Comment by wpietri
3 years ago
That can be true, but you see the same pattern with bad ideas. Look at perpetual motion machines. People keep trying to invent them, but that doesn't prove they'll eventually succeed.
We could also consider jetpacks and flying cars and food pills. People have been inventing and re-inventing them for years. I'm sure if I looked I could find new generations of people taking another swing at it who haven't really reckoned with why all the previous waves failed.
> but that doesn't prove they'll eventually succeed
Of course it doesn't prove anything. But there's certainly a difference between the "hardness" of designing sufficiently high quality 3D glasses using well known technology, and doing something that breaks a physical law.
My point with perpetual motion machines isn't that good VR violates physical laws. It's that some ideas are attractive enough that people will keep trying and failing to make them real, without bothering to look at why the other attempts failed.
In your opinion, why did the other attempts fail?
My impression is that even 2D screens are still rather lacking (they're big, heavy, very bright, need a big power source, rather expensive, sometimes difficult to interact with). In many situations a book or some papers are still superior to "virtual 2D reality".
Not sure if this indicates VR is conceptually flawed or if it means we're just still early in the development of the technology.
1 reply →