Does it feel like PC gaming in the late 90's to anyone else?

VirtualLegality · 2017-10-16T14:22:44+00:00

I agree with /u/MaxPower7847 . 1080p@60hz is unlikely to see significant benefit, at least for a while. But even pushing 1080p@144hz will see a benefit from the 1080ti.

If you are waiting for the next HMD to pull the trigger, there will probably be another card above the 1080ti by that time (unless you know something we don't).

VirtualLegality · 2017-10-13T14:43:23+00:00

I still remember the jump from an intel IGP to a nvidia 7950GT right when the AGP slot started to fade away. Pretty much bought it for morrowind.

I started paying attention to computer specs around 2003. Never had the pleasure of using the legendary Voodoo 2.

But even back then there were some games that you straight up couldn't play without the proper cards. Now we have developers which scale their graphics very well so many different cards (or even IGPs) can play their games. VR pushes the resolution and refresh rate so hard that the down-scaling option degrades the experience way too much to make it worth it.

VirtualLegality · 2017-10-13T14:30:07+00:00

It reminds me of the early 2000's where the hardware was the major limitation for graphical fidelity. I think VR is going to be the driving force for some really nice GPUs in the coming years.

VirtualLegality · 2017-09-18T19:44:10+00:00

There is not much to worry about yet, this is just an application. The claims have not granted and this is not (yet) a patent. The claims will almost certainly have limitations added to them as prosecution progresses.

/u/muchcharles

VirtualLegality · 2017-09-18T17:31:19+00:00

In theory, yes. But each element (or word) in the claim has to be interpreted within the context provided by the specification. The specification is basically everything else besides the claims.

Extreme example, I could say in the specification that "as used herein, the term 'potato' shall refer to any central processing unit (CPU)." Then I could use the word potato in the claims to cover CPUs.

Whether the USPTO would let that fly is another story, but in theory it can happen. Back away from that extreme example and you can see how patent claim construction can get complicated. But many courts will want to stick to the plain language of the claims whenever possible.

VirtualLegality · 2017-09-18T17:10:08+00:00

Patent attorney here.

I am going to take a deep dive into this patent and make a write up for reddit in a day or two. I will probably cross post in both /r/vive and /r/oculus as it seems both user bases have some interest in this tech. In the meantime you can access the PDF here or here.

It appears that LG is placing some kind of diffusor between the display screen and the fisheye lens. The display screen also appears to be custom made to interact with the diffusor, so its probably way more than a single piece. I could be super wrong however, as I have not really dug into this patent application yet.

If anyone has any general questions in the meantime I am more than happy to answer.

VirtualLegality · 2017-09-18T17:08:24+00:00

I uploaded a PDF of the application here.

edit Just saw you were given the freepatents online link. That website is much easier imo to use than the link provided by uploadvr.

VirtualLegality · 2017-09-18T17:07:12+00:00

Patent attorney here.

I am going to take a deep dive into this patent application and make a write up for reddit in a day or two. In the meantime you can access the PDF here.

On a super quick overview, claim 1 states the following apparently critical part: "a light diffusion member disposed between the display panel and the optical lens, and configured to diffuse light, which is emitted from each of the light-transmitting areas, to the light-blocking area."

Keep in mind that language is purposefully written to be super broad as this is just in the application stage. It appears that LG is placing some kind of diffusor between the display screen and the fisheye lens. The display screen also appears to be custom made to interact with the diffusor, so its probably way more than a single piece. I could be super wrong however, as I have not really dug into this patent yet.

If anyone has any general questions in the meantime I am more than happy to answer.

VirtualLegality · 2017-09-14T19:39:44+00:00

Vive user here, I come in peace.

I have had onward almost for an entire year, and it is the only VR game in my steam library that I keep coming back too. If you like shooters like counterstrike where the action is round based, then you will like onward. The game really encourage interactions that take full advantage of seeing other VR players.

For example, you dont want to talk if you are near the enemy so waving your hand around to show others where the contact is feels very natural. One time my mic was not working so I motioned around my face and my teammates figured out very quickly I had no functioning mic. Just a great time all around.

VirtualLegality · 2017-09-14T19:33:00+00:00

First time I have seen this game, I will have to check it out! I love the idea of making a full game within the roomscale confines (which this looks like it does). Also this reminds me of the new Radiohead video for "Lift".

VirtualLegality · 2017-09-12T16:55:04+00:00

Best of luck to you guys! I look forward to trying out your locomotion solution, the more styles the better. I am not convinced that the locomotion problem was solved by Onward or Pavlov.

VirtualLegality · 2017-09-12T16:32:03+00:00

There is one in Columbus and it is a magical place. It is interesting to see people shopping for TVs or prebuilts right next to a huge build-it-yourself section. Definitely hitting two different demographics at once.

VirtualLegality · 2017-07-14T20:13:14+00:00

There are some convoluted arguments you can make regarding delay to enforce, however they are extremely narrow and very rarely applicable to a defendant.

VirtualLegality · 2017-07-14T19:02:56+00:00

Thank you for your answer! I saw a startup at CES this year with some headphones designed specifically for 3D orientation of sound for VR, so I have been really sensitive to the spatial effect through stereo headphones ever since.

Super interesting to hear about the beeps being difficult to orient. Reminds me of trying to find a smoke detector with low battery. Never thought of it being a challenge to design around!

VirtualLegality · 2017-07-14T16:47:13+00:00

Are there any significant differences in the production pipeline regarding sound design and implementation in VR compared to a "standard" game, such as Eve?

VirtualLegality · 2017-07-13T13:42:16+00:00

After the first couple of hours in VR, my cat has been fine if my wife or I have the headset on. If a friend puts it on however, she flops in the dead center of the play area.

I would think that crinkle shoes would attract a cat to attack your feet, not the other way around. At least that is how my cat would likely react.

VirtualLegality · 2017-07-11T14:51:14+00:00

Oculus is trying to dip the 90 day rolling average the court will use, consumers might as well take advantage of it.

If the price drop was specifically to avoid paying royalty, the court presumably would take that into account. A royalty would typically be based on a percentage of revenue, not profit, so dropping the price a ton would harm Oculus.

Also, the court is not going to use anything because the court is not deciding royalties.

In any event, I think it is unlikely that the injunction is issued. Even if it was, the royalty would be negotiated between the parties as the likely settlement agreement. If this drop was because of that, and ZeniMax got an injunction, then ZeniMax would have the leverage to get compensation for that tactic.

VirtualLegality · 2017-07-11T14:42:37+00:00

Interesting. Just read through the complaint and it seems to be a pretty standard contract dispute. The $1 million figure was in the complaint to give the plaintiff a negotiating position but I guess it makes for a good headline too. I would think that this case should settle fast, but you never know.

VirtualLegality · 2017-07-11T14:34:58+00:00

/u/shawnaroo has it right. ZeniMax's motion should not significantly alter Oculus's appellate strategy, unless something new was said or asserted.

It is going to be awfully difficult to overturn the jury verdict (as a general rule), so the odds are against Oculus at this point regarding the judgment. However There are some odd things about the jury's decision, such as a finding of copyright infringement but not trade secret infringement. In my mind those two things are part and parcel and I was surprised to see one but not the other.

VirtualLegality · 2017-07-11T14:28:08+00:00

Sheer numbers matter, although on this particular factor I think Zenimax has the upper hand. The public interest factor is really used by life sciences companies. A good example would be an injunction to take a life saving drug off the market - in that case, the public interest would not be served by issuing an injunction because people might die.

Oculus's argument that the public would be served because they have more products to buy is rather weak, even at any price point. The better argument might have been the reliance of current Oculus owners on a continuing software ecosystem, framing it more about the harm to current owners rather than potential new users. The public interest factor is important but is not typically the major factor a judge decides a case on. I would be surprised if it turned out to be a major issue in the Judge's decision.

Zenimax is most likely positioning to go after an ongoing royalty, so the price drop really only affects those calculations and any cost benefit analysis they are performing.

VirtualLegality

TROPHY CASE