Hacker News Reader

> So fundamentally VR has more potential than AR.

Fundamentally, VR just has a different potential than AR.

> Not to mention the need to carry AR with you wherever you go if you want to use it in the "real world", power it, compute, etc.

You need to carry the VR headsets and their host-devices with you too.

I believe we should clearly delineate the definitions of VR vs AR first.

Virtual Reality should be things like The Matrix. A reality that an individual experiences without modifying the real world for anybody else. Current technology simply shoves a screen right up against our eyes but the goal is obviously to plug that content straight into our very brains.

Augmented Reality should be things like an audio speaker or a video display; devices that "inject" manmade media into the real world; devices which generate reproducible experiences that everybody, even animals, can see, hear, touch and smell.

In AR a single device may provide content passively to multiple viewers. Like your music system or television or a hologram generator. Even your pets can see and hear whatever's playing and they certainly don't to purchase or wear anything.

VR aims to interface with your neurons and you're guaranteed to experience the full content. AR projects content into the real world which may or may not bounce on to our senses.

TL;DR: VR replaces reality. AR enhances reality. But that's just my opinion. :)

Thank you for your explanation. It seems like for any renaissance man programmer, either of these areas are ripe for indivuality and invention in terms of new experiences in the form of apps for these vr and ar devices. Thoughts?

And to maybe extend the discussion abit, what about devices that plug right into the centers of consciousness. Is that just more invasive, arguably better AR or is it VR? What do better hearing aids that sample at 10 ghz and connect directly to the nerves instead of hair cells. What are they considered? What about when I pipe my FLAC uncompressed music through the hearing implant -- VR or AR? It seems like the future is a combination of the two in far more complex ratios than just one or the other or split screen. VR probably has limits of perceptiveness if it fails to take model of logical non chaotic reality. It therefore can eventually become an abstraction of an existing event or well..present stimulus. Anyhow, I think the ideas are all really profundo. Looking forward to replies.

[1] https://teddybrain.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/a-brief-review-o...

My reply to daveguy might apply to some of your questions, not sure if you saw it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412809

I like this distinction. By this definition something like Amazon Echo would be augmented reality, but the hololens would be virtual reality -- unless everyone is wearing a hololens? Since you mentioned television as an example I guess I understand what you are trying to say. Although I do think that definition adjustment would be a tough sell (TV as AR). That definition certainly works for the most extreme cases of VR and AR -- where VR is jacked into your spinal cord and AR is a true hologram with 3D tactile feedback, but both of those are still science fiction. If you had the star trek holodeck. Would that be VR or AR?

I think the differentiator between AR and VR should be this question: Can other humans and non-human lifeforms perceive a change or difference in reality as a result of that device?

TV can be considered a primitive form of reality augmentation. As I said even your cat can see and hear what's on. Even aliens who see in an entirely different spectrum (or don't have any vision at all) will be able to pick up the colors and sounds generated by that TV, through their monitoring instruments (just as we can "see" infrared and detect magnetism etc. through our tech.) A television set modifies reality in the space occupied by that set, for everyone, however minor that modification may be. By that definition I suppose even paintings can be considered AR.

Again this is just my opinion. I don't know how the Star Trek holodeck exactly works (in-universe) but it would be AR, as I'm assuming that anyone outside the holodeck will be able to see the generated visuals if they were to peek in through a hole, as it were.

I cant help but alarm you that even consciousness itself is a vulnerable state of existence in possible deception. Thats why Alan Watts wrote about the Wisdom of Insecurity. Dream theory exists. Etc. I dont know how well these notions you mention about knowing virtual from pure are founded when even our own standards can be undermined by being deceptive. Cant really put a definition on a jenga board and give it any credence. It sounds sickening but I'd say that we must use the definition of working memory in our distinction. Which unfortunately means that alzheimers patients and those with faulty memory are indeed, compromised with regard to their innate sense of a cohesive and sensible reality. They truly are living in AR..

If AR is VR with transparency, wouldn't that mean that AR is a superset of VR, in the same way that RGBA images are a superset of RGB images?

Or looking at it another way, isn't VR just AR with the lights off?

Isn't AR just VR with a re-projection of real-time video stream from front mounted cameras?

No, my wetware vision apparatus captures more information than any camera in existence, thus it would be a lossy filter.

Isn't VR just AR with a cover over the glass?

See, that definition is much much technically simpler.

I think you're being funny, but the Vive's AR is literally this.

You can't remove reality just by replacing the visual and auditory inputs. Your body still has to exist in the space it's in. AR acknowledges that that reality is still there; VR denies it.

I think YZF's edit is a very good point. VR does not have to deny the reality that is still there. You could include an image of reality within the VR environment. If you stick two video cameras and have a realtime feed to an oculus rift then you would essentially have AR in a VR headset (assuming the video feed is not perceptibly delayed 60-120 Hz refresh or less than 10ms frame-to-frame delay). Then again with AR apparently you can make the image bright enough to occlude reality (however you couldn't have a dark room as the augmented reality). With the inclusion of reality in VR I think you could essentially emulate the hololens and what you could or couldn't do between the two would be blurred.

Bright enough? Just add a plastic cover.

So fundamentally VR has more potential than AR

I couldn't agree more completely. I live in a physical world, and my god I wish I could connect it better to the information world.

I don't care at all about VR. I'll try it because it's new, but I have close to zero interest in gaming and beyond that there a very few use cases where it is interesting. Design maybe, but a lot of these uses cases actually work better as AR anyway.

You argue that we can bypass the orientation senses by injecting signal into nerves, but that the tactile challenge in VR is impossible?

Yes, you have to wear it. But glasses aren't a big deal - and will keep getting better - and AFAIK you have to wear VR gear too.

> I couldn't agree more completely.

Mmmh... you say you agree with the previous poster but your message seems to disagree completely.

Ah yes! Mistyping...

AR plus opacity to remove the real world world... is to add a plastic cover. You can't add the real world to VR without a camera and latency.

So AR is the superset of VR, where a physical cover makes them identical when it is on.