reviatech.com
And we are only a small fish, there are hundreds of companies like ours.
And re applications - have you tried to google? No, I really mean it. You complain about me being condescending but you have posted an obviously unfounded comment, post another showing that you don't know much about the subject - and it is somehow my fault that I didn't spoon feed you with the information.
Look here, for example:
https://www.sendiancreations.com/top-vr-business-application...
Or:
https://virtualspeech.com/blog/vr-applications
Or:
https://disruptionhub.com/business-virtual-reality-5-uses/
And those are just three top links straight out of Google. Google Scholar would give you also a ton of research papers describing applications in medicine, biology, chemistry, physics and many other fields.
>for example, in medical, how is VR useful?
Typical applications (out of top of my head the few I have been involved with in some capacity):
- surgery planning and training (e.g. orthopedic surgery, dentistry)
- pain distraction (e.g. for heavily burned patients)
- post traumatic disorder treatment (think Iraq veterans, car crash survivors, rape survivors, ...)
- anxiety treatments (phobias of public speaking, phobias of flying, heights, spiders, you name it)
- rehabilitation (e.g. post-stroke, various muscular disorders, post-surgery ...)
>don't you need to be able to see what's actually going on and not be in VR land?
The entire idea of VR is replacing the real world with a computer-generated reality. So no, you don't need to see it, modulo stuff like the chaperone/guardian systems that show you when you are about to hit a real wall, for example (most people don't have a hangar to work in). Also, if working with physical objects/props, those are going to be tracked and inserted into the virtual environment, so when you touch the virtual steering wheel of the new car you are designing, your hand will touch the physical model in the real world. But this isn't done universally - it depends on the application and task that the user is supposed to do (e.g. ergonomics evaluation of a car cabin doesn't require the same user immersion/feedback as e.g. a racing simulator using that same car)
>if one is getting a live camera feed with overlays, is that really considered VR?
No. That would be augmented reality using camera-based pass-through (the other way is an optical pass-through where you see the real world through a piece of glass where the computer overlays are projected on somehow - e.g. Hololens or Magic Leap).
See the concept of reality-virtuality continuum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality%E2%80%93virtuality_con...
At one end is reality, at the other pure virtuality (virtual world). Augmented reality adds something to reality (e.g. overlays), augmented virtuality adds stuff to the virtual world (e.g. a video-based avatar of the user). Virtual reality and augmented reality are pretty much at the opposite ends of that line, everything in-between is mixed reality. Now, to make it nice and messy, Microsoft has decided in their infinite wisdom to "hijack" for their marketing purposes this terminology that exists and is used for decades and uses it like this:
- "Holographic" for stuff around the Hololens (even though it has nothing at all with holography - 3D image is not automatically a hologram)
- "Mixer reality" for describing something that can do both virtual and augmented reality. Which isn't at all the same same thing as the definition from the above.
>i have seen applications of 3D viewing, but i don't see how that's better than using a monitor with improved input devices.
"3D viewing" is not virtual reality. Virtual reality is defined by two things:
- immersion - you replace the real world with a virtual one completely, i.e. no overlays on top of a real world!
- agency and feedback (action-reaction) loop - you can act on the world and the world reacts to your actions, then you react to what happens, etc.
The first point doesn't necessarily require neither 3D nor goggles - you could do virtual reality using e.g. a large (think few meters large) screens too.
The second point is hugely important and that is what distinguishes virtual reality from "3D viewing", 360 videos or 3D cinema. If you watch a 360 video and try to pick up an object, nothing happens. The same if you try to come closer to something. You can't. Sadly, that doesn't prevent unscrupulous snake oil salesmen that want to push their 360 cameras and crappy video viewing/streaming/pay-per-view platforms from muddying the waters by selling their stuff as "virtual reality", even though it is not. It only serves to confuse people.
In virtual reality you can come closer and not only to pick that object up (e.g. using a glove, controller or even bare hands these days) but the object will react to your actions - first of all it will move with your hand, giving you the sensation that you have picked it up and then you can also interact with it - throw it, drop it, rotate it, open it or whatever is the object designed to do. This is what you need the hand/head/body/object tracking systems for.
I strongly suggest you try some actual virtual reality application (i.e. NOT a 360 video on a phone or some such!) and you will see (and feel!) the difference immediately.