Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About xTcHero

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I think he's referring to Samsung's VR headphones: http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/14/11220836/samsung-etrim-4d-headphones-movement-vr-inner-ear
  2. While your ideas are not bad at all, I quite like them, you're restricting yourself by removing the actually good features in which the Nerve Gear has; a 100%, fully immersive virtual reality experience. Yes, we can trick the brain, and yes, we can just "put some high quality headphones", but this won't make it as immersive, ey? Also, this'd be expensive. Really expensive. Even my $600USD headset wouldn't be good enough for a fully immersive device. First of all, as a consumer, this gear would be ridiculously expensive. You'd need a lot of separated devices (or even cramped in to a singl
  3. That's exactly what we've discussed. No need to go all capslock, we've already thought of this. :)
  4. I don't, but if todays VR is VR, then I do. Edit: and I have indeed tried todays VR.
  5. I partly agree, but disagree that it's VR. It's a nice set of controllers and accessories; which is really awesome; but it's not VR. In that case, playing WoW on a computer screen is technically VR, just bad VR.
  6. What I mean is that something objective is a fact; which it cannot be when it has not been thoroughly researched. I agree having a open mind is important, and I do indeed have that. I, personally, believe we've all been brainwashed by the authorities, and are manipulated to think other ways than we're supposed to. I don't want to go in-depth though, as that would be far too off-topic.
  7. I agree that any thoughts after that are subjective unless we prove that it is true, but you really cannot argue for an objective answer without anyone actually researching this topic. That's why I think this is a rather useless discussion, because it'll get us nowhere.
  8. I do realize the discussion is about what subjective and objective is. This discussion would never have started if you'd just find your answer on google, ya' know.
  9. To answer your question, click here. Ridiculous discussion. Subjective = your own thoughts of something, ex. "I think this apple smells like bananas.". Objective = The actual answer to something, ex. "This apple smells like apple.". Seriously though, a quick google search ended this discussion before it even began.
  10. While I do get your point, such a VR device is not capable of rendering you unable to believe the difference between the virtual world and real world. You'll always know you're in the real world. No matter how immersive it is, it will never be immersive enough to make you forget about the real world. I don't say the current so-called VR devices are bad, because they aren't, but I don't believe they are virtual reality. A virtual reality world is supposed to be capable of being so immersive, you can't distinguish the difference between the real world and the virtual one.
  11. What I mean is basically that because this is done non-invasively, there are no cables, which means it is going to send its signals "wirelessly". Everything that is wireless is pretty much a signal, and can be extended.
  12. So, this is a bit off-topic, but after reading a comment on another forum, I started thinking; if someone actually started developing something like this, would it all go to waste? I mean, what if the device and/or project itself, got banned? Another thing which could be done is hijacking the device, and extending its range, which in return could possibly(?) be used to do crimes, like stopping hearts or shutting down people's brain non-invasively. What do you guys think?
  13. What's been bothering me for a while, is companies proclaiming their product to be "virtual reality". It is supposed to give you an immersion of that you exist in a different world - but do they really do that? I mean, in my opinion, it's just a screen in front of your face. What makes this VR? Then, technically, a TV-screen is VR. Just not as immersive as the Oculus or the Vive. I want to hear what you think. Is this the "future of VR", or is FullDive the way to go? I mean, what makes virtual reality is your perception of the world, not a screen which moves when your head does. I do know th
  14. I see I phrased my sentence a bit wrong. I did not mean that you should not start developing or planning the game itself; but rather the use of FDVR technology in games. It'd be great to have a near-perfect AI, open-world, self-generating game by launch, and we even got the technology to do so. But we won't benefit from jumping straight into VR with the BCI and CBI we have as of now, as there is too little research in this field to be able to take advantage of it. Honestly, if you find a BCI-engine right now, it'll be too different from the engines in the future, which means huge revises has t
  15. I am well aware that we're able to write to the brain, we're even able to write non-invasively: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060410 This sounds great and all, but it's waay too inaccurate, which renders it pretty much useless until we get advancements allowing us to do it with much more accuracy. Of course, someone has to study the ethics and use of the product; however, I do not believe we're the first ones thinking about this. More and more people become interested in this, and to be blunt, I don't think just any professor would just join anyone here
  • Create New...