Hacker News Reader

Comment by utopcell | Hacker News Reader

This might be a fun weekend project to work on, but cannot be built for $200. The displays alone (and their driver PCB that accepts DisplayPort) cost $195. They are also not 2K but rather 1440x1440 (or 2.0736M pixels). Maybe the displays were cheaper when they built this. They also hookup a 6-axis tracking chip (MPU-6050) to an Arduino board and feed it to a PC via usb. Even if tracking was working perfectly, this would be a cut down version of an Oculus Go, which additionally has smartphone electronics integrated, can run VirtualDesktop, and can be had for $150 as of this moment.

View on HN

> Even if tracking was working perfectly, this would be a cut down version of an Oculus Go

Yes, I agree, this is a tremendous achievement and a great project.

Nobody disagrees with that, I greatly respect the project's authors, and even just successfully replicating it would be undoubtedly a great learning experience!

I think the comment is just trying to align the expectations better, given the context in which it appears and is communicated.

The $200 claim is plainly inaccurate, and unlike many open-source projects whose stated and successfully executed aims are to provide a hacker-friendly, cheaper alternative, this project does is not one of those; and its technology is in fact inferior. If one aims to experiment with VR, there's simply better options for an individual.

This is separate from the project itself being a great achievement and/or a potential base for further community improvements - and it would be appropriate to celebrate those aspects, which the website, and their ProductHunt entry do not communicate too well - as is evident from even this comment section.

They mention in the build guide that the display is sometimes available for $150, that's probably how it gets to around $200. MPU-6050 appears to be about $30, main PCB is claimed to be $5 or so, another $5 for the lens and foam respectively, and $10 for the strap. That'd bring it in at $205 provided you already had the capability to 3D print and solder and didn't factor in the material cost for those. It's unlikely, but you could probably make it happen.

I assume you could downscale the display to like a 1080p version to save costs as well.

On the plus side - you don't have to have a Facebook account.

Probably Facebook can sell it cheaper that the hardware costs, because they (hope to) make money by tracking its users and showing them more ads.

Also, when you are homebrewing a device, vs say, shipping 400,000 devices to users, you just don't get the same economies of scale.

1440x1440 is 2k, as is 2048×1080. It refers to the total number of pixels.

4K is 3840X2160, but you wouldn’t be wrong to call 2048x2048 4K, especially in a VR display where you have two displays, doubling width, and in the end what matters is pixel density.

I think the (repeated) note that you can downscale to 1080p displays is how you are supposed to do it under $200. They note themselves these displays are $150-$190 so it's not like they are hiding something.

Just buy a used vive for that.

No one is claiming that you can't get something cheaper, either.

High resolution(> QVGA) display panels is difficult to come by, especially at small quantity-per-months.

Those in the form of Raspberry Pi or Arduino parts are more accessible but still not cheap and not so high resolution.

Great, is the oculus go open source?

Not a valid retort, IMO, to a comment that was only making an observation on the prices of the parts.

Counterpoint: the comment was not only making an observation on the prices of the parts.

It is a valid retort and trying to hide that fact when comparing doesn't do it justice.

The fact is well known and obvious to anyone so I don't see how anything is being hidden by anyone.

The people in the know who believe it's obvious will be the same people who know the price of an oculus.

As for the rest of us. We neither know the price of an oculus $150? or that an oculus isn't as open source as other products.

Valid point for the rest of us.

I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. The fact still stands that it's an achievement for an open source DIY project to come close to Oculus Go specs. The original comment was asking a rhetorical question to make that point.

If Oculus Go was open source, it would cost you much more than the retail price to manufacture it.

If you only use one variable for comparison then the comparison is hardly valid.

> Even if tracking was working perfectly, this would be a cut down version of an Oculus Go

Oculus Go doesn't have position tracking. I don't know what you're talking about.

Neither does this headset. Oculus Go has at least a 6D IMU, that gives it 3DOF (no position tracking), while this headset has a 6D IMU. The Quest and Rift have cameras on them for positional tracking. If it was possible to have reliable positional tracking just from an IMU, John Carmack would have delivered it on the Go.

This OSS headset has "experimental positional-scaling" using "any camera". On github, they say: "The tracking is still very experimental and can only be run on NVIDIA GPU due to the usage of CUDA. The tracking makes uses of only a video input and an Artificial Neural Network AI trained to estimate a 3D body position. This method is nothing close to the precision or freedom of movements of a dedicated sensor however we believe that the model can be trained and improved by orders of magnitude."

Again, this is a fun project. Probably as fun as the cardboard VRs Google used to hand out for free.

So it does have position tracking. I guess it uses an external camera directed at you - of course that will be far from perfect, especially if you only have one. But it has potential. With more cameras and an improved model, it could possibly even do FBT in the future. At no or marginal upgrade cost.

I see more in this than just a weekend project. Even the fact that you can just buy a new lens when one gets damaged means this might actually save you money. (This actually happened to my Quest; lucky I could save it with some polish.)

Saying it "has tracking" is a bit of a stretch, given that the tracking isn't a feature of the headset, but rather a separate system that can theoretically work with any other non-tracking headsets.

i'm pretty sure the $200 quote is an "it's possible" type thing, like where car companies quote prices "from" the lowest-spec version.

Can you ever buy a car at advertised price? Excluding taxes... Im trying to buy a motorcycle and the dealers tag on 20% in fees

You can in most countries that have proper consumer protections. Cars in Australia are often advertised with their "drive away" cost which includes all state and federal taxes etc.

In the US, if you buy a car at the advertised price you're probably getting massively ripped off!

I figured THE base configuration are for corporate uses. Plain iron exhaust, no hubcaps, flat paint, manual air conditioning, multi band AM radio and the likes. Sales reps worldwide are driving in that configuration but dealerships that don’t expect business customers probably don’t stock them.

It is not possible. Not now at least.

Even if they manage to get the display+motherboard under $200, there is a number of small parts that will end up being quite expensive if you can't do the economies of scale big manufacturers can do.

There is the 3D printed enclosure, lens, cables, straps, padding...

Also it is just a headset, you probably want some sort of controller too. Also, even if though they mention experimental "roomscale", it involves a camera that is not included. And as with any DIY project, you a probability missing a few tools you'll have to buy...

I'd say it is affordable as a hobby project, which, in itself, is really nice. It is the kind of thing you enjoy making even more than you enjoy using.

For cheap, you can't beat cardboard. And if you really want VR and not a new hobby, commercial offerings are hard to beat.

EDIT: one way to reach the target price could be to start with one of these cheap "cardboard+" headsets you can find for about $20 on Aliexpress. They already have most of the parts you need except for the display and motherboard. The optics may be tricky though as they are optimized for smartphone screens (if they are actually optimized for something...).

I am sure you can build a version for $200, but if you are going to says its $200 you should provide an exact list of parts you used to make it for $200.

I did not take it as each eye was getting 2k when I read it. Your total screen space is 2880x1440 with those displays. Even with two 1080s you have 2160 total. But then again the screens are advertised as 2k on aliexpress. So it is all a bit weird.

You forgot the cost of Mark Zuckerberg‘S eyes in your bedroom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com