The reality is far from the seemingly huge field of view shown in the demo - Polygon
Ouch, that's not great... I was really starting to get behind this thing, as the demo was really awesome looking.
If they do it this way there must be a reason.
Present day hardware limitations probably. It kinda sucks that they didn't focus on fixing this. It seemed to be a gripe from a lot of tech websites who tried it. Sometimes I wish I lived in the future when things like this happen with hardware development currently.
Cost and weight would be my top guesses. The original prototype was full FOV but it was also tethered to a high end PC.
Why did they make it seem like it would be the whole thing with that special camera
Why did they advertise the infinite power of the cloud? The beta testing in the future? Milo demonstration? Forza's dynamic audience?
Why do you always comment something negative on Xbox articles? Surprisingly i didn't see you on any of the articles that mentioned backwards compatibility for Xbox, or when Sony said they won't have it.
The order "cinematic"qte 800p experiece kzsf 60 fps 1080p tfw charching for games you alredy own second job no value no ea acess no free games 180 on externeal hd selective little troll are you not silence boy
False advertisement my friend. It's Microsoft so you shouldn't be surprised. Hey but the technology has to start somewhere. It will eventually develop into what people are expecting from it.
I got an idea how about you go watch the 2005 ps3 reveal from Sony and tell me how much of it is actually true.Hint It's about 20%. Actually here is a link for you... enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
@shloonmm3 Point is? Doesn't discredit the fact that Microsoft is doing it with hololends. They did it with Kinect when it was unveiled and they're doing it with hololends.
Also by saying everyone is doing it, you are giving your approval to it continuing happening. Go along to get along. The path to ruin is filled with internalizations such as this. This is just a piece of gaming tech, but I suspect the same pattern spills over in other areas. Fact is such nonsense is rampant in today's world. You're only screwing yourself by buying into such crap. Whenever such lies are done, it's wrong. It's not constructive, it's destructive. I don't know what their rationale is for making it like this, but the simple fact is, it could derail the whole thing. Think of it now...if Microsoft could actually make a functional kinect, and could actually deliver Milo, etc, etc....at this point, no one would believe them or trust them on it. That's the potential drawbacks of launching too early and lying about how great it all is. It's better to either A) Launch and acknowledge it's quirkiness and be realistic and honest with customers while actively supporting it Or the better route... B) Wait on the tech to improve and come down in cost so it can be all that and a bag of chips. Hololens looks intriguing, just like Kinect did. But is it all based on lies like Kinect? 80 percent BS and 20 percent truth? A lot of commenters have stated it's not really for gaming right now... well that's a problem, because they are attaching it to their gaming device and making demos of it with Halo characters. I get that feeling that Microsoft is doing it again, and that's not good for anyone. Hopefully, the Hololens can fare better then Kinect. But we would be fools to not notice the same overpromising we saw with Kinect, except this time at least some journalists have behaved like journalists and have told us the truth. Microsoft simply can't pull the wool over our eyes quite as much this time, and any backlash if it's not all it's cracked up to be, will be swifter and deeper. I hope there is no reason for it, but you simply cannot trust a corporation, especially one that has known to lie, especially about past tech 'wonders'. Also while VR is not AR, it is similar, and it doesn't look promising when after a year or so of Hololens talk, now they partner with OR for VR. Doesn't engender much confidence in Hololens.
I believe that MS has no intention for Halolens to be a mainstream gaming peripheral anytime in the near future. I'm sure it'll have some neat uses for games, but this product is for business men or other professionals who can afford devices of convienance for $1000-2000. We'll be lucky to see Halolens support on the X1 by the end of the generation, because the tech needs to establish itself in other areas first. Face it, to date, while the tech looks cool and all, how many people outside of professionals doing very specific tasks are going to use this kind of thing? The only reason I think MS is showing it off now as a gaming peripheral is to show off the potential for the technology, but to also distract people from Sony's VR solution, to which they don't actually have a real counter for at the moment. Using Occulus on PC is not a solution to VR on the Xbox IMO, and why people believe that between that and Halolens MS has the better VR option for consoles is beyond me. I think it's time for people to really accept the fact that Sony is the only company that has a console VR solution right now, and just leave it alone and see how it goes. Occulus may move to Xbox one day, but it'd likely be a different Occulus than for the PC due to the system specs. Everything I've seen outside of professional use is just gimmicky, and not worth the price of entry. I mean, how many people have we seen asking to be able to display a TV on a blank wall? How many people actually have anywhere close to the accommodations available in their work or home to be able to do such a thing anyways? Have you seen the setups for showing this thing off? They're always set in pristine ideal conditions. All the examples are highly controlled because there is no way this thing is capable of handling what it does otherwise, which leads me to my next point...Halolens is just google glass on crack, and it's not even as stylish or practical for general purpose applications. It's fine for certain applications, but not practical otherwise. Who's going to throw on a headset like this to walk around when they could just as easily pull up something on their phone? At least Google Glass was stylish, and while it's not as capable, it actually had a purpose to a regular persons every day life. In any case, if it ever does come to X1, it'll be after a newer version of HL comes out, and X1 will probably get this one which will end up being the basic model.
If you were to take a camera with around a 50mm lens and look through the viewfinder that is about exactly what Hololense view is. However, Humans have a much far wider view which is why it looks different.
I must agree, it is a far cry from this https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/th...
I read somewhere some time ago it is the equivalent of a credit card put in front of your eyes and the image in the article kind of supports that. Microsoft like using smoke and mirrors, Milo for example also look at the original Kinect PR and what it turned out to be.
How about the Star Wars Kinect demo. Uhhhh I still cringe thinking about how bad the guy acting was who demoed it.
Smoke and mirrors? They let people demo their stuff and then told people it wasnt gonna change sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Don't speak sense here!
The hololens setup for the camera is what he was referring to. It had a very wide field of view. While the actual field of view is very small. https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/th... So to your comment and Septic's comment: Their E3 demonstration was not straight forward in regards to the actual viewing experience one would have wearing it. And the people wearing clearly saw that and had gripes about it. If they didn't have gripes then the question asked about FOV wouldn't have even been asked. Don't see how you're speaking sense in relation to that.
The smoke and mirrors part comes from the fact that this device isn't likely to be priced anywhere close to what any rational gamer would pay for, thus it won't get a ton of support except for tech demo stuff, and I guess Minecraft. But I don't see a bunch of minecraft people dropping a lot of cash for it. The absolute lowest price I've seen suggested for Halolens is $500 by some random forum goers and the occasional techie who range it between $500-1500. Most tech heads that specialize in this stuff are suggesting more in the $1000+ range. If MS is releasing this around the same time as Win10, they have a pretty good idea of what the price will be. But not a word has been spoken, if not to say we want to keep it affordable for a certain market. At best, I think one can hope for both a professional and a consumer version of the product, but what we've been seeing is most definitely the professional version. Just look at every demo of this thing outside of minecraft. It's always professionals, doing professional things, looking professional, in well groomed environments. I really believe people are setting themselves up for disappointment when the price is finally announced. Even if it does come to the X1, which is unlikely, it will definitely cost more than the system itself. History shows that costly peripherals do not sell well, and Sony is going to be having this problem as well with Morpheus. It may have it's time to shine down the road, and it's fine to be excited for the tech, because it is cool, but expectations should be tempered based on reason, and not hope.
The hardware potential almost always never gets excuted the same way in the final version
There probably won't ever be a "final final" version of this.
I concur, seems like a half-baked idea to me. The oculus and htc Vive both have external cameras. I imagine they could do AR applications just as easy as VR. Microsoft should maybe look to tech that is ready for market.
They could, but Halolens is not as cumbersome, and you can see your actual environment without actually having it displayed on the screen, which can cause serious eye fatigue. Halolens is a neat concept, and I can see uses for it in professional fields. It is viable for games, but I don't see any practical purpose for using it for that if the price isn't reasonable.
Jesus Chirst !
So it wont be like what they showed at E3.. Thats a shame i thought it was pretty cool. My question now Is, is what it actually looks like so bad that they wouldnt just show that or what?
I imagine it's because the camera stayed so far away. For the guy playing the game right up on it, yes it looks like that.They were trying to show you what he was seeing from a camera that is not right on top of the action.
How big is the field of view though?
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/th... Its pretty damn small.
Looks just big enough to display some context sensitive buttons or images(like RSS feeds, email, or weather reports) overlayed on ones environment, or project an image onto something a professional is working on to show them some aspect of it that is trying to be emphasized(Like the plumbing demo if you ever saw it) So basically, it's about as big as all the professional based applications that MS has showed off so far, and the gaming aspect of it was simply faked to wow the audience. I hate being right, but I called this a while ago. I hate that MS is trying to use the gaming community to push it's product like this when they don't even have the actual implementation to come anywhere close to what they showed. For gaming, at best, you can maybe get some nifty HUD's out of it, but that minecraft demo was complete and utter fabrication....both times they showed it. Hardly worth the price of entry, even at it's lowest estimate. Cool tech, but nowhere near ready for prime time, particularly in gaming. Edit: This was meant to be a reply to Bitby below, but it still holds true here.
This is what I was worried about. It's seeming a bit like Kinect false advertising all over again. MS always blows my mind with new innovative tech, then I learn the real product isn't close to the demos.
people will disagree with me, but HoloLens is just another Milo. the released product will be something else than what it was advertise.
Title is misleading. He wasn't confirming anything simply saying it 'may' not be much better than this. Things can change the hw is not final yet and although it may not be much better when it is final, it doesn't mean it wont be a little better. Who knows, the team behind it may have a breakthrough, it happens. Either way its the first of its kind, i wouldn't expect the tech to be perfected on its first retail version.
So how wide is the FOV? Humans have probably about 170 degree FOV I would guess. It will never be that and doesnt need to be, but the closer it gets the better.
Maybe 30 degrees? https://www.thurrott.com/wp...
pre order cancelled /s Misleading title..sorry, but a product in development without a release date and is still in R&D is not the final product. He say it may not change...key word..may ..I'll wait till it releases and make the judgement when I actually try the product.
So in the article he says it's NOT final and in the video I added he ALSO says it's NOT final...so this title is wrong. Don't make your decision based on this title...plus even when people say it has a smaller FOV..they still say the tech is amazing...skipping it for something that minor would be your loss. Not only that, anyone thinking that Occulus and Valve VR devices will ONLY stream...should watch this...he didn't make the announcement, but he basically danced around an actual announcement as much as he could. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
I really hope they don't 'Kinect' everyone again.
I'll wait until the field of view is complete, they've already done the hard work, this isn't much to ask for.
It's pretty much what I thought and said to expect.
I'm a huge XBOX fan and I really can't believe this. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot over such an insignificant issue that could be resolved, and would give you more positives then negatives is just mind blowing. IF this comes to past and the FOV doesn't increase significantly. I'll just stick with one of M$'s VR partners.
Well that's dumb it had to be much better than that.
That's not good. I have another concern(and 1 I had with Kinect, correctly). How does it form a compelling PLAY experience? With VR, gaming usage is obvious. So many ways to use it(especially with the screen/ Morpheus combo multiplayer). How can AR be played. Minecraft LOOKED cool, but once that novelty factor is gone, what's left,?
Hmmm. I won't complain about the small field of view until I try it, should there be a demo booth in later events in the future. It is still an unfinished product, so let's see whether if it will become "Less limited" at the very least.
Saw it coming... http://n4g.com/news/1658071... (My comments about the hololens when it was first announced) More disappointment to follow guaranteed.
It's possible if you want to spend $5-6K for the device. Requires multiple projectors working in unison, which are costly. VR works by putting the screens right up to your eye to simulate a much bigger environment, much like a TV screen looks bigger as you walk towards it. Holograms are a set size, and you have to zoom the hologram to make it look bigger or smaller, so for the field of view to remain pleasing to the eye, you need multiple projectors because holograms work off the surface on which they're displayed and the bigger you make that, the more distortion you get as you move towards the edge of that surface. I imagine even these pictures don't show how much distortion there would be from camera to edge of FOV, but you'd have some major pin-cushioning with a device with such a mild convex.
Wait and see for yourself. The demos were larger fov so you could see how it works. I have not seen the actual fov. I will say the techies that have tryed it would want a larger fov and that would be a given almost no matter what. Does the smaller fov make it less then a great product? It's a stand alone item so power consumption is a big key factor to pull this off, displays need a lot of juice as well as other components like cooling system the list goes on. Can't wait to get my hands on one.
Doesn't make it less interesting, but if they're going to show it for games the way they did they should at least be honest about it. According to these reports, you wouldn't even be able to see the whole minecraft area that they showed on that table at their conference. At best, you'd get about 1/4 of it, and that's using a nice round number. You'd have to have a table that fits into the FOV, and stand awkwardly to mimic what was shown at their conference. They said they attached the Halolens to the camera so you could see the hologram, but they didn't bother to say it wouldn't be the actual hologram that the user sees, as the user would only be seeing a small portion of that. The whole thing was staged to impress the viewer. I'm sure all the data exists to create the whole hologram, or at least it's stored where it can be made on the fly, but you won't see the whole thing.
So the MS developer stated that there won't be a huge noticeable difference from an entire field of view and the author wrote an this article without even trying HoloLens. That's all I needed to know. But I can already see in the comments that the PS fanboys don't want this thing to work out. Talk about insecurity.
If I am understanding this correctly, it is a physical limitation that is so fundamental to how it works that it's not just a matter of just modifying the system with a different type of screen or throwing more raw horsepower at it, rather it would require a complete redesign developing an entirely new technology largely unrelated to what they have already created. Yes? No? Maybe?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.