If you haven't already check out the RETISSA II, which is retinal direct imaging from a few years back. That eliminates much of the optics, though it was much lower resolution. I don't think Apple's wearable display plans are tied to a specific tech, what they're working on at this point is starting the cycle of UI/UX, developer feedback, sensor fusion and use stuff, interactions with their ecosystem etc. The pixel stream that gets fed into whatever display tech out of that whole stack is going to be agnostic to how that translates into photons-to-eyeball. It's an Apple v1.
My friction-fit snap on inserts that look 3D printed have been costing me ~100$ CDN, so I'm going to guess 249$.
I received a pair of magnetic Rx lenses for PSVR2 for $90. So I expect Apple to sell theirs for $500. I also expect a slew of third party lense insert makers to get in this once the device is released.
I expect them to be relatively inexpensive - with all the talk about myopia during the earlier part of the talk, it would be incredibly short-sighed of them to force people that need glasses to spend $4k where others only need to spend $3.5k. $149, $199 max.
A solution would be to use two batteries and swap them. In general, using a headset for more than 2 hours straight isn't a good idea.
How much better is it really? It would have been more convincing if Apple showed true VR experiences, rather than just AR. And everything they presented looked like renders rather than the real thing (though a couple of animations were jerky, for instance, the tab exposé in safari).
They said 12ms in the presentation, that's ~90Hz (same as Quest 2 I think)
You don't need to render 120fps for games - you use frame interpolation to render ~half the frames (and even less if you use something like DLSS), plus they have foveated rendering, so you can spend most of your cycles rendering what the user is looking at anyways.
12 ms is the time it takes for an image recorded by the camera to appear on screen. This is different from the refresh rate.
I thought 12ms was the processing time between the SLAM cameras to the screen, which would limit the frame rate.
That’s your take..?
For me it's the same thing. But the time it takes for an image to be processed may not limit the refresh rate if several images can be processed simultaneously (but at different stages of the "pipeline").
You need pose data for every frame you want to render, so pipelining it is tricky.
The environnement is filmed, not render as a 3D scene. That requires less power.
That's what I'm saying. The M2 cannot handle that kind of power. The headset has to be used as a screen for a VR game.
I know it has on board compute, I've watched the keynote.
"You can use this tethered to your Mac" does not say what this enables. Watching a movie that's on your Mac? Sure. Using FCPX on a virtual screen? Certainly. Playing a VR game at 90 fps, maybe, but we've not seen it yet.
First: of course the M2 can power doing "VR games", for certain values of VR games. An A15 or A14 or A13 or going back quite a ways could too, it's just a matter of figuring out the appropriate level of detail/art style. Sure, if you are after top class photorealistic ray tracing performance like cutting edge PC games on a top tier GPU (or multi-GPU) system, M2 can't do that. But that's like saying the iPhone 4 couldn't do games like an iPhone 14, there were still lots of fun games people really enjoyed. Developers who are interested will match available power same as it's always been.
Second, could you clarify what you mean here? The headset certainly doesn't appear that it has to be used that way, it can also be used as the screen for a regular standard game, not VR. Just as any regular display could. VR would be a bonus superset of games, not the only ones. If nothing else M2 would easily be able to handle every single iOS game in existence, displayed on an iPad-sized virtual screen. Apple has pushed for controller support in general for a little while now too, IIRC everything in the Apple Arcade is required to have it, so zero dev work should be needed here in terms of new UX. Controller talks to AVP, that's that.
Sure, but that's the kind of VR games you'd rather not be limited to after spending $3500 on an AR/VR device.
I'm referring to games that require beefier hardware than a tablet SoC to be enjoyable.
You're not going to get the same kind of frame rates or latency that you would via a wired connection, but the
You don't need to. I know that a display just receives a video signal, and it doesn't "care" how it's generated.
The Vision Pro wireless I/O solution may have limited throughput. A movie may be sent in compressed form and decoded on device. The virtual Mac 4k display suggests that Apple has developed a high throughput solution, but a VR game may require a higher frame rate (more than 60 fps), very low latency and two images (one per eye). Can this be streamed to the headset with low latency? Possibly, but I would have liked if Apple had showed it in a demo.
Interesting. I must have used the wrong keywords when googling. I'm curious to know if the gaming experience is enjoyable.
