Vitual Reality never went far. Does anyone remember VR troupers? It is funny to watch what they thought back then. I think that this movie is more like a kids movie when compared to the first. Kids are the main caratures against a super villin trying to take over the world. A childish plot. I think it is a movie for depressed people who listen to Tool way too much.
shareLOL! Yeah, I remember seeing this one in the theaters and people were actually walking out half way through. On your question about Virtual Reality, it is still something that is being perfected and it is a long way from that. The early to mid 90's kind of overhyped virtual reality with all of those movies being based around it (Ghost in the Machine, Lawnmower Man, etc). I have a feeling we haven't seen the last of virtual reality.
-PCyst
[deleted]
You know, even at the peak of the early-90s VR hype, someone said something like "it is being hyped, and eventually the fad/hype will pass and something else will take its place. But one day in the future we'll wake up and virtual reality will be everywhere."
The gist was that back then, VR was a craze being hyped way beyond its (then) current capabilities, and that the fad would pass.... but that subsequent technological developments would slowly but surely bring more and more VR-like technologies into practical everyday use, until they were everywhere.
I remember. Lol, those were the days. They never imagined the insides of VR would be anything more than their current level of computer games at the time either - all platforms made of flashing green lines, some kind of spandex containment suit for the protagonist and Tron-esque backgrounds. No one even talked about VR until The Matrix arrived, and even then I don't think the phrase was ever actually mentioned.
shareWhat on earth are you on about? The phrases "virtual reality" and "VR" were as common as muck in the early 1990s. It was hyped to oblivion, and you're right; it wasn't mentioned in The Matrix, which is just as well, it would have sounded like a dated cliche (even by 1999) and cheapened the film.
By contrast, now that the idea is much more technically feasible, the expression isn't that common.
I meant no one delved into the modern day realistic idea of VR, when VR would actually have practical use. The Matrix was the first film to go into it, but not as Tron but futuristic-perfect.
Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...
To be fair, I don't think Tron was really *meant* to be VR, since what was shown on screen wasn't a computer-generated world accessible to humans. On the contrary, it was a representation *the computer itself*. The film was pure fantasy based upon the conceit that at some abstract, virtual level computer programs were "sentient" and the computer operation was somehow analogous to a fantasy world.
By contrast, The Matrix truly was a computer-generated world made with humans in mind.
That's probably analysing Tron it too deeply anyway; as I said, Tron's ultimately fantasy (in a general rather than swords-and-sorcery sense) and flight of imagination masquerading as sci-fi. Whereas The Matrix really *is* sci-fi.
Okay, we're taking what I originally said way out of it's league. I was merely using Tron as a visual reference, i.e. what VR looked like to all of us during the late 80's / early 90's whatever. But yeah, I think we a both pretty much in agreement on the subject.
Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...
Virtual Reality was mentioned at the beginning of "The Lawnmower Man" and through out the movie back in 1992-1993. I think people should watch and then make a comment. "The Lawnmower Man" uses VR as a means of mental enhancement via direct stimulation of the nervous and endrocrine system to promote growth and also to make the simulated world even more realistic. In the Matrix the persons brain and nervous system are "hard wired" to a computer system to create an extreamly realistic simulated world and also it is used to excellerate learning. I am just pointing out the simularities between the two movies.
shareHey, guy from 6 years ago, you really don't seem to have a grasp on this subject. The Matrix by no means was the first in any way to portray a realistic virtual reality, or pretty much anything close to that. Just give up. Stay wrong 6 years ago.
I don't even have to look anything up. Virtuosity is an example off the top of my head. Johnny Mnemonic with Keanu Reeves even.
You seriously gonna link me back to a comment I made six years ago and had completely forgotten about... with a goad... and then not expect me to reply?
Well done. You were probably a twat six years ago too.
P.S. A grasp on what? The realism of fake virtual reality? Well if so I'm alright thanks, I think I'll stick to my day job.
A lover not a fighter: someone who finds alternative ways to make their jaw ache...
Why are you looking up comments you made 6 years ago? Also, you really posted 6 years later with such a lame ass reply to my funny comment? You had 6 years to get a sense of humor. Maybe you need another 6.
shareI got an email in my inbox. It said somebody wanted to tell me something. That person was you. I completely disagreed with your comment and anonymously notified you accordingly. Because that is what message boards are for.
So you, clearly trying to be a bit cool, defaulted to the bog standard a some-what boring playground tactic of chucking back the same things I said to you. Wohoo. Goodbye, I plan on never talking to you again. Peace out.
A lover not a fighter: someone who finds alternative ways to make their jaw ache...
But then... I'll never know what a bog standard is...
shareThere is still a niche of "virtual reality" enthusiasts, but they (we, as I am one) don't really use the term when talking about it, because it's too generic and non-descriptive.
Virtual reality is a mixture of different technologies (stereoscopic glasses or goggles, wired gloves, head/hand trackers, haptic/force feedback systems - which ARE currently developed, they're just not hyped as "virtual reality" was in the 90s) so we just use the specific term, instead of the umbrella term "virtual reality".
The Matrix stole concepts from this movie...
This SHOUDL NOT BE ON THE TOP WORST I SEEN WAY WORSE!!!
This is a good movie and the first is good but not great but worth a watch, I love scifi and this is a fascinating watch if you a nerd. I don't see how IMDB and all can HATE SO MUCH.
VR is in your games, your Nintendo DS, the 3d, etc, the Internet is a form of VR...
Old thread but I want some replies...
Gonna eat got da muncheis!
PEACE
What makes people choose such horrible nicknames?
Anyway, what you are describing, is not a 'virtual reality', but more like 'interfaces' or 'platforms'. You can display anything with goggles, you can use gloves for anything, and so on. That tech has nothing to do with virtual reality per se, it only acts as the technological platform or interface INTO the program, that may or may not be 'virtual reality'.
'Virtual Reality' itself is the visual-aural world, that exists only as a computer program (basically anyway), that can then be displayed in a more-or-less three-dimensional illusion to the viewer/user/experiencer. If we take an old game, like Doom, for example - that was played a lot with the so-called 'VR equipment', but that didn't mean that the equipment was the 'reality'. The game itself, the textures, the walls, the levels, the sounds, sprites, and the program are what forms the actual 'virtual reality', not the equipment.
The whole concept, the tech, the culture and all that - it never developed the way that many morons predicted. They envisioned that we would be using truly three-dimensional displays (as opposed to the completely two-dimensional displays we still use, no matter how "3D" game or program we use - every single "3D" game, program, image, animation, etc. that the normal PC user ever sees, is always just a two-dimensional PROJECTION of three-dimensional mathematics, handled by a program - there is nothing actually three-dimensional about it. There are a few useless excpeptions, which still do not actually fulfill the criteria for real three-dimensional display, like using "3D-glasses" or the kind of goggles you mention. Those simply utilize slightly different two-dimensional projection for each eye, but they are not actually three-dimensional.
It's still a long way to really three-dimensional graphics, if it ever really happens on this planet..
(the masses certainly are too dumb to ever really demand it - heck, they don't even know how to demand HDR after being confined to the finite supply of brightness (in 24 bit (and practically, even in 32 bit, because of how the 8 extra bits are used for alpha etc.), all you get is 256 different brightnesses. That's certainly not even close to how much variance there is in the real world, and could be expanded tremendously before hitting any kind of practical limitation, like being so bright it can cause eye damage or something -
- this is a long topic, but suffice to say that when the hospitals were moving from film (that can actually capture more than 256 degrees of brightness) that is displayed against a really bright light, for Röntgen film and such, to computer displays, they started complaining that they were not able to see the details properly, detail was lost, they were not able to make accurate diagnoses anymore, and so on, so they really wanted HDR monitors (and graphics cards, and image formats), but I don't even know what happened next, or are they still suffering, or what)
..but if it ever happens here, I am sure that a completely different way of capturing and displaying light will have to be invented, so that light waves/particles can be completely controlled.
True three-dimensional graphics would be like any three-dimensional object in the room, and you could see it from all sides, by just walking to the other side of it or just peeking around its corner, or whatever. This could be probably done in a room, to form a completely different kind of room, hallway, scenery, whatever, á la Holodeck, but of course the physical touching would be incredibly tricky to create in a believable fashion, and preventing the 'experiencer' from bumping into the walls of the room would be practically impossible to prevent (like in Holodeck, they supposedly somehow are able to create very large areas, and prevent that from happening, but it's not really credibly explained, how exactly that is achieved).
The Matrix idea about 'virtual reality' is also quite silly. On the surface, it seems credible - just replace the impulses that the brain receives from your physical body, by a digital version of those same exact impulses. (They forgot that it's not really the brain that's responsible for things like 'feel' - it's the soul, but the soul is sometimes convincingly duped even by this world, so why not a 'virtual version'?)
Except that this is NOT how the movie works!
They plug in, and they _GO_ into the Matrix, and then they have to _GET_OUT_ of it to return to the real world. Otherwise, they DIE.
This is of course ridiculous, but absolutely required by the plot, because otherwise there would be almost zero tension, especially in fights that happen in the 'virtual reality'.
I would never accept or suggest directly tampering with impulses and signals that the brain processes..
(heck, the clumsy Terran 'scientists' (or mockeries thereof) don't even know how it all works, but they pretend to know which area of brain is 'responsible' for which activity, stimulus, thought, or reaction - as in "this part of the brain is responsible for rational thought, so we know that no one uses rational thought when they make decisions", and all that BS that they blind people with, by using fancy words and 'scientific language' and self-importance, and white coats. A hint: if you want to impress people, wear a white coat)
.. but I have to admit, it's a version of 'virtual reality', that, if done PROPERLY..
(which would require ridiculously massive amount of data being constantly progressed at a ludicrous speed without hiccups, bugs, hang-ups, problems, crashes, instability or even the slightest technological glitch - and when you look at how well operating systems work (yes, I have been able to crash even Linux very easily), how well basic MMO(RPG)-games, like WoW work (crashes, 'combat bugs', 'text bugs', 'bugged quests', 'sudden nakedness', and so on, and so forth - they are certainly _NOT_ even close to what could be called 'stable' with wisdom), and how well computers, games, applications, programs, software and everyday things generally work, I certainly wouldn't trust anyone to let Terran technology to tamper with my brain signals or impulses)
.. could be a workable solution to actually creating a believable 'alternate reality' that the user couldn't easily tell apart from the actual reality.
There is really not much difference otherwise, to using "3D goggles" (that produce only 2D projections and simply create a 3D-ILLUSION) to 'walk' in 'Virtual Reality' or playing Skyrim or Rift on a regular monitor.
Because immersion is what it's all about. And you can be just as immersed without the goggles as you can with them. There's nothing particularly 'virtual' or 'real' about using a 3D-illusion creating 2D projection display device, compared to just a normal monitor. You won't believe any more that you are actually somewhere else by using the goggles, than you would with a regular monitor.
This is why these movies always incorporate some version of "the soul actually goes INTO a 'virtual reality'" instead of "VR is just a projection that can't give anyone 100% immersion, and can easily be shut off or ignored and put aside of something more important turns up".
So, no wonder you don't call your INTERFACES and your PLATFORMS "virtual reality", because that's exactly what they are _NOT_.
VR seemed silly at the time. We knew it was a silly craze. Like Google Glass today; a tiny tiny number of people used it, it was superficially interesting, but the appeal melted away as soon as you thought about it and it was never cheap enough to buy on a whim. The media jumped on VR because it was visually interesting and The Kids might spend some money on it.
On a practical level a 3D helmet with gloves is a very poor general-purpose interface. It's awkward and leaves you unable to quickly grab snacks from the fridge. If you want to buy stuff online, it's quicker and easier to use an Amazon-style menu system rather than by flying through a 3D shop.
Looking back, it's almost embarrassing how hard VR died. Two of the biggest consumer technology growth engines of the last twenty years were 3D games and social networks, both of which seemed like natural applications for VR back in the 1990s. But no-one has even the slightest desire to pop on a helmet and some gloves when they use Facebook, and very few people are fussed enough with Oculus Rift to use it. Motion-based controllers have taken off, and Microsoft's HoloLens and so forth might one day be popular, but they're never going to dominate the mainstream.
There were big dreams of a VR future. We live in the future today, and we are all connected with cyberspace; but we use tablets and laptops, not great big helmets, and ICE and attack bots are scripts, not little triangular 3D things with lasers.
It definitely took VR a while to become more mainstream, but its funny how poorly this post has aged.
shareNot really. VR is still a niche thing only used by enthusiasts. No wonder as its vastly inferior to regular visuals or computing. The current VR is little different than simply strapping two monitors to your eyes. The real VR (and by that i mean actual mind controlled virtual world that jacks into your brain, you know, like every single VR movie portrays it) is still not realized. There is some work done towards that, but we are still quite far from even rudamentary basics of VR. Let alone it becoming mainstream.
shareEvery kid my son I knows has a VR set. Technology aside, they are hugely popular. The Quest alone has sold over 10 million units, and that doesn't touch on on how many Sony Vr and Rift sets are out there. Those kind of numbers definitely surpass enthusiasts.
shareThen your son is an anomaly. They arent that popular. We can know this by looking at their sales. Also see my rant about this not being VR to begin with. Nothing even close to what the movie depicted.
And yes, 10 million units is niche. When computers sold 10 million units most people had never seen one. When they sold 10 million TVs noone considered TV mainstream.
Even the near company-destroying flop the WiiU sold 13.5million units.
shareOK? I mentioned sales of 1 kind of set. Obviously the other sets have sold more than 3 million. In fact, I looked, and ps4 sold over 5 million VR units. And, if you think the WiiU almost destroyed Nintendo, you're completely out of touch with reality. While poor in sales compared to other systems, the Wii U still turned a profit. It's OK to admit you thought one thing, but obviously you were mistaken, but you should stop doubling down on mistakes.
shareI have only posted that one thing in this thread, I think you have me mistaken with someone else!
But interesting that WiiU actually turned a profit, I did not realise that. I did not think Nintendo would be *completely* destroyed but it's failure, that was an exaggeration/simplification, but my understanding was that if the Switch had similarly failed it was likely they would have gone 3rd party.
Yeah, my reply was mostly for the other guy. Sorry about that. The Wii U was actually a good system, but they should have just waited and released the switch, which obviously is hugely popular with better portability. I think Nintendo could easily stick to software and skip producing consoles. Nintendo games are usually so well polished.
shareNo worries.
I agree the WiiU was pretty good; I have one, I don't have a Switch yet. If nothing else it's enabled me to get several games that have since been released on Switch at a half to a third of the price.
They sold the machine at a profit because WiiU was shit and dirt cheap to produce, so they could not loose on it no matter what.
sharevr is the greatest thing that ever happened.
share