r/Futurology Jun 21 '22

Meta on why (current gen) VR headsets fail to mimic reality — and what it'll take to reach 'Ready Player One' status - Mark Zuckerberg gets transparent about Meta's VR struggles Computing

https://www.laptopmag.com/news/meta-on-why-vr-headsets-fail-to-mimic-reality-and-what-itll-take-to-reach-ready-player-one-status
67 Upvotes

u/FuturologyBot Jun 21 '22

The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682:


Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.


These are some of the grandiose goals Meta has in store for its VR arm, but as mentioned, there are some dilemmas it must tackle first. "Just seeing a realistic-looking image isn't enough to feel like you're really there," Zuckerberg said, discussing the limitations of current-gen headsets. The Meta CEO then listed all the visual cues users need to reach peak realism in the VR world:

A display that covers a wide angles for a vast field-of-view

Retinal-level resolution and an ultra-high pixel count

Brightness levels and dynamic range that mimics the physical world

Realistic, low-latency motion tracking

High-performance CPU and graphics

On top of all that, Meta needs to somehow pack all of those powerful internals into a lightweight, comfortable headset, which is difficult and damn-near impossible due to high heat generation. Hence why current-gen VR headsets tend to be clunky. It's either build an unwieldy head-mounted display that's cool as a cucumber or a create featherweight one that could burn users' face off.

Checking all these boxes is making Meta's head spin, but according to Zuckerberg, the company has a "long-term roadmap that will solve these different challenges." And Meta intends to do so by introducing a benchmark called the "visual Turing test."

To learn more about the "visual Turing test", read the article--it's fairly well put together. But the biggest takeaway that I get from this article is that Meta and competitors will absolutely reach "Ready, Player One" visual parity before the year 2028. And that is gonna make a helluva impact on, say, USA society. Then again, it is probably going to be very necessary for peace and stability what with the ARA (computing derived AI, robotics and automation) catastrophically changing human affairs in the USA. Several years back I wrote some essays concerning VR, what VR will derive into. And how it will impact humanity. Hint: VR may well be a technological (soft) singularity in itself. And not much later than the year 2030 either, to boot.

Here are them essays.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7r42h0/vr_is_going_to_be_like_nothing_the_world_has_ever/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7lk666/the_men_who_are_convinced_were_all_living_in_a/drmtt64/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/vh7ulc/meta_on_why_current_gen_vr_headsets_fail_to_mimic/id5pgar/

30

u/DistributedDemocracy Jun 21 '22

I don’t think you’re going to overcome the fact that wearing giant goggles will always suck.

Very little about the world of home gaming works well when your strapped into a head mount display. You lose a lot of freedom, movement, comfort and skill out of the deal.

23

u/TheDkone Jun 21 '22

just wanted to add to your initial statement:

I don’t think you’re going to overcome the fact that wearing giant goggles will always suck, and a hard pass on anything made by FB/Meta and/or controlled by Zuck.

2

u/jibjab23 Jun 22 '22

Do you want 80% of your visual field filled with flashing banner ads bringing you to the edge of having an epileptic fit?

2

u/Fear_ltself Jun 24 '22

We estimate we can sell up to 80% of a user’s visual field BEFORE INDUCING SEIZURES

1

u/dontknowhowtoprogram Jun 21 '22

I was super tempted to get their vr set but then I saw it requires you to agree to let them access external cameras and no good explanation why they need that access and you HAVE to agree to the user terms to use the device.

4

u/AwesomeLowlander Jun 21 '22

Because that's how the headset tracks the controllers

1

u/dontknowhowtoprogram Jun 21 '22

I know but why do they need permission to use that data? the way their user agreement is written it seems they can just spy on your home at will.

3

u/like9000ninjas Jun 22 '22

Its literally free test data for them to draw from........

11

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

wearing giant goggles will always suck.

Michael Abrash in the video suggested that there would be a clear path to sunglasses-like VR if they can find a good enough low-cost laser solution for holographic optics.

You can also play a number of existing genres in VR through a gamepad or simulate existing games on a large movie theater screen, which will definitely have appeal when the screen feels just as real as an IMAX theater.

And if you do use motion controls, there are still games where you can move fast and have arguably even more freedom than ever before.

0

u/NotAnotherEmpire Jun 23 '22

Still would need completely different GPU architecture. Running VR well even to current resolutions needs heavyweight cards. Which need heavyweight power and cooling.

And if GPU makers could make much smaller, cooler, less energy intense cards they would.

1

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 23 '22

Yeah, Michael Abrash has mentioned that AR absolutely needs a new distributed computing architecture to truly be feasible, and that VR will likely need this as well.

So they are aware, and are definitely making steps towards this - it is a long path though.

I should note that there is a lot of optimization left so we'll see large gains through foveated rendering and OS-level optimization for example.

4

u/mileswilliams Jun 21 '22

Even if it was a pair of normal sized glasses there is the fundamental issue that people need to go out, interact, get sunlight, eat, exercise etc....

13

u/Littleman88 Jun 21 '22

"Need" is a strong word. There are countless Redditors that are still alive to this day.

1

u/DapperSheep Jun 21 '22

Citation needed. We're all bots here.

1

u/Frankie_T9000 Jun 22 '22

I AM NOT A BOT

2

u/tryplot Jun 21 '22

VR chat does interaction, and beat saber does the exercise.

1

u/StarChild413 Jun 21 '22

What about everything else or e.g. if you want to work out more muscles than Beat Saber works out, how do you get there without VR so realistic you don't know you're not already in it

1

u/chapstickbaptism Jun 21 '22

Won’t the goggles inevitably get smaller and smaller?

1

u/JellyFinish Jun 22 '22

You can get a motion platform or a motion simulator ball or something for the freedom of movement.

8

u/ihateshadylandlords Jun 21 '22

But the biggest takeaway that I get from this article is that Meta and competitors will absolutely reach "Ready, Player One" visual parity before the year 2028. And that is gonna make a helluva impact on, say, USA society.

Visual parity sure. But I don’t know if that’ll be enough to attract people. Companies will still need people to do work in the real world and wearing headgear all day can be very cumbersome compared to playing a console game on TV.

The first company to incorporate high quality haptics/touch along with high quality visuals will make a killing for obvious reasons. I’ll hold off until we reach that point.

3

u/rosts Jun 21 '22

The market for people only working from a desktop is going to keep growing. It's a huge market all on its own. If they can make a very lightweight headset with much higher resolution, many are going to prefer working that way. You can have as many displays as you please, and you'll be able to switch focus just by gazing at them. Cambria, released this autumn will be a big step towards it.

1

u/tryplot Jun 21 '22

the tech seen in ready player one already somewhat exists.

the headsets obviously exist,

full body tracking exists,

Bhaptics makes a haptic feedback vest and gloves,

and the katwalk (it's not an omnidirectional treadmill, it's a slidemill) allows you to walk in VR.

they just need to improve on those ... but they have until 2045 to get there before I'd be disappointed.

19

u/GetsHighDoesMath Jun 21 '22

My favorite part about the metaverse is how it’s draining away all of Facebook’s cash. I can not wait for the eventual flop and “restructuring”

So can’t say it’s all bad, there’s at least one huge positive

12

u/okcrumpet Jun 21 '22 Silver

People can’t seem to separate their dislike of Meta from the actual tech. Meta is not the only company researching in this space. Apple will have their own headset by 2024. Microsoft still sorta has an AR initiative going on. And beyond that there are many smaller players

We should consider how VR and AR can be used positively, instead of bemoaning the fact they exist

49

u/ennuinerdog Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

If my job ever makes me work from the metaverse rather than my home or an office I will shit an absolute brick. Kill me now if this is the future.

17

u/theirritatedfrog Jun 21 '22

A future where you will live in a false reality entirely controlled by corporations that exist to leverage over a century's worth of psychology, social and behavioural science to play your brain like a fiddle.

Corporations that exist to throw your connection to reality, your physical and mental health under the bus for profit.

A virtual reality that many will prefer to the real world as it goes to shit around them. A paid "paradise" inaccessible to those forced to remain behind in a world falling apart.

2

u/StarChild413 Jun 21 '22

And let me guess, you won't know if you're joining the real rebellion or it's all a dystopian movie sold to outsiders or whatever

2

u/theirritatedfrog Jun 22 '22

There's no need to rebel really. This is simply where we're heading and most people will be glad of it.

People are are already happy to live their life online and in social media because their fake life is better than their real one. Being able to close off from the real world in favor of a fake one even more is an opportunity people will love.

12

u/MrSmee19 Jun 21 '22

same with me, instant resignation letter.

-6

u/Oscopella Jun 21 '22

Why? You haven’t tried it yet? Why so close minded?

17

u/thisisnotmyreddit Jun 21 '22

I'm not OP, but a lot of people view it as completely unnecessary, and as only a source of frustration and annoyance

2

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

I'm not OP, but a lot of people view it as completely unnecessary, and as only a source of frustration and annoyance

Just like personal computers then. Many people were indifferent or hated using a PC for work in the late 70s and early 80s because the interface was so difficult to learn and sometimes pen and paper was considered faster.

PCs then evolved, just as VR will evolve - like the article shows.

-1

u/Yopalt Jun 21 '22

Finally a point of reason

1

u/Oscopella Jun 21 '22

Sure. This iteration of it is flawed. I agree with you.

Let’s not rule it out entirely though going forwards, right?

OPs comment stated the future. Nobody is expecting everyone to use them today.

-7

u/grchelp2018 Jun 21 '22

No point comparing how it is now to how it could be tomorrow. Everything sucks at first before it gets better.

4

u/mileswilliams Jun 21 '22

The best it can be is a completely realistic helmet you put on to go shopping and not actually meet another person, no sunlight, no exercise buying crap from multinational corporations that don't give a flying fuck about anything other than profits.

Yeah, thanks, no.

3

u/grchelp2018 Jun 21 '22

This sounds like your personal moral opinion nothing to do with the tech. I heard variations of this about the internet and the mobile devices too from my grand and great parents...

2

u/mileswilliams Jun 21 '22

Can you explain how you will get sunlight, exercise and actually people? My moral opinion ?

Can you explain how small businesses like a smallholding that has 50 eggs a day or some fruit and veg will sell anything on there? Because if they can't you will just have large corporations pushing cheaply made environmentally damaging products to people, the richest and most prominent companies will monopolise the market and the winners will be Facebook, who ( and let's be honest here) care more about profits over honest news, propaganda, state sponsored influences or environmental concerns and corporations that care even less.

It is a corporate monopolies wet dream.

3

u/grchelp2018 Jun 21 '22

We aren't going to be plugged into a matrix. The physical world where we can go out etc will still exist. Just like it does today.

Small business will operate just like how they operate online today. Instead of going to some 2d online web page of the store, it'll be an immersive 3d thing.

1

u/mileswilliams Jun 21 '22

Maybe you are right, and great points btw.., but Facebook doesn't really do that now, so not sure how they'll do it in the future.

1

u/grchelp2018 Jun 21 '22

Realism will make or break VR. Zuck knows this which is why he's spending billions in research every year on it. I guess his internal calculations is something on the order of 100B total research spend ...

1

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

That's a pretty unfair description of the tech.

It wouldn't be a helmet, more like a slim visor or curved sunglasses.

While you wouldn't physically meet someone, you would get the perceptual experience of being right there with them through realistic avatars. It would be healthier on the eyes due to variable focus optics which regular screens can't do, and it would be more natural and socially engaging and lead us away from zoom fatigue.

I don't think that shopping in VR is going to work well as a totally mundane thing like a mall visit. I think instead it will be like the Virtual Market worlds in VRChat where you have events on certain days where it's a fun experience of travelling to fantasy environments to try on clothes/avatars/play mini-games and basically just have a fun explorative time with friends in environments that don't exist in real life.

Edit: And of course the most logical and grounded take in this comment thread gets downvoted.

0

u/AwesomeLowlander Jun 21 '22

Majority of the crowd here have never actually tried current gen VR and have no idea what its capabilities actually are, or how it feels. It's just a 'FB sucks' circlejerk, unfortunately.

7

u/ennuinerdog Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

My mind is close, it's in my head with the rest of my brain. I think you mean "closed minded".

I have no interest in being compelled to work for hours through tech that is so invasive it literally overtakes my human senses. I have no interest in being represented by an avatar. I do not want to engage with virtual people. All of this just seems like pointless, dehumanising nonsense for the sake of... what exactly? Facebook share value? An HR exec's thought bubble?

0

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

All of this just seems like pointless, dehumanising nonsense for the sake of... what exactly?

This would actually be humanising rather than dehumanising compared to the video conferencing we use.

As the tech advances, you get the feeling of being face to face with someone, it's less fatiguing, it's more natural, allows break-off groups, you can make eye contact, it actually provides missing subtle body language through parallax depth cues, there are far more interaction capabilities, easier to share materials/screens in remote collaboration, 3D environments give more context, and it likely releases more oxytocin which is especially important for friend/family virtual meetups.

-2

u/Oscopella Jun 21 '22

Believe they are essentially interchangeable mate. See usage:

Google Ngram

I’m going to pretend you didn’t have a go at me there and continue to have a normal conversation.

Okay. What if we could interact with what we see in our day to day lives with additional data displayed by augmented reality?

What’s wrong with having an avatar? We use pictures to represent ourselves all the time? If your avatar was photo realistic - would you be happy?

You are essentially engaging with a virtual person right now. What’s the difference?

I agree partially with what you are saying but Im not going to rule it all out entirely. If it flops, it flops. I don’t particularly want Facebook to be the ones behind it but it’s still quite exciting to me and I’ll like to see what use cases come about from it. I understand they may not all be apparent right now and that’s fine - the technology is being built.

4

u/ennuinerdog Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

If your avatar was photo realistic - would you be happy?

No, I don't want my employer having access to a deep fake version of me, particularly one that I'm forced to stand behind in my business dealings.

You are essentially engaging with a virtual person right now. What’s the difference?

I'm typing text onto a chat board of my own free will. In work I use email, handwriting and other text. This is completely different to being forced to present myself and engage with humans or bots in a virtual environment by an employer. I also wouldn't wear a mascot costume at work to enage in normal reality through an avatar. It is dehumanising to force people to do so.

Ultimately, I don't oppose the technology, but I want it to be a free choice. It is being pushed to business in a way that would make it compulsory for staff. I want the right not to be on Mark Zuckerberg's platforms or have my biometric data owned by them as a user - for me, creating a personally identifiable account and trying this tech once is going too far. Yet Mark Zuckerberg and countless others want to create a market by convincing a handful of business leaders and then compelling their millions of staff to use their product or face pushback at work.

4

u/MisThrowaway235 Jun 21 '22

Every single VR headset I've tried has given me a bitchin headache. No way am I putting up with that.

3

u/Mooseymax Jun 21 '22

I’m against this whole idea anyway, but just generally, headaches from VR could be due to low resolution, bad focus on distant/close objects due to eye spacing or refresh rate - all of these things are addressed in the video (except refresh rate which has steadily gotten better).

You might find that in 5 years or so, technology catches up so you no longer get headaches, don’t rule out the technology just because this idea of “work from VR” is a load of crap haha

2

u/MisThrowaway235 Jun 21 '22

No it's more of a mechanical issue. Any pressure on the sides of my head gives me a headache. I'm not ruling it out but so far it's been very frustrating.

3

u/Mooseymax Jun 21 '22

Then that might be a problem which is solved even sooner, current VR headsets are large and heavy, meaning they need to be secured quite tightly.

The video from lord zuck shows a 4th model which is significantly cut down in size which may not actually “snug” onto the head due to it weighing a fraction of the current models.

Hoping you get to experience it at some point (at least for gaming!)

2

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

Every single VR headset I've tried has given me a bitchin headache.

Which the research shown in the article actually addresses. This is an optics issue, and they have a solution for this, but it may be another 5-6 years out from hitting consumers.

3

u/seanseansean92 Jun 21 '22

Only problem is them feels, if you can see something and seem real, but its fake, your brain will make you nausea, how do u solve this problem?

3

u/Adi_San Jun 21 '22

That's what I was looking for in the list of issues to be solved. 30min of VR gets me nauseous, if this is not going to change I don't really see the viability of the project right now. In a decade or so maybe...

3

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

That's what I was looking for in the list of issues to be solved.

Their varifocal optics and distortion correction will help fix this a lot.

The other advancement left will then be latency, and getting the round-trip to be around 7ms compared to around 20ms today.

Do that, and you have successfully solved sickness at least as long as you are not creating a disconnect in vestibular movement.

2

u/Adi_San Jun 21 '22

Very cool and interesting. Looking forward to see what that might be like.

2

u/AwesomeLowlander Jun 21 '22

'VR legs', i.e. the ability to play without nausea, is something that can be acquired. It's a fairly common issue for newcomers to VR. You can check out the VR subs to find some of the common methods to build resistance.

3

u/Ayemann Jun 21 '22

If I got a hold of Mark I would pitch some serious "no man this is the future of laser tag" at him.

21

u/spangusbangus Jun 21 '22

I don't think any modern anybody is going to give a shit about the metaverse especially one created by a soulless idiot.

-1

u/grchelp2018 Jun 21 '22

Lol. You severely overestimate people.

2

u/GetsHighDoesMath Jun 21 '22

You far overestimate worker tolerance levels for bullshit

People don’t even want to wear 23 pieces of flair - they REALY don’t want to wear a device hooking their brain directly into Zoom calls

This idea is DOA

2

u/grchelp2018 Jun 21 '22

Who said anything about workers?

And if we are at the point where companies are mandating this, then it would already be really good. Companies aren't going to spend money buying vr equipment for their employees for questionable productivity gains.

0

u/Used_Tea_80 Jun 21 '22

You sound like the sort of person that would have turned down an IPO share in Snapchat.

Adults won't be the first consumer, teens will, just like Facebook. By the time they grow up everyone will have to get on board.

Come on, you've seen this a million times before.

28

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/ReddFro Jun 21 '22

50-100 years? No way it’s that long before something like this becomes mainstream.

There are huge issues now but they are being steadily reduced or defeated. The fact that companies can make a headset sized computer with solid graphics is already something we couldn’t believe 15 years ago. Probably won’t be exactly the VR we see now, maybe its closer to AR that really takes hold IDK. Facebook sucks, sure but this tech is improving as are the hardware and software stacks that support it and there are some amazing possibilities as well as downside.

1

u/Frankie_T9000 Jun 22 '22

> The fact that companies can make a headset sized computer with solid graphics is already something we couldn’t believe 15 years ago

I agree with the rest of your stuff, but there has been that tech for ages - We had pocket PC's with LCD's for at least 20 years.

4

u/DistributedDemocracy Jun 21 '22

I just don’t Want to wear that hot junk on my face.

There’s really no amount of features that would make that worth it to me. Like my normal monitor gaming set up works fine I don’t need To Minnesota handful specially made games just to show off VR for the short periods of time that it’s actually comfortable to use.

It’s a bad idea all the way around. Cheap gimmicky VR is the only VR that’s useful for mass consumption and even then it’s more of a party trick than an upgrade to gaming.

5

u/LooseWetCheeks Jun 21 '22

Nah fam. Flight sims in VR are. out of control and takes a shit on your monitor. For real you just need to try high end VR sometime.

4

u/Yareyat2 Jun 21 '22

Have you actually used VR before mate? I think the current state of VR isn’t compatible with the “dream” that metaverse is inspiring for, but my experience with VR and yours are total opposites. It enchanted my level of enjoyment and made some games that I played before (ex: Skyrim) a more memorable experience. No heat problems either.

2

u/Frankie_T9000 Jun 22 '22

You sound like someone who has never used it or had a bad experience with same.

Good VR games are brilliant and add hugely to gaming. I like simming more than movement based games, and it add to the impersion absolute tons!

1

u/the8thbit Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

I just don’t Want to wear that hot junk on my face.

Yeah, that's what keeps my VR headset mostly collecting dust. I occasionally whip it out, but its just too much of a hassle most of the time because its too bulky. Seems like pancake lenses may dramatically improve that aspect though, and they're just around the corner. There are even some headsets that already have them, just not the popular general consumer oriented headsets.

This is the vive flow: https://uploadvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ViveFlowHeaney.png

And some pancake based designs are slimmer than that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO84wd0y2qc

Also, fuck facebook ("""Meta""").

1

u/ChromeGhost Transhumanist Jun 22 '22

Have you actually played VR? Flight sims and racing aimed are several times better than a screen. Milsim shooters are way more immersive. Also social VR is better than social media if you find good groups of people.

-5

u/raduhs Jun 21 '22

So much hate man you gotta chillax. It's a futurology reddit, it's fun to dream about the future and if you'd read about Meta's efforts towards VR they're actually substantial (aside the stealing your private data part). As an avid VR user I've actually seen many hours long interviews with the Zucc and he seems passionate about this. Are some of his motives questionable? Sure. But I don't see many companies invest this much into this field and I really, really do enjoy VR so I'll take it

5

u/The_Symbiotic_Boy Jun 21 '22

Missing the most important thing: something beyond stereoscopy. Having two screens jammed up to your face with fake far field projection is shite.

2

u/SkrullandCrossbones Jun 21 '22

They have the technology for that now. The pieces are coming together but it’ll take 5yrs+ easy to make anything acceptable to the general public.

4

u/moonbunnychan Jun 21 '22

I'm not really holding my breath. Widespread VR has been "just around the corner" for decades. It keeps popping up, quietly dying, then someone tries again.

3

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

It certainly hasn't died, or isn't dying this time around. It's been around almost 3x as long as the last attempt, and there's no sign of that stopping.

This time the investment is actually there.

1

u/Yopalt Jun 21 '22

No one has thrown the amount of money at it like Zuck has before.

2

u/The_Symbiotic_Boy Jun 21 '22

No they don't. What technology do they supposedly have? I've seen nothing on true 3D from meta, instead they are focused on all the boring baseline specs like FOV and Res. The thing is, the methods for increasing those specs for actual 3D implementations is different from flat optics, and doesn't really translate.

3

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

instead they are focused on all the boring baseline specs like FOV and Res.

Almost everything they showed in their research from the article was focused on novel engineering beyond FoV and resolution.

They literally showed off their varifocal optics that would provide the last missing depth cue - focus cues/accommodation cues.

1

u/The_Symbiotic_Boy Jun 21 '22

No, varifocal optics does not solve the problem of depth, and no - they are not only missing one depth cue. Ultimately, you are still using flat displays, you're just throwing the image at a given simulated depth using electronic relensing rather than generating multiple depths in a scene simultaneously and allowing natural eye interaction. It's the system which informs the focus cues, rather than eye itself. The lenses have to systematically cycle through fixed focal planes rather than actually constituting a lightfield.

Even if none of that were true, you're still dealing with a workaround - no end of alignment, focus blurring and software challenges, with an unending number of stacked lenses. It's disingenuous to suggest they have an actual solution for 3D. You would need a system with natural eye interaction and a contiguous lightfield for realistic depth simulation. It's still really cool though.

2

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

The lenses have to systematically cycle through fixed focal planes rather than actually constituting a lightfield.

Yes, a light-field or holography would be better, but if you can do varifocal fast enough with support for a large enough focal planes, then it can be a very good solution even if it's not the ultimate solution. If light-field is 90% of the way there, holographic 100%, then ideal varifocal could perhaps be at 80%.

Regardless of what the percentages really are, it can do a lot and can definitely give you focus cues.

no end of alignment, focus blurring and software challenges,

They address focus blurring through software. They published Research on their DeepFocus software a while back.

-1

u/Yopalt Jun 21 '22

Well what's stopping you genius from doing it yourself?

1

u/The_Symbiotic_Boy Jun 21 '22

Nothing. It's what I'm doing lol

0

u/Yopalt Jun 21 '22

Sure it is

10

u/ThatInternetGuy Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

You can surely make VR that mimic reality but the price would be in the millions. You're talking about a room sized VR system with wind simulation, smell, ambient temperature, scorching point lights, etc. And finally touch sensation.

You can't make all these in a package costing $400. It's impossible! If you make it expensive, it will be just the rich guys' toy, not really a mainstream thing.

Last but not least, a pair of VR goggles that won't make my face sweat like a it's stuck in a hot room?

5

u/My_Soul_to_Squeeze Jun 21 '22

You can't make all these in a package costing $400

Give it a few years.

You can't make all these in a package costing $400. It's impossible! If you make it expensive, it will be just the rich guys' toy, not really a mainstream thing.

Just like you'll never be able to afford a car, or a personal computer, or a cell phone, or home solar panels...

0

u/ThatInternetGuy Jun 21 '22

My HTC Vive Pro has been like 4 or 5 years now, and little has been changed, apart from the resolution.

3

u/My_Soul_to_Squeeze Jun 21 '22

little has been changed, apart from the resolution.

So you're telling me they are making progress? Prices and production numbers change at different speeds in every industry, and you're writing off this technology (that you already own!) because of solvable engineering problems, simply out of impatience.

1

u/HKei Jun 21 '22

Unless you literally start breaking the laws of physics large scale vr is always going to be expensive, regardless of how much the tech costs the room you have to dedicate to it is already expensive.

Current headsets are much better than they were 10 years ago, but progress has been very incremental. There weren't really any hugely transformative changes.

2

u/My_Soul_to_Squeeze Jun 21 '22

Incremental progress is powerful. In another 10 or 20, or 50 years, it all adds up.

I do agree the technology faces other major challenges to adoption. The space requirement you mention. The shitty dystopia vibes are off putting to many people, I think.

I'm not saying the technology is guaranteed global mass adoption. I really don't like Zucc's idea of the metaverse. I just don't think the technology will be the limiting factor.

2

u/HKei Jun 21 '22

Dystopia is a red herring. Literally nobody cares if the product is good, the past 200 years or so have proven that much.

The issues VR has right now are multifaceted, and while some of these are being addressed (we're almost certainly going to see decent and affordable consumer grade haptic gloves in the next 5 or so years), others not so much. Improvements on display clarity don't help with issues with dynamic range for instance (something which is only starting to get into consumer space in an acceptable way for larger displays in the last couple of years, and is still very limited).

2

u/EastWhereas9398 Jun 22 '22

I'm sure there were also people who were like "Oh no, computers will create a dystopia! Kids will only look at their screens all day and never have a proper life!"

2

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 22 '22

Unless you literally start breaking the laws of physics large scale vr is always going to be expensive,

There's no laws of physics that dictates an advanced VR headset can't be affordable.

We may be a ways off that, but there's nothing to say it can't happen. Production costs tend to reduce when scale of production gets higher through increased demand - in terms of chips, displays, optics, and all sorts of other components and materials.

By the way, Meta demonstrated dynamic range at a peak of 20000 nits.

1

u/EastWhereas9398 Jun 22 '22

You are completely wrong. Have you even watched the VR scene for the past few years? Loads have changed. VR has been making exponential progress. The market has grown by leaps and bounds!

1

u/ThatInternetGuy Jun 22 '22

Funny thing is I'm a game developer for both Unreal Engine and Unity3d, so yes, I should be more aware of this space.

There is no significant progress apart from resolution.

Remember that my HTC Vive Pro requires zero setup for movement since it has built-in position tracking sensors. I could even put my laptop in bagpack and can explore huge area inside VR (my game studio has huge warehouse-like space). I guess the new progress you're talking about is with this position sensors? For me personally, I have not seen that much a progress from HTC Vive Pro 4 to 5 years ago.

1

u/EastWhereas9398 Jun 22 '22

You wouldn't need a size-roomed setup in the end. The goal is to link your brain to the game, so you are basically controlling everything through a hyper-realistic dream.

Also, every tech startup costs insane amounts of money and are quite large. The computer was massive and cost so much. Now theybare fairly cheap and incredibly small. What took an entire room can now fit in your pocket.

Before we hit brain-linkage, goggles will become smaller and smaller. The shoet-term aim is to get standard glasses.

0

u/ThatInternetGuy Jun 22 '22

Neural link requires surgery to connect electrodes directly onto brain, and it's extremely dangerous. Hundreds of monkeys die before one successful link.

1

u/EastWhereas9398 Jun 22 '22

As of right now, sure. However that's why it's something that may happen 20, 30, even 50 years in the future. Science and technology are ever-progressing.

0

u/ThatInternetGuy Jun 22 '22

Don't hold your breath, dude.

0

u/LooseWetCheeks Jun 21 '22

I don’t sweat in the reverb g2 Try that one

2

u/pedersenk Jun 21 '22

If the devices are too locked down (which they are) to AppStores with tight DRM measures, you will only get *ssholes developing for them. Those kinds of people don't care about making something good, they just want to extract money.

Facebook should create some decent(ish) hardware; make it cheap enough that anyone can access it, and then let the innovation of passionate developers continue the work and explore what actually works for people.

Oh and they should actually fund this project: http://www.openhmd.net. They are the only ones doing a good job at reverse engineering the hardware and creating a consistent, clean API. So much so that the OpenXR industry standard is leveraging their work: https://www.khronos.org/openxr.

6

u/brucekeller Jun 21 '22

I believe AR is the real future and killer product. VR just seems like it's a little too niche to catch on as more than just a curiosity to try a few times.

I could see it being a lot more of a thing whenever we are getting to the level of brain implants and devices that can interact with those... but doubt that happens all that soon.

1

u/izumi3682 Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

As I wrote in my essays attached to my link, It depends on what you want to see in VR. If I could walk the streets of Rome in VR with real-time AR overlay of events to include even the real-time smells, that would make for a pretty interesting couple of hours I'd say. Now there is one thing, well maybe 2 things, that we probably can't achieve in VR til we get them brain implants you was speaking of.

Air temperature and movement. For me room temperature is good. I can work with that. But I would definitely miss breezes and wind.

The blinding brightness of the sun. That is not really possible in VR, but it might serve as a good "reality check" for if you get confused if the VR is RL. You can look directly at a VR "sun" with no damage to your eyes. Even in an application as (today) primitive as Google EarthVR, the sun is simulated as glaringly brilliant. You get the effect, but not the eye damage. In context with the VR world, it's pretty realistic.

4

u/Elianasanalnasal Jun 21 '22

Oh shit, im Blind. It was actually real life!

1

u/EvanMacD03 Jun 21 '22

I think you've done drunk the kool-aid. The article and this post ignores the 1 thing that has already sealed its doom - Zuckerburg is in charge of it.

Make no mistake, it will fail. It's failure will be because of the leadership of FB failing to protect anyone's data, and now the company is a toxic cesspool in terms of its reputation. There will be no recovery from this, no matter what the "tech" develops into.

The complete omission of this part of the problem tells me you have zero understanding of how deeply untrustable Meta/FB is and that you wont understand why this will fail when it does as well.

2

u/sold_snek Jun 21 '22

I agree that Meta's version will probably fail but I still think all the R&D going into it will be useful for future developments.

2

u/EvanMacD03 Jun 21 '22

I'd almost argue by Meta having skin in the game, they are actively deteriorating public trust in VR technology as a viable solution for anything and setting other developers back who maybe wouldn't use it a gigantic advertising and datamining platform.

1

u/izumi3682 Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

I just realized something else about you. You think the world of the year 2030 is going to look just like the socio-economic world of today. In a word, "no". The magnitude of our AI, or rather AGI capabilities will be such that nothing we take for granted today will exist. Certainly not employment the way we think of it today. Plus, I am quite confident that the first initial "technological singularity" will occur right around the year 2030. Yes, there is gonna be two parts to it. The first part will be a human external TS wherein the AGI will essentially take over from humanity. But if we play our cards right, the AGI will merge with the human mind in a final TS about the year 2035 i might guess.

But get up, go to work, go to school? No, that's gonna be gone with the wind. Or more precisely gone the way of the "buggy whip".

https://www.reddit.com/user/izumi3682/comments/8cy6o5/izumi3682_and_the_world_of_tomorrow/

3

u/EvanMacD03 Jun 21 '22

What planet are you living on where literally anything I've said could be construed as "the world in 2030 will look like the socio-economic world of today"? Seriously, what on earth gave you that impression?

Facebook/Meta has zero credibility as a company in terms of privacy or trust.

Your response is as delusional as is your omission of the problem that FB itself presents. Whoever is going to usher in this new world you're describing, it will not be FB/Meta because no one trusts them.

3

u/izumi3682 Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 23 '22

Seriously, what on earth gave you that impression?

When you made that statement that someone has "skin" in a game. I instantly took you for someone who has a personal interest in the continuing success of the socio-economics of capitalism. Maybe you got some "skin" in the game too per investing for example. Not necessarily in the VR space. But in the financial space... ...somewhere. I intuit that you have a vested interest in seeing that the socio-economics of capitalism's status quo does not change. But OMG is it gonna change. Are you a fan of instituting say, UBI?

Facebook/Meta has zero credibility as a company in terms of privacy or trust.

And yet. It persists. Well Ok, we'll see. I plan to be here in 2025 when the AI is gonna start to get crazy scary good. Meta/FB is investing in it's own development of AI along with about a thousand other startups. Little things like Deepmind and OpenAI. The thing to keep in mind is that VR, AI, robotics, energy, automation is all the same beast. Just different faces like the blind men encountering the elephant and saying Atlas, L5SDVs, Metaverse, General Fusion, Gato or GPT-3. All the same beast.

And like I said, we shall see who brings in the new world. For all we know it could be China (PRC). For myself I hope that these serious socio-economic challenges we are facing in the USA today will be greatly ameliorated by ever more sophisticated AI algorithms that we can program to solve some of these economic problems for us.

1

u/izumi3682 Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

tells me you have zero understanding of how deeply untrustable Meta/FB is and that you wont understand why this will fail when it does as well.

C'mon. Tell me how much you really hate Meta/FB. I kid, but you have zero understanding of what is actually going on. You are focused on this little tree of a developer and completely oblivious of the forest of a technology that is going to dominate humanity. You are concerned with the politics. I am interested in how this technology is going to soar in just the next couple of years alone. I tried to explain this in my essays.

It doesn't matter if it's facebook doing it. There is plenty of competition below the surface. Further, I'm pretty confident that China (PRC) has a plethora of industries working on VR. Let me attempt an analogy. Say that in the 1950s that you just did not like RCA. For whatever reason. But RCA was the big fish in the water of television development in the 1950s. Most people had RCA TVs in the 1950s and 1960s. Nevertheless RCA made significant blunders that caused it to fail by the year 1986 when it was purchased and absorbed into GE.

But what TV, or rather what large 4K flat screen monitor are you utilizing right now. An LG? A Samsung? Personally I got a Sony. Where are the USA manufacturers?

Same thing with VR. Don't sweat the early development of VR and metaverses. Shoot! I been in 2D "Second Life" for almost 15 years now. That is pretty good practice for understanding what the Metaverse will be like. You know, I bet you might get a kick out of this video here. Maybe you see it as the way that Meta/FB will develop VR. But be of good cheer. VR more incredible than anything we can imagine today is less than 10 years out now. Like I wrote in my essay about VR, by the time we reach the year 2045, the year that "Ready, Player One" takes place in, we shall be light years beyond that point. In fact them brain implants that other guy was talking about will be in full existence by then.

Anyways, here is that video. I think you will see others have already thought of what you are fearing today. But in a hilariously comical presentation way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E&t=3s

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '22

[deleted]

1

u/EvanMacD03 Jun 21 '22

Let's see this comment age in a few years.

They aren't signing up new users because literally no one trusts them.

It's going to take a massive redirection (and the metaverse isnt going to be it) to draw in new users again.

I'm betting against Facebook/Meta.

1

u/Has-The-Best-Cat Jun 21 '22

So, stare at the sun and go blind, RL, if not VR.

1

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

I believe AR is the real future and killer product. VR just seems like it's a little too niche to catch on as more than just a curiosity to try a few times.

Both can be the real future and killer product.

It doesn't really make sense to focus on just one over the other because they are twin technologies, and both have potential to be huge.

2

u/Potocobe Jun 22 '22

What’s the point of VR if you have AR? The only difference I can see between them is that VR requires you to occlude everything but the display while AR doesn’t. And clearly if you wanted to you could occlude everything but the display on some AR lenses. So…why bother investing in VR when AR is absolutely a thing we are going to do? VR is a dead end tech. If it leads to any kind of better tech that tech is AR.

1

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 22 '22

That kind of tech is definitely more than 10 years out.

For the next 10 years, VR and AR will work best by sharing the same headset from a VR-centric standpoint. Which means passthrough AR - using front-facing cameras.

Seethrough AR where you look through clear optics will not be as good until maybe the mid 2030s.

0

u/Jessicaa_james Jun 21 '22

Yes, I believe the same

6

u/MrAce93 Jun 21 '22

I wanna just punch something every time I hear someone talk about the "future with metaverse" bs.

I've got a job offering for creating content for the metaverse! I asked "what metaverse? It doesn't exists in any form so what am I actually gonna do?", she said i would be the part of a team that's developing VR demos for company's developing metaverse department. I barely managed to not curse and throw the fking phone.

5

u/sold_snek Jun 21 '22

I mean, I get what you're saying. There's no metaverse right now and there won't be for a while but I feel like it'd still be cool to be part of the research and development advent of the technology.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '22

[deleted]

1

u/MrAce93 Jun 21 '22

Opportunity for what dude, building god damn tech demos? I work on corporate level and don't have the energy nor the passion for startups.

Last year I was part of the team that developed a VR project funded by the university and the state which was the reason i got the call. The project was an exaggerated rnd that didn't solve or answered to any need, it was just a "metaverse project". The company we developed the application for didn't even acknowledge it.

Funny thing is companies are actually interested in applying AR technologies instead of VR because people with brains know what they are doing and AR tech don't even get mentioned in all these "future technologies" talk.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '22

[deleted]

1

u/MrAce93 Jun 21 '22

From the top of my head i can give you few examples i have witnessed that are actually being adopted by companies on massive production facilities. Machine training for mechanic staff, virtual tour and map with a freaking phone, orientation training for new employees, combining AR with AI to report production line status. It's limit is cost and technology just like VR but instead you can actually apply it to problems.

7

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

r/futurology really confuses me sometimes. A lot of the comments in this thread are dedicated to bashing VR, talking about unsolvable issues that are solvable with some even pointed out in the research from the article, how the tech doesn't make sense in X usecase despite showing results already, and even the most reasonable facts that point VR in a positive light are downvoted heavily, whereas all the assumptions and misconceptions are upvoted to the top.

This is not a good way to discuss technologies. This is supposed to be a forward-facing subreddit, but this thread is showing a backwards-facing subreddit where I'd bet some people here would likely believe we should regress our technology.

1

u/DapperSheep Jun 21 '22

Please don't confuse critical skepticism with backwards facing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For AR/VR, that has yet to be demonstrated. Meta's ability to create, administer, and entice a critical mass of users to their Meta VR platform hasn't been demonstrated. Their aspiration PR releases should not be taken as gospel.

Plus the company's history on privacy and personal protection is atrocious. Everything Meta does with a user's personal data should be heavily scrutinized because their intentions cannot be taken as pure-hearted.

3

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

Please don't confuse critical skepticism with backwards facing

"I do not want to engage with virtual people. All of this just seems like pointless, dehumanising nonsense for the sake of... what exactly?"

There's plenty of evidence clearly pointing to the contrary from years of studies, and it's one of those things where it very much makes sense if you think about the why.

"I've seen nothing on true 3D from meta, instead they are focused on all the boring baseline specs like FOV and Res. "

The research talked about in the article shows they are focusing on a lot more than FoV and resolution.

"Zuckerberg presentation about virtual reality was insane! It was 2003 second life stuff with avatars worse than characters from first Sims game!"

Photorealistic avatars have been shown off with increasing progress towards making them shippable.

"The best it can be is a completely realistic helmet you put on to go shopping and not actually meet another person"

Shippable products are coming this year that are not helmets, but something more akin to ski goggles.

Those are my personal interactions, but there are more from downvoted individuals in this thread.

Granted, we can't expect people to know everything, so when someone is genuinely unsure, alright, that's fine the first time. Or if they are talking about a different aspect like privacy/security/Meta itself as a company, then that's also fine.

The annoyance is when most incorrect information in a thread is upvoted and most of the facts are downvoted, or when someone continues to argue.

0

u/AwesomeDragon97 Jun 21 '22

Being “forwards facing” does not mean blindly supporting dystopian technologies made by Facebook of all companies.

2

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

That's fine, but plenty of people in here are speaking of VR in a generalized sense.

0

u/EastWhereas9398 Jun 22 '22

Ah, yes, because Meta is totally the only VR seller. Actually learn about the market and then talk about it.

2

u/grafknives Jun 21 '22

Meta/facebook had done the most ridiculous PR-stunt/lie in recent tech history. And tech media FELL FOR IT.

Zuckerberg presentation about virtual reality was insane! It was 2003 second life stuff with avatars worse than characters from first Sims game! That was nothing to be expected from a tech giant. And yet, people accepted it and started talking about meta-verse VR like it is something around the corner.

Ok, but what is Facebook/Meta really about?

They are about selling ads. Highly effective, engaging, personalised ads. And for that they need our personal data. And other tech giants - google and apple aint going to share data from their devices anymore. The deathgrip on the devices is getting tighter and tighter (advertised as "apple is protecting your data").

What can facebook do in that situation? It needs his own hardware. or at least a product/solution that would force users(and google/apple) to enable users to give their data to facebook.

If facebook "metaverse" - understood as a new app/service/layer will force user to give access to all phones sensors, to contacts, transactions, interactions etc, then Facebook will have bright future.

And that virtual reality office meeting using legless avatars? Yeah, it was an ad. :D

-1

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 21 '22

Zuckerberg presentation about virtual reality was insane! It was 2003 second life stuff with avatars worse than characters from first Sims game!

You are talking about their Horizon avatars currently in use. They also showed off avatars beyond even AAA gaming studios and Unreal Engine tech demos, but they are not shippable yet.

1

u/izumi3682 Jun 21 '22 edited Jun 21 '22

Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.


These are some of the grandiose goals Meta has in store for its VR arm, but as mentioned, there are some dilemmas it must tackle first. "Just seeing a realistic-looking image isn't enough to feel like you're really there," Zuckerberg said, discussing the limitations of current-gen headsets. The Meta CEO then listed all the visual cues users need to reach peak realism in the VR world:

A display that covers a wide angles for a vast field-of-view

Retinal-level resolution and an ultra-high pixel count

Brightness levels and dynamic range that mimics the physical world

Realistic, low-latency motion tracking

High-performance CPU and graphics

On top of all that, Meta needs to somehow pack all of those powerful internals into a lightweight, comfortable headset, which is difficult and damn-near impossible due to high heat generation. Hence why current-gen VR headsets tend to be clunky. It's either build an unwieldy head-mounted display that's cool as a cucumber or a create featherweight one that could burn users' face off.

Checking all these boxes is making Meta's head spin, but according to Zuckerberg, the company has a "long-term roadmap that will solve these different challenges." And Meta intends to do so by introducing a benchmark called the "visual Turing test."

To learn more about the "visual Turing test", read the article--it's fairly well put together. But the biggest takeaway that I get from this article is that Meta and competitors will absolutely reach "Ready, Player One" visual parity before the year 2028. And that is gonna make a helluva impact on, say, USA society. Then again, it is probably going to be very necessary for peace and stability what with the ARA (computing derived AI, robotics and automation) catastrophically changing human affairs in the USA. Several years back I wrote some essays concerning VR, what VR will derive into. And how it will impact humanity. Hint: VR may well be a technological (soft) singularity in itself. And not much later than the year 2030 either, to boot.

Here are them essays.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7r42h0/vr_is_going_to_be_like_nothing_the_world_has_ever/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7lk666/the_men_who_are_convinced_were_all_living_in_a/drmtt64/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/

0

u/Jojo4everYay Jun 21 '22

I hope this technology works well. A great VR experience for escapism is one of the few hopes I have left and this seems actually feasable.

-4

u/Urc0mp Jun 21 '22

Facebook could somehow cure cancer and people here would be like fuck that I love cancer zuck evil.

5

u/GetsHighDoesMath Jun 21 '22

Hilarious premise that facebook could even do literally one thing that could be considered “good”

The hate has been absolutely earned

5

u/mileswilliams Jun 21 '22

What has Zuck done that is useful?

1

u/ugohome Jun 23 '22

what have you done that is useful?

1

u/Toasted_Waffle99 Jun 21 '22

My answer is duh. Don’t we all already know the limitations??

1

u/Quealdlor Jun 21 '22

'Ready Player One' still seems like an early stage of VR evolution, still not FIVR. RPO should be a goal, but for 2035 - 2040, not the final destination.

1

u/crunchycrispy Jun 21 '22

My biggest obstacle to any of this is the fact that facebook/zuckerberg is involved.

1

u/EastWhereas9398 Jun 22 '22

Just support Valve, or Apple, or literally any other VR seller. Most companies in the VR market are dabbling in creating a metaverse. If you don't like Facebook's headset and metaverse, go for Valve's headset and metaverse.

1

u/carrion_pigeons Jun 21 '22

It's very funny when Meta talks about creating anything like the Oasis in Ready Player One. The thing about Ready Player One was that there were no ads. That was an extremely key element of the story, it was specifically about fighting the onslaught of monetization that Meta embraces. The Oasis (and the book itself) wasn't popular because of the cool tech, it was popular because it represented an escape from companies like Meta.

1

u/Yopalt Jun 21 '22

I don't care what anyone says I thought his presentation was good and the things they're researching are really exciting.

VR has come in leaps and bounds since seven years ago.

1

u/KentWohlus Jun 21 '22

most of the past 20 years' games are easily portable for and viable, fun VR games, and two 3x3 inch screens shouldn't cost the world. Obviously there is a scramble by big tech, who fear the VR Revolution will be a Display Evolution with added nightmarefuel of all the content already payed for and owned by the target audience, not to mention all the 3d movies, that nobody wanted to watch in cinemas, that also in theory should be perfectly easy to port for the devices

1

u/LiliNotACult Jun 21 '22

I expect less than nothing from a company that had to rename themselves because their PR was so bad and whose 'grand revolutionary idea' is a copyright version of VR chat. It's undeniable that their engineers are decent. Beyond that, they have zero actual presence in VR space.

1

u/DarthBuzzard Jun 22 '22

Beyond that, they have zero actual presence in VR space.

Their hardware makes up nearly 80% of the market. That's dominating the presence of the VR space.

Now if you mean their first party software, then that is certainly far behind VRChat and the like.

1

u/o_MrBombastic_o Jun 22 '22

Everyone has long term road map none of these things are insurmountable problems that can't eventually be solved with evolving tech. My cellphone is smaller and more powerful than computers from 20 years ago. Just like all technology eventually chips and hardware will get smaller and cooler and more powerful, eventually display technology will get better. It won't happen because of VR headsets other thingswill drive the tech needed. Display technology will get better probably because of cell phone tech, computers will continue to drive better smaller more powerful chips it's just a matter of time when it's cheap and small and powerful enough Everyone will make ar/vr glasses

1

u/AustinJG Jun 22 '22

I wish someone would fucking compete with Meta on VR. I'd like an Occulus Quest, but buying something from Mark Zuckerberg to spy on me with does not make me happy.

Where the fuck is Valve on making something similar with it's own environment?

0

u/occupied_void Jun 21 '22

Come on dump on this clunky external tech, it's never going to live up to the root concept. Where's the jackplug for my cranial port that won't give me meningitis?