptic-feedback-vr-gaming-gloves.html)

<comment><USER89> I meant more like swinging a sword will never meet another sword. Punching someone in the face will never hurt your hand, etc. and then when you swing through air as your in-game hand stops, it feels kinda lame.

<comment><USER90> I don't quite understand what you mean. I can come up with several different engineering approaches to make a sword controlle suddenly stop. And I can come up with even more ways to inflict mild pain (e.g. electrical stimulation).

What makes you say "never"? If there are people willing to pay for better immersion, I believe the technology won't be that far behind.

<comment><USER89> How would you make a "sword" stop mid-air? A companion sword-fighting robot that mimics the movements of the enemy you're seeing? I'm not saying never, just without nano-bots and a fully mutable IRL environment to go with the headset. Electrical stimulation wouldn't stop your hand moving forward, nor would it simulate hitting something in any way (unless it was stimulating your brain's pain and motor centers I guess).

<comment><USER90> How about this as a very early idea: start with something like the Virtuix Omni that allows the player to freely move and rotate. Add 3 thin metallic pillars surrounding the device, going up to about 2m, which would rotate with the player. At 2 different heights on each of these pillars there would be a pully controlling a slightly elastic cord via fast acting actuators. The other end of each of these ropes would be connected to the sword controller.

Most of the time, there wouldn't be much tension coming from the cords (other than perhaps representing gravity pulling on the sword's mass), but when a hit needs to be simulated, the right cords would rapidly tense, according to the simulated properties of the object being hit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> I am concered about the upcoming accessibility disaster. Granted, most games are likely not really essential for say, blind people, to play. But the future will bring UIs to VR. And I doubt that companies will think about accessibility from the start. It is already hard to maintain screen readers for typical GUIs. But it will be almost impossible to have meaningful assistive technologies in VR as long as they are designed as add-ons.

</comment><comment><USER92> Anyone coming up with a Ted like teddy bear conversational experience in AR. Cracking jokes at consumed content at hand will make a killing and will silence all critics. This is an article from a conservative that could have written an article like why the Electronic vehicle will never be a car 5 years ago. We know nay sayers do not have the power of imagination they just consume the fruit when it's ripe.

</comment><comment><USER93> If I could pay $200 to get the full experience, I'd already have paid. I can't, so I haven't. Unless they can get the price for the whole package including a game to below $500, it won't reach the masses and unless they get below $200 they won't reach me, because I'm a cheapskate that is satisfied with playing 30 year old games.

<comment><USER56> It'll get there. Oculus Quest is $400 and games can be had for pretty reasonable prices. In a few years I wouldn't be surprised to see an even more streamlined Quest reintroduced at $200.

<comment><USER93> Included in that price must be a PC that can handle VR, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> i have an oculus go that I got for christmas. the one that got me: vr porn. it is very immersive. next level when your partner gets involved. having only been with my one partner, it is like experiencing other people and that is very exciting.

</comment><comment><USER95> I saw the title, and thought "because real reality is more engaging".</comment>


Marketing is a Multi Interaction Game; Strategize Accordingly - <AUTHOR> http://rickdronkers.com/marketing-multi-interaction-game/

<comment><USER2> You also need to be able to identify the individuals that your competitors are targeting and counteract their brand message before it does harm to your prospects. Tightly targeted aggressive messaging is where the industry will go next.</comment>


Garden path sentence - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence <comment><USER2> A judicious use of commas helps to avoid misinterpretation. I'd also hazard to note, at the risk of sounding like a get-off-my-lawn prescriptive grammarian, that many garden path sentences achieve their ambiguity via hanging prepositions, e.g.:

>The cotton clothing is made of grows in Mississippi.

Yet the most general pattern seems to be a simple matter of loading too many words into the subject clause [1], e.g.:

>The car driven past the barn crashed.

We don't reach the verb until the last word, which not only opens the door to ambiguity but also produces flaccid prose. You will produce tighter, sharper sentences by front-loading the predicate verb.

[1] - edited from "too many clauses" as per telemachos's astute reply.

<comment><USER3> "..opens the door to ambiguity but also produces flaccid prose."

You wouldn't make friends in Germany :)

<comment><USER3> or as Twain said:

"Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last you are going to see of him till he emerges on the other side of his Atlantic with his verb in his mouth."

<comment><USER4> I have encouraged many of my friends to learn German just so they can understand the comedic brilliance of "The Awful German Language".

For those who have studied German but haven't read Twain yet: <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Awful_German_Language>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Related, also very funny, a list of sentences used as examples to show various weird language constructs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sent...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sentences).

My favorite:

"In a similar vein, Martin Gardner offered the example: Wouldn't the sentence "I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign" have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?"

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Related: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraprosdokian>

<comment><USER6> Some quick examples:

Garden path: "The horse raced past the barn fell."

The whole meaning is changed by adding one word to the end of the sentence, and you have to read the whole thing again to get it right. Makes hell for software trying to parse the sentence.

Paraprosdokian: "It's too bad that whole families have to be torn apart by something as simple as wild dogs."

The whole meaning is changed (and made funny!) by an unexpected series of words at the end. I love the examples on the wikipedia page.

<comment><USER7> And don't forget the double-Paraprosdokian! One example which springs to mind:

[http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=726#co...](http://www.smbc- comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=726#comic)

(Remember to mouse over the red button.)

<comment><USER8> This is basically the entire concept of smbc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The process involved here seems to be a backtracking search: <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Backtracking>

<comment><USER3> What's interesting is that by looking at how many nested levels are still understandable, we can also make a guess about the stack size of our brain. (short term memory (?))

<comment><USER10> Or at least some specialized subcomponent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo?

<comment><USER12> Oysters oysters oysters split split split.

<comment><USER11> You've made it to result 1a on Google. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Oysters+oysters+...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Oysters+oysters+oysters+split+split+split%22)

<comment><USER12> In fact, at present four of the 10 front-page Google results for that query were written by me. (Two copies of the one in this thread, plus two copies of something on the C2 wiki. I can't be 100% sure that I wrote the latter, but I'm pretty sure it was me.)

<comment><USER10> I love it because the sentence itself resembles an oyster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder about the same phenomenon but on higher levels of organization, e.g. concepts in an explanation. Are there valid ways to explain some concept C such that the interpreter is led down a garden path.

More important would be the existence of exclusively garden path concepts, call it the set EGPC. EGPC is the set of concepts which can only be arrived at via explanations or chains of concepts and reasoning that include at least one misleading garden path. One goal of clear teaching would seem to be reducing the number of conceptual garden paths that students encounter; so knowing that some subject necessitates them would be useful.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm noticing this while reading Under the Dome. There are many sentences where I just stop at the last couple words because the sentence doesn't make sense at that point. Quite a few times I thought they were typos. When I analyze the sentence though I find that I needed to pause in another spot or use a different meaning of a word. Haven't run into this often in other books.

<comment><USER14> I didn't run into it much through the next 800 pages of the dome. I'm almost half way through Catch-22 and it is essentially built on this type of sentence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Weird, as a non-native and non-fluent english speaker, I don't suffer that effect.

<comment><USER16> Really? How does that work?

Do you read the entire sentence, before trying to parse the grammar?

For example, when reading "The man returned to his house was happy", you don't provisionally interpret "The man returned to his house" as meaningful?

<comment><USER15> I suppose that i read the entire sentence before parsing it, just because i need a slight rational effort to decode it.

<comment><USER16> Interesting.

I'm a native English speaker, living in a foreign country, so I spend most of my day working with a language I'm not completely fluent in, and I find I do the opposite-- I'm trying to put the meaning together word by word as the sentence unfolds, which makes reading things with long, Proustian sentences very difficult.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I did a presentation a few years ago on some studies about using prosody to resolve sentence ambiguities. The improvement in listener comprehension was measurable and dramatic. The easy conclusion to draw is that leveraging prosody in your day-to-day speech makes you better understood because the listener doesn't have to devote as much conscious attention to figuring out what you're trying to say.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_(linguistics)>

</comment><comment><USER18> I learned about these in a linguistics course in college. My favorite from back then was, "The building blocks the sun faded toppled."

Depending on how you are led down it, you might have two abrupt and unanticipated words at the end.

</comment><comment><USER19> I remember encountering several of these at the start of Van Vogt's sci-fi classic _World of Null-A_. I couldn't figure out if it was deliberate in any way, or just an annoying accident.

<comment><USER20> I don't remember particular sentences like that, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were at least partially intentional. Ambiguity is one of the main components of hypnotic inductions, and van Vogt was a lay expert on hypnosis. (He co-authored "The Hypnotism Handbook" with Charles Cooke, for example.)

It's said that van Vogt would sometimes rely on unconscious processing and "dream logic" (for want of a better term) in his writing processes, so those sentences you noticed might well have been both "accidental" and unconsciously intentional.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > the garden path effect is created by a (grammatically allowed) lack of > punctuation

Take THAT, grammar nazis!

</comment><comment><USER22> It won't be fun when talking about garden path sentence without bringing up the epitome of them all, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo).

<comment><USER23> Great as that is, it's not really a garden path sentence, as there's no element of being misled. It looks absurd from the outset.

<comment><USER24> Yes it is. Read it again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> _Microsoft Windows Malicious Software removal tool_

No, it doesn't remove Windows.

</comment><comment><USER26> My dad used to say "Throw the cow over the fence, some hay"

</comment><comment><USER27> Which stove did Rolf saute the broccoli with the sesame seed oil next to?</comment>


Fun and Frustration with Scala - <AUTHOR> http://www.advogato.org/person/connolly/diary/71.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Some of the compiler errors are one of these jarring things that I hope get smoothed out in future versions of Scala. Having come from a C++ background in the past, I was pretty accustomed to figuring things out; other coworkers, however, were pretty uncomfortable with it.

Otherwise, I have the same optimism that the author of the article has about the state of the language. No massive hurdles, just a lot of things to iron out.

I'm also reminded of a discussion on Stack Overflow regarding the new collections library:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1722726/is-the- scala-2-8-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1722726/is-the- scala-2-8-collections-library-a-case-of-the-longest-suicide-note-in-histo)

Here, the 2.8 library has a lot of effort, but the way people see the types in Scaladoc might scare them.

Kind of like the compile errors, if these things are not made a bit more "people friendly", it's a significant barrier for some.

</comment><comment><USER2> The author found Modula-3 fun and exciting. Dunno, that alone makes me suspicious of our compatibility in matters of taste.</comment>


The Mysterious 'Owl' (*+*) - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/theaswathprabhu/the-mysterious-owl-11g7 <comment><USER2> Oh god. I hate it when emoji are used in articles. I don't know why I just... can't stand them. Occasional use in informal chats is okay, but that's about it.</comment>


Secure Strings in Javascript - <AUTHOR> http://google-caja.googlecode.com/svn/changes/mikesamuel/string-interpolation-29-Jan-2008/trunk/src/js/com/google/caja/interp/index.html

<comment><USER2> Does anybody know a library like this for PHP or do I need to start coding?

At the moment my best practice is to use a printf-like function to do escaping for me, it suffers the problems described in the article though.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Very specific but a must-read for advanced javascript coders</comment>


Postman A trending Android app on Google Play - <AUTHOR> http://itsmrpostman.appspot.com/a=trend

<comment><USER2> I flagged this post, for the simple reason that the link appears to be broken but it get votes, so this looks a bit shady.

</comment><comment><USER3> Link: <http://itsmrpostman.appspot.com/></comment>


"I think you will all appreciate this person's commenting style" - <AUTHOR> http://jwz.livejournal.com/1774883.html <comment><USER2> PSD was never intended to be a data interchange format: it is the serialization format of a single program that has more individual unrelated features that actual people rely on than almost any other piece of software and has maintained striking amounts of backwards compatibility and almost unbroken forwards compatibility during its over two decades of existence. This product's "file format" needs to be critiqued in this context, along with similar mega-programs like Office.

I am thereby having a difficult time fathoming why anyone would think that a PSD file is thereby going to be some well-organized file format that they should easily be able to parse from their own application is just naively wishful thinking: even other products from Adobe have limitations while opening these files; to truly manipulate these files you really need to be highly-compatible with Photoshop's particular editing model (hence the conceptual difference between these two classes of file format).

<comment><USER3> If a wise programmer decided he needs a serialization format, would he deliberately include in that format all the crap so vividly pointed to by the article?

No.

He will think of the "serialization format" as an interchange format between _two different instances_ of his program. One process first writes the data file and another process later will read it. He also knows that sooner or later the "serialization format" needs to talk with _different versions_ of his program, not just different running instances.

AFAIK, the Word .doc also started (and unfortunately continued) as basically a not-so-designed memory dump of the in-memory OLE data model. It's a format that more often than not has infamously stumped its own implementation as well. (Over time, OpenOffice has saved quite a lot of .doc files of Office users.)

<comment><USER4> > AFAIK, the Word .doc also started (and unfortunately continued) as basically > a not-so-designed memory dump

This may be true but not the whole story. It's the reason why the MS office team bit the bullet and replaced .doc with .docx about 5 years ago <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

Docx is basically XML in a zip file. It's a beast and has lots of compromises for backward compatibility, but as a design starting point, "zipped XML" is far far better than a binary dump of the in-memory data.

<comment><USER5> It's still worse than ODT (which itself isn't exactly pretty), for no good reason. That's sad.

<comment><USER4> ODT is also XML-based, to Docx's problems compared to ODT can't be blamed on XML.

<comment><USER5> I never said it has anything to do with XML. OOXML is extremely complex for little reason. Even though it is also quite complex, ODT is much, much simpler.

<comment><USER6> There are actually reasons for some of OOXML's weirdness, just not good ones. For instance, it appears the reason why OOXML is pretty much the only XML- based document format which doesn't use a mixed content model is because there's a huge amount of prior art that'd have made it impossible to patent if they had. (Microsoft tried anyway though.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Has been on HN before (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=575122>) but it was years ago. I mention this just in case others are having the same feeling of deja vu as me.

<comment><USER8> well i'm glad it was posted again

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm pretty sure the PSD format chucks are based off IFF spec from 1985

<http://www.martinreddy.net/gfx/2d/IFF.txt>

Things were padded to 4 byte boundries because the 68000 processor would crash if you read an unaligned 32bit value. So the length of the actual data was what you find in the size field of each chuck but each chunk is padded. That way you didn't have to work around the 68000 quirks and read a byte at a time.

I wrote a psd reader in 93. It wasn't that hard and still works today. Maybe I chose an easy subset. It only reads the original result (merged layers) that gets saved when you chose to save backwards compatible files in photoshop.

[http://elibs.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/elibs/trunk/elibs/li...](http://elibs.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/elibs/trunk/elibs/lib/echidna/photoshp.c?revision=97&view=markup)

<comment><USER10> I wrote one a few years ago as well. It read layers, summary image, and some layer metadata that I needed (blend mode, layer name, visibility flag, etc.). There's documentation for the format on the adobe site, I think (wherever it came from at the time - autumn 2007 - no fax was required), so it was actually fairly straightforward. An artist made me a bunch of PSD files with the stuff in that they wanted to use, and I sat there comparing the results of my code to what Photoshop did.

The only oddity I can recall is that Photoshop does something odd with the alpha channel - I think it was the alpha channel? - by sometimes storing it with the summary image rather than the layer to which it's related. (Don't ask me for more details than that - I don't remember.) I thought at the time that this looked like somebody's attempt to make newer data work tolerably with older revisions. That part WAS annoying, because the documentation didn't mention that, and it took about a week before somebody managed to create a photoshop file that was arranged this way.

The file format overall bore many of the hallmarks of one that had grown rather than being planned, but it looks like they'd started to clamp down on things at some point because the newer data chunks looked a lot better- designed than the old ones. These things happen. It could be worse. BMP is worse. TGA is worse. They aren't even chunk-based.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> John Nack replied to this 3 years ago on his blog.

[http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/05/some_thoughts_about_the...](http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/05/some_thoughts_about_the_psd_format.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> I appreciate the first code comment more after the introduction:

        if(sign!='8BIM') break; // sanity check

"Sanity check" as in "let's make sure it's really a PSD before we go insane".

</comment><comment><USER13> So, I guess embedding a PSD in a DOC file is like putting a Bag of Holding in a Portable Hole?

</comment><comment><USER14> And yet to be considered a non-toy image editor, you must support 100% of this format perfectly.

</comment><comment><USER15> Many more for your viewing pleasure : [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/184618/what-is-the- best-c...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/184618/what-is-the-best-comment- in-source-code-you-have-ever-encountered)

<comment><USER16> Thanks for this link! It's filled great laughs. Like this one:

      #define TRUE FALSE //Happy debugging suckers

I imagine what the guy who wrote it must've been through... :-P

PS: I wish Jeff hadn't shut down the thread.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of my favorite blog posts from Joel Spolsky talks about this, basically explaining how these formats come to be. For mega-softwares like those, the source code is the de facto file spec www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html

</comment><comment><USER18> This reminded me of just how nice the Doom WAD format is: <http://doomwiki.org/wiki/WAD>

When a friend complained that he had a hard time figuring out which maps were present in a given WAD, I enjoyed myself while writing a utility to organize them into directories with map numbers. I kept thinking: this is how you serialize data. Looking back on the code now, it's still easy to understand.

</comment><comment><USER19> If he thinks PSD is bad he should try PDF which is really about 30 inconsistent formats all packaged into one inconsistent format.

</comment><comment><USER20> This is much better reason to hire a person than 10 resumes.)

</comment><comment><USER21> I like the 'sanity check' at the bottom. :)

<comment><USER22> should clearly just return false. ^^

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is this a comment or rant ?

<comment><USER24> Is this a comment or a question?

</comment></comment><comment> unix-dude lol'd hard.

</comment><comment><USER25> Whilst I enjoy jwz's writings, please follow the hacker news guidelines which can be found at <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

In particular: Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter. The original source is [https://code.google.com/p/xee/source/browse/XeePhotoshopLoad...](https://code.google.com/p/xee/source/browse/XeePhotoshopLoader.m#102)

Also: Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.

<comment><USER26> Later on the list of guidelines:

"Don't abuse the text field in the submission form to add commentary to links. The text field is for starting discussions. If you're submitting a link, put it in the url field. If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about it and submit that instead."</comment></comment>


My terrifying deep dive into one of Russia's largest hacking forums - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/24/darknet-dark-web-hacking-forum-internet-safety <comment><USER2> Seems like a nice place!

But what good is a submarine ad if you don't give the url?</comment>