Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 20 Jul 2017.
40 degree FOV???? No thanks. I've already got binoculars.
Augmented reality, not virtual reality; the augmentation happens in a small cone in the centre of your vision 'cos doing it across a wider FOV is stupid-expensive. See Microsoft's $3,000 HoloLens, which is just 30° FOV.
The front of the DaystAR is translucent, just like the HoloLens; you have a complete horizontal FOV for looking at the actual world around you. The augmentation, though, is limited to the 40° cone - so if you're looking at a floating object you're modelling then turn away, it'll disappear; turn back again and it'll reappear.
40 degree FOV is understandable... yet terrible. (IMHO)
If an AR headset is a work tool to give your supply chain more efficient mechanical turks then fine - stick with narrow FOV or even your Google Glass MK2. It's a manual you can read as you work. It's instructions you can follow as you go. It's just a HUD, and you can get away with a narrow FOV to make the system more cost effective and practical.
But for social / entertainment purposes it won't win people over. A FOV that only just over a quarter of a modern VR headset? No thanks.
I'd disagree. Hands-on reviews like this one praise the HoloLens (10° narrower than the DaystAR) for gaming ("playing [Robo Raid] for the first time really showed off some of the HoloLens’ best features") even though "during certain games you don’t always see the full hologram, even if you step back, and if you get too close they simply fade away."
For being transported into a fully alien environment, VR wins 'cos that's what it's designed to do. For watching Mario jump over your living room furniture, AR will always win - even with teeny-tiny FOV - 'cos that's what that's designed to do.
Disclaimer: I get horrid motion sickness, so VR and many AR implementations are wasted on me anyway.
Separate names with a comma.