cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

360 Roomscale with one sensor

Warbloke
Superstar

So I'm wondering, isn't all this 360 room scale thing just a shenanigans in order to make more money from selling extra sensors.

I get the whole... 'ooh but you need a sensor behind you... what if you turn around and your sensor cant see your hand controllers coz your stupid fat body is in-between argument' ... but come on... isn't that their own fault for making the 'external' usb sensor need to see your hands as well as the hmd ?

I mean.. why didn't they just use 1 sensor to track the HMD ?... the HMD has sensors on the back right... so it knows when you are turning around.  Shouldn't they just have instead just made the hand controllers talk to sensors on the actual HMD itself ?

Your hands could then be tracked in relation to where they are relative to your own head and would not get occluded really nomatter which direction you faced.

Am I missing something why they didn't do that? because that just seems so obvious. I must be... why was it then ?

"You can't believe everything you read on the Internet " :- Abraham Lincoln 
31 REPLIES 31

OpticKing
Expert Trustee
There is no sensor in the HMD? It has a triangle of led's on the back so when you turn around and the front leds get occluded, it still can see the HMD. The only sensor in the HMD itself is the proximity sensor so it knows if your face is in front of the lenses.

Warbloke
Superstar

Sorry I didnt explain what I meant as well as I should have.

I mean... they 'could' have gone with choice A and build sensors in the HMD in order to track the hand controllers.... but didnt.

Instead they chose to invent the problem of occlusion and then created a solution to that problem instead so went with choice B - (getting people to buy extra external sensors)

So I was wondering why they chose choice B. I assume there is a good reason as choice A seems to me more logical.




"You can't believe everything you read on the Internet " :- Abraham Lincoln 

OpticKing
Expert Trustee
Ah, well that sounds more along the lines of outside in tracking. I'd imagine A would have required an entire internal redesign, along with adding constant bandwidth and possible latency from data compression. It also would've looked really ugly having one in the middle of the front plastic, I mean look at the vive lol. Combine that with the added problem that leap motion has, where one hand under another occludes the lower one, and if you look in any direction other than where you're aiming you got more occlusion.

I mean why not make an multi extendible mat with a sensor in every corner instead, that sounds better to me. Then again there's probably things I'm not factoring (aside the logistics of making that) that could make that inferior to what they have currently have.

Warbloke
Superstar

yeh, or maybe some combination of that where the sensors AND the HMD could see the hand controllers.

I bet 2 sensors even then... plus some in the HMD would be great 360.  This 3 and 4 sensor thing seems a nonsence. Maybe they will think of something better in the next version.

A mat ? hmm, depends on how it can extend and still keep the sensors in the corners.  not sure if that would work well as everyones playspace is different.

"You can't believe everything you read on the Internet " :- Abraham Lincoln 

Anonymous
Not applicable
I don't consider it a money making issue, as much as it's just the infancy of tracking for VR purposes. They have some pretty brilliant people working at Vive and Oculus and if this current iteration of tracking is what they're working with, who are we to say otherwise unless you're good enough to make your own. 

It's easy to say "why couldn't they have done that", without knowing all the factors involved in their testing and development. 

It's also very possible some breakthrough occurs, and maybe even a 3rd party introduces a new tech that can do precisely what you described and Vive or Oculus buys them up and then we get Vive/Rift 3 in 2030.

Norwegian_guy
Expert Protege
I guess they could use the sensor to track the headset then use razor hydra technology in the hmd to track the touch controllers, but that would probably cost more 

Amphetamine
Adventurer
Yeah, the Magnetic field tracking that Sixsense use for Hydra/STEM is really expensive. If they'd used that for Touch I'd imaging it would at least double the cost as well as reducing the battery life down to a few hours using some weighty lithium packs rather than the 30 hours I get from 1AA cell.

Warbloke
Superstar

arttek said:

I don't consider it a money making issue, as much as it's just the infancy of tracking for VR purposes. They have some pretty brilliant people working at Vive and Oculus and if this current iteration of tracking is what they're working with, who are we to say otherwise unless you're good enough to make your own. 

It's easy to say "why couldn't they have done that", without knowing all the factors involved in their testing and development. 

It's also very possible some breakthrough occurs, and maybe even a 3rd party introduces a new tech that can do precisely what you described and Vive or Oculus buys them up and then we get Vive/Rift 3 in 2030.


Well, Im not good enough to make my own I can admit... but that does not mean you should feel like a no one with nothing to say or ask.  Lets face it... you don't have to be able to sing yourself in order to judge if someone is a good singer. (jeez just look at the twats judging on Xfactor)

I know its easy to ask 'why couldn't they have done that'.... that's why I asked.  If I knew the answer I wouldnt have asked.

There are a lot of people a lot more clever than me in this area and of that I am certain, and I have no doubt many might even visit this very forum.  I guess its the more technical reason why choice A wouldn't work which is what I wondered... Im sure someone might explain the technical reason.

No need to shrug shoulders and go through life saying the folk that made it are cleverer than me... so I should never ask questions, and never try to learn anything... but instead just accept what comes along the clever people make. lol

I agree maybe this as you say is maybe things just in their infancy. Maybe choice A was considered... maybe a technical reason such as not enough bandwidth, maybe possible but would cost more than a consumer would pay etc.

I would also like to see a 3rd party making what I suggested... as I can then later claim it was my idea and take them to court for stealing my intellectual property. 

Ehhhgh  Facebook... Eeeeh EEEEHGH ?




"You can't believe everything you read on the Internet " :- Abraham Lincoln 

Anonymous
Not applicable

Warbloke said:


arttek said:

I don't consider it a money making issue, as much as it's just the infancy of tracking for VR purposes. They have some pretty brilliant people working at Vive and Oculus and if this current iteration of tracking is what they're working with, who are we to say otherwise unless you're good enough to make your own. 

It's easy to say "why couldn't they have done that", without knowing all the factors involved in their testing and development. 

It's also very possible some breakthrough occurs, and maybe even a 3rd party introduces a new tech that can do precisely what you described and Vive or Oculus buys them up and then we get Vive/Rift 3 in 2030.


Well, Im not good enough to make my own I can admit... but that does not mean you should feel like a no one with nothing to say or ask.  Lets face it... you don't have to be able to sing yourself in order to judge if someone is a good singer. (jeez just look at the twats judging on Xfactor)

I know its easy to ask 'why couldn't they have done that'.... that's why I asked.  If I knew the answer I wouldnt have asked.

There are a lot of people a lot more clever than me in this area and of that I am certain, and I have no doubt many might even visit this very forum.  I guess its the more technical reason why choice A wouldn't work which is what I wondered... Im sure someone might explain the technical reason.

No need to shrug shoulders and go through life saying the folk that made it are cleverer than me... so I should never ask questions, and never try to learn anything... but instead just accept what comes along the clever people make. lol

I agree maybe this as you say is maybe things just in their infancy. Maybe choice A was considered... maybe a technical reason such as not enough bandwidth, maybe possible but would cost more than a consumer would pay etc.

I would also like to see a 3rd party making what I suggested... as I can then later claim it was my idea and take them to court for stealing my intellectual property. 

Ehhhgh  Facebook... Eeeeh EEEEHGH ?






There's no problem asking the question. But your initial post criticized these companies for "shenanigans to make more money", which suggests that you know better. That's kinda a different tone. If you're going to make such claims, I think you should probably offer some technical expertise to back it up. 

But again, asking the question isn't the issue. But as you ask questions, it's also important to realize that there are many technical difficulties behind the scenes to consider, that you're probably not aware of. These are people who spend a ton of money and time into the tech, whereas your knowledge might've came from reading a few articles. 

Having worked in the software industry, I take into consideration the challenges that occur in the development process. It's disheartening when others may say, "Oh you could've done this or that with ease! Why didn't you?!", and they had no idea we spent 2 years on a project going through all those same exact questions, but we had our reasons for our decisions, whether it be a limitation on tech or resources.

I think it would have been better if you posed your question without the insinuation that they're intentionally ripping everyone off.