I was still in high school in 1995, so I have no clue, but just guessing I'd say it was in the range of "if you have to ask you can't afford it". That was the point of his setup in the movie; he was making a killing off of the worm he infected tanker ships with, along with his legitimate paycheck for IT security. The VR setup was his version of a supercar or yacht.
Also, even though 90s era VR hardware looked the same on the outside as modern units, the graphics were barely better than the Nintendo Virtual Boy.
And you wouldn't use 90's VR technology to hack anything. Come to think about it, don't use the movie hackers as a reference for anything, it's completely and laughably inaccurate. It's a fun movie, but you shouldn't think anything in it is representative of reality in any way.
He wasn't "hacking" anything, he was playing a game. I used that scene as an example because they used real off the shelf hardware available at the time to set up the scene. I'm well aware it was a movie and not reality, but it was a prop based off of a real VR setup.
Actually it was. I got bored and did a little research, and it appears to be made by a company called Virtuality Group. And at $65,000, I was right: It's "if you have to ask you can't afford it" kind of money, especially in the 90s.
You couldn't buy a comparable setup in the 90s even with Government Money.
The technology used today was just not available then. No MEMS IMUs, IMUs of comparable capability were large, heavy, and extremely expensive. No OLED panels, you had a choice of CRT (heavy, hot), LCD (low resolution, low refresh rate, extremely high persistence because you had TN or bust), or the very early engineering prototypes of AMEL (the inorganic predecesor to OLED). Lack of IMUs meant no sensor fusion, just pure optical tracking, with the systems at the time being /relatively/ capable (behind Constellation or Lighthouse in latency and fidelity though, but more robust due to the number of cameras) but extremely expensive. Inside-out tracking would just be a flat "no", SLAM at the time was nowhere close to suitable for VR.
That's a given, my point was that for all the advances we've made in VR tech on the inside, on the outside they haven't advanced at all, and still look clunky, awkward, and way too geek chic (cool in the 90s, hilariously bad today).
I don't know how to break this to you, but... Hackers was fictional, and not a documentary. It is in no way representative of the state of the art in 1995. https://vrwiki.wikispaces.com/Forte+VFX1 is what was available for purchase in 1995.
Wow, I didn't know anything like that actually hit the market! Supported in just a handful of games? Did it actually do like "3D", or...?
Obviously Sega was talking about something, Nintendo released the Virtual Boy in 1995 (which the creator didn't actually want to release as didn't think it was ready), but...
Reading comprehension is not your friend, apparently. I said it above, but my point was the VR headset they used as a prop for the movie (based on a real, off the shelf unit at the time) is almost identical in appearance to modern units. The outward appearance hasn't changed in 22 years, which I find laughable.
The fact that I had to explain that is also laughable, Mr. Edgelord of the Bored.
Insanely ugly is right, but if you're wearing it, the way it looks on the outside shouldn't bother you much. It's not like VR headsets are a fashion statement or something you'd wear to go out to dinner with your friends. You're most likely to put them on when you're in the privacy of your own home or while performing some sort of task that your employer has moved to VR.
I'm no great fan of VR either, but I don't care what other people do with their money or time. I do think that VR is on the downward slide and won't gain much enough popularity to create a stable, sustaining market.
I agree all these stereo technologies like headphones will hopefully die soon. What is the big deal hearing and seeing things with sensory depth perception respected? It's not as if we were born with two eyes and two ears? Everything but mono is a gimmick! ( cyclop trolls of the world unite and resist! )
Unfortunately, dead on arrival. They would've sold more units if it got a release alongside HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift, but both are currently faltering since people in the market are getting the impression that VR is a dead meme.
Both Rift and Vive currently have their highest levels of sales since launching.
The biggest threat to these Windows MR HMDs is the current lowered price of the Rift. They are no longer a budget-priced option, and they are technically inferior (worse displays, non-adjustable lenses, less effective tracking). Unless you have a niche that requires inside-out tracking (and is in an environment where that can actually work well) or need the Windows MR API for some reason, then there is no reason to pay the same price of one of these over a Rift.
Only if you can tolerate the low effective resolution. They might be suitable for certain situations (e.g. you want a big virtual workstation you can use on a flight in economy seating), but for general use you'd probably be served by a physical multi-monitor array.
You pay 349.99 + 99.99 = 449.98 if purchased separately, but you pay 449.99 if purchased as bundle... Funny, I thought things are supposed to be cheaper if you buy them in bundles, since you saved them some handling cost.
Yeah I know it's just 1 cent, but still, it's funny.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
Back to Article
peevee - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - link
Insanely ugly stuff.kaidenshi - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - link
VR hardware hasn't changed since the mid 90s. Check out "The Plague's" setup in the movie "Hackers" from 1995.Crono - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - link
How much did a setup like that cost in the 90s?kaidenshi - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - link
I was still in high school in 1995, so I have no clue, but just guessing I'd say it was in the range of "if you have to ask you can't afford it". That was the point of his setup in the movie; he was making a killing off of the worm he infected tanker ships with, along with his legitimate paycheck for IT security. The VR setup was his version of a supercar or yacht.Also, even though 90s era VR hardware looked the same on the outside as modern units, the graphics were barely better than the Nintendo Virtual Boy.
Flunk - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
And you wouldn't use 90's VR technology to hack anything. Come to think about it, don't use the movie hackers as a reference for anything, it's completely and laughably inaccurate. It's a fun movie, but you shouldn't think anything in it is representative of reality in any way.JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
This.kaidenshi - Saturday, September 16, 2017 - link
He wasn't "hacking" anything, he was playing a game. I used that scene as an example because they used real off the shelf hardware available at the time to set up the scene. I'm well aware it was a movie and not reality, but it was a prop based off of a real VR setup.extide - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
That wasn't a commercial product, just props in a movie..kaidenshi - Saturday, September 16, 2017 - link
Actually it was. I got bored and did a little research, and it appears to be made by a company called Virtuality Group. And at $65,000, I was right: It's "if you have to ask you can't afford it" kind of money, especially in the 90s.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuality_(gaming)
edzieba - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
You couldn't buy a comparable setup in the 90s even with Government Money.The technology used today was just not available then. No MEMS IMUs, IMUs of comparable capability were large, heavy, and extremely expensive. No OLED panels, you had a choice of CRT (heavy, hot), LCD (low resolution, low refresh rate, extremely high persistence because you had TN or bust), or the very early engineering prototypes of AMEL (the inorganic predecesor to OLED). Lack of IMUs meant no sensor fusion, just pure optical tracking, with the systems at the time being /relatively/ capable (behind Constellation or Lighthouse in latency and fidelity though, but more robust due to the number of cameras) but extremely expensive. Inside-out tracking would just be a flat "no", SLAM at the time was nowhere close to suitable for VR.
kaidenshi - Saturday, September 16, 2017 - link
That's a given, my point was that for all the advances we've made in VR tech on the inside, on the outside they haven't advanced at all, and still look clunky, awkward, and way too geek chic (cool in the 90s, hilariously bad today).Lord of the Bored - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
I don't know how to break this to you, but... Hackers was fictional, and not a documentary. It is in no way representative of the state of the art in 1995.https://vrwiki.wikispaces.com/Forte+VFX1 is what was available for purchase in 1995.
Wolfpup - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Wow, I didn't know anything like that actually hit the market! Supported in just a handful of games? Did it actually do like "3D", or...?Obviously Sega was talking about something, Nintendo released the Virtual Boy in 1995 (which the creator didn't actually want to release as didn't think it was ready), but...
kaidenshi - Saturday, September 16, 2017 - link
Reading comprehension is not your friend, apparently. I said it above, but my point was the VR headset they used as a prop for the movie (based on a real, off the shelf unit at the time) is almost identical in appearance to modern units. The outward appearance hasn't changed in 22 years, which I find laughable.The fact that I had to explain that is also laughable, Mr. Edgelord of the Bored.
Slaveguy - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - link
You're gonna watch VR content of me repeatedly kicking you in the teeth while commanding you to sufferJoeyJoJo123 - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
You're name's Toby.theuglyman0war - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Ugly for a dual display multi monitor goggle strapped to your head or...ugly for a fashion accessory one wishes to wear impressively?
BrokenCrayons - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Insanely ugly is right, but if you're wearing it, the way it looks on the outside shouldn't bother you much. It's not like VR headsets are a fashion statement or something you'd wear to go out to dinner with your friends. You're most likely to put them on when you're in the privacy of your own home or while performing some sort of task that your employer has moved to VR.yeeeeman - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Hopefully this stupid VR trend will die very soon.damianrobertjones - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Why? Maybe OTHER people like it.jmke - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
yes, please let it die out. All it does is increase the necessity for faster GPUs, higher resolution screens and better optics.let's remove the need and requirements to get better hardware.
back to the stagnation of the PC hardware the way we're used to.
no need for 8k monitors if we can just use 15" CRT monitors.
damianrobertjones - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Fo' real.P.s. Capitals CAN be fun!
BrokenCrayons - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
I'm no great fan of VR either, but I don't care what other people do with their money or time. I do think that VR is on the downward slide and won't gain much enough popularity to create a stable, sustaining market.theuglyman0war - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I agree all these stereo technologies like headphones will hopefully die soon. What is the big deal hearing and seeing things with sensory depth perception respected? It's not as if we were born with two eyes and two ears? Everything but mono is a gimmick! ( cyclop trolls of the world unite and resist! )JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Unfortunately, dead on arrival. They would've sold more units if it got a release alongside HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift, but both are currently faltering since people in the market are getting the impression that VR is a dead meme.edzieba - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Both Rift and Vive currently have their highest levels of sales since launching.The biggest threat to these Windows MR HMDs is the current lowered price of the Rift. They are no longer a budget-priced option, and they are technically inferior (worse displays, non-adjustable lenses, less effective tracking). Unless you have a niche that requires inside-out tracking (and is in an environment where that can actually work well) or need the Windows MR API for some reason, then there is no reason to pay the same price of one of these over a Rift.
Diji1 - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Just about everything you said here is incorrect other than the fact that the RRP is higher.chrysrobyn - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Are these VR headsets any good for watching movies / playing non-VR games? General computing monitor replacements?edzieba - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Only if you can tolerate the low effective resolution. They might be suitable for certain situations (e.g. you want a big virtual workstation you can use on a flight in economy seating), but for general use you'd probably be served by a physical multi-monitor array.geekman1024 - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
It's covering the nose... Does it emulate smells as well? Will I die from suffocation if I eat while wearing this thing?geekman1024 - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
You pay 349.99 + 99.99 = 449.98 if purchased separately, but you pay 449.99 if purchased as bundle... Funny, I thought things are supposed to be cheaper if you buy them in bundles, since you saved them some handling cost.Yeah I know it's just 1 cent, but still, it's funny.
Diji1 - Friday, September 15, 2017 - link
Huh, I swear I read there was a ~$30 discount on buying the bundle instead of seperately but now that I look at the articles i can't find it!Mugur - Monday, September 18, 2017 - link
Yes, but what can you play on it? Every Steam VR games? Can you play Elite Dangerous?