How did they go from second-life knockoffs to this?
This is actually impressive, and while not perfect, is close enough that they'll probably reach a version that is viable very soon.
This is actually impressive, and while not perfect, is close enough that they'll probably reach a version that is viable very soon.
edit: looks like Epic is working on support for VisionOS in UE5 https://github.com/EpicGames/UnrealEngine/tree/ue5-main/Engi...
Typically you do one MVP version and as soon as you've knocked that out, start working on a proper version, integrating feedback from the MVP as it comes in. I'm guessing they always wanted to have photorealism, but realized it'd take a while to get in place so they launched a quick version then got back to work.
This is not a phone app. Physical demos that propose something that a user has no point of comparison with (new paradigm) absolutely need to be on either end of the maturity scale.
- Either very raw barebone MPVs that should be only for lab/research aware people who won't cling to details and are able to see the 'principle' of what it could be.
- Or absolutely imaculate picture perfect marketing demos that you can show to non-technical people
Anything in between is a recipe for getting shot down, getting no buy-in, and receiving no insightful feedback.
Really? Definitely looks like something a simple phone should be able to process... Are they not wearing phones on their heads in the demo?!
This "Publish > Feedback > Iterate > Repeat" loop doesn't just apply to smartphone apps, you can basically do this with anything in life, from hardware to mixology.
I guess you could say the same thing about LLMs, since the initial models were terrible and just basically demos, they shouldn't actually have published those at all?
I again disagree.
"Publish > Feedback > Iterate > Repeat" loop works when users can build on it from a previous reality that they can compare against.
Physical demos that propose something that a user has no point of comparison with (new paradigm) you can either show a sketch/concept of what you want to do (to a tecnhical audience). Or build a semi-realistic demo to a non technical audience.
Anything in between will probably be met with confusion or people focusing on details that are not the concept that you are showcasing.
I don’t agree. I dislike Fb to the extent that I already deleted my account quite a while ago. And I thought the Meta attempt at a meta verse with cartoon characters looked ridiculous.
But the video in the OP link, with the photo real avatars. This is a whole other level. It’s super cool.
The fact that they made a ridiculous cartoon Metaverse first does not detract from the coolness of this photorealistic thing.
Still, I’m not gonna use any Metaverse that Meta will make. Photoreal or otherwise. But that is because I dislike Meta as a company.
The point is that what they have made here is some top notch stuff.
I look forward to seeing Apple compete with this. I hope that with an iPhone and an Apple VR headset I can get to experience something similar in a few years.
I agree with you on the coolness of this demo. I disagree that the cartoon demo does not detract.
I suspect a large majority of users and advertisers assumed Zuckerberg went off-piste completely. This interview with Lex is much more aligned with what should have been their first public demo of a Metaverse 'vision'.
That demo was going to happen one day or another as the tech progresses, and it'll only get better from there.
But my point was more really that even if they paid him 10 million, the PR would have been worth it.
>That demo was going to happen one day or another as the tech progresses
And if facebook did a demo with a bunch of celebrities and put it on their website I’m not sure it would have the same effect as this long interview with Fridman. It wouldn’t have the same effect on me that’s for sure. And I’m pretty sure they would have paid those celebrities.
Of course anyone in the real world realizes how little credibility these "interviews" have.
There's a time and a place for that.
Haven't we seen this type of thinking to be proven a fallacy enough in the last decade to at least be skeptical of solving that last 1% until we actually see it?
It does not mean they will make a killer product. But behind closed doors they have some amazing tech.
Rendering two fairly realistic models on the screen at once isn't a big challenge these days, if they're the only thing being rendered.
I doubt it's a performance issue: the 3D model of a rectilinear room has fewer vertices than used to represent a single earlobe. It most likely is just an unimplemented feature; they also could have "cheated" by chroma-keying a 2D-texture background or rotoscoped the avatars onto a another 3D room scene, but what's the point when its just talking heads?
Games often only have the highest detail models present in cutscenes, where the rest of the game can be limited, and the camera can be controlled to limit how many characters are visible.
Yes - they do, but you don't have to get fancy with the environment for 2 static avatars locked in place. What are the odds that rendering a room was dropped because it is allegedly GPU-intensive vs it being a feature that is not fully-baked for a public debut yet?
Totally agree that it’s a stylistic and presentational decision and not a computational limitation.