Wow this looks like an ad for what a PC ad would have been 30 years ago. It's weird looking and maybe not there because of the bulky VR headset but I'm so excited to see where these things are heading. Hopefully within a decade we will see a much compact looking vr headset that would be not bigger than actual glasses and just the thought of having multiple monitors like this anywhere makes me so happy. I really hope they are able to reduce the size of these VR headsets and it really feels we're finally on the verge of another tech revolution.
Couldn't agree more. I'm starting to believe in this paradigm and would love to see future iterations. Almost enough so to pay the initial backer tax for this model.
The compute pack in the back of the headset is detachable (we plan to sell a VR dock for office desks to make docking it easier). But yes, this VR headset will definitely look large to future VR/AR headsets 10 years from now. We are excited to iterate its size downward over time (among other things).
If you are unsure about the headsets price, we have added a "partial deposit" option to the checkout which allows you to place a $1,499 deposit to reserve a headset. This allows you to lock in a headset now for less risk, and then receive it later on when its finished (you'll have to pay another $1,499 deposit then as well). If you have any other questions or feedback, let me know.
As an aside, the video gave me reasons why I'll never put on (any) VR headset in a public place like a coffeeshop or a park. It looks like I imagine it would feel: very awkward to be that person with a VR headset in the middle of a park.
I did this a few years ago. With googly eyes, cat ears, and a nose, people generally responded with a smile. But there wasn't a lot of attention. In coffee houses, subways and buses, meetups, etc. Some parks. Ears made from (two colors of) gaff tape. :) Nose was a monocular passthru camera, gaff taped to various headsets. Sometimes also had an MIT VR sticker, to help people with any "what flavor of wacky is this?" uncertainty. It was tethered, without raised-hand gesturing, so "just a person working on laptop". Perhaps supporting personalization might help smooth hmd adoption?
There is a point in the video where the "protagonist" is served a drink in the Cafe. The scene cuts as he puts it on his lips but for a split second I recognised that weird dance once must do to sip with a VR headset on. I've tried enough times to know that drink+cup+VR does not mix.
I still struggle to understand any advantages of this as a desktop (workstation) replacement. Many studies have shown that dual monitors increase productivity, but there are exponentially diminishing returns on additional monitors beyond two.
While this technology theoretically gives you "infinite" workspace(s), you are still limited by human physiology. Do I really want to have a virtual window that requires me to look upward and to the left? How long am I going to want to hold my head in that direction to do anything practical? So this creates a natural limitation of where I can look directly forward in a natural head-holding position, glancing slightly left or right. Which brings us right back to where we are today, dual side-by-side monitors. A human can only look in one direction at once anyway, so there are few advantages to having random windows floating around above or below us. A user could be better serviced by learning shortcuts to quickly switch windows (ie. alt-tab) on their desktop while continuing to look forward in a natural position.
I am all for change and progression, but this doesn't seem like we really gain anything. I don't want to be in a virtual "work" reality, that sounds horrible. I want to look at my monitors to work, then have other things around me. Maybe look out the window or pick up my guitar and play for 5 minutes between meetings. I don't want to see the barista virtually surrounded by my virtual monitors, I just want to see this human in real life. If my partner comes into my home office while I work I want to be able to look at them and have them see my eyes in return. When I am on a zoom call I want people to see a real human, not a virtual avatar.
I just struggle to see any advantages from a virtualized work world. Someone feel free to tell me what I am missing out on here. But as far as I see it, I would still need to work from a desk at home. I am still staring at windows containing spreadsheets/code/documents/files, they are just floating around in virtual space instead of displayed on monitors. I don't understand the point of going to a park when you are wearing a virtual headset. The reason people go to a park or a coffee shop to work is for a change in scenery. But if you are still in your virtual world, then why go to a park?
- you can work anywhere in the house with your big screen. In the bed, then on the thread mill, then on the desk, then standing. No need to change the setup.
- you can use it in any luminosity. No reflection if you code, no big light to wake up people sleeping if you watch a movie.
- you can code in any posture, including on your back.
- you can go in nature and code, read, get into a meeting. I really want that. I miss the sun on my skin at the office.
- you can go in full immersion, with no visual distraction what so ever.
- you can have your big screen when traveling. Want to work near the beach in the south of France ? Sure your can, why wait for the holidays ? You can be productive in the hotel room with your full setup, and then enjoy a dip in the water then a lunch at the local cafe.
I wouldn't make it my only setup. It kills social interaction. I like my pen and paper. But the options are nice, if you can afford it.
It's definitely something to improve some aspects of work, not a shift. And you will enjoy it more if you are already fortunate to have money, and freedom in your work.
I miss the sun too but I can't imagine being outdoors with those and enjoying being outside. What about the sweat on my face because of having a heating device strapped onto my head ?
I'd rather have an long battery life arm pc with an e-ink screen.
First of all, imagine the VR glasses rumored from Apple: lightweight, high resolution, OLED, and camera's for augmented reality. Especially OLED and super high resolution will make the experience much more tolerable.
You could now take your workplace with you wherever you go. In the train, to the office, any room of your house. Always having a beautiful cleaned up working space with a lot of workspace.
I think the face/eye tracking camera's will help with realistic meetings. Furthermore with augmented reality you could grab a coffee or play some guitar without taking your headset off. Obviously when going to the park you would take the headset off. You probably would have to do so anyways as 8 hours of VR is though.
Yes, the video is a total cringe, I don't understand how they could imagine it would help them sell the thing.
But I could totally see myself going into the forest or the mountain in a remote area, and enjoy working remotely in nature. As long as I know there will be no humans around.
First, as you said, it's very awkward. It can already create social tensions to have hearphones on in public, so a whole mask...
But it's also dangerous. People are idiots, sometimes means, sometimes just clumsy. And I am an idiot. With my eyes free, I manage to do plenty of damage, breaking glasses, hitting people by mistake, pouring liquids in the wrong places. I know with a certainty I would cause trouble with a helmet on.
This is why I firmly believe that augmented reality has far more potential than VR. Augmented reality recreates the world, whereas VR builds a new one and creates unavoidable barriers due to total immersion.
With AR you go out, with VR you no longer have to. And yes, I want AR but potential wise... Not sure if their aren't billions of people who would rather just sit inside in nice worlds being entertained for almost free than step outside in the horrorshow they actually live in. I mean in a few years or so when the manual jobs are gone and we missed a bunch of climate goals etc.
I heard similar comments when portable audio came out and people were wearing headphones. The simula headset is unfortunately styled (unless you are a nintendo fanboy) but future less striking headsets will be fine.
I routinely see people wearing not too dissimilar headsets as vision aids for severe myopia and macular degeneration.
"Origins: Simula is a reimplementation fork of motorcar. To read about motorcar, see Toward General Purpose 3D User Interfaces: Extending Windowing Systems to Three Dimensions"
I've got a pretty good record of getting things working with Winetricks and after about a week I gave up on getting my Quest 2 to work on Linux. To be honest, I feel like it barely works on Windows most days.
That's why i would be hesitant to put that much faith in the developers of the hardware to provide lasting support.
Also, the styling of the device itself is right up my alley.
Also an important thing: our software is FOSS and our hardware/firmware will be as open as can be. So even if we can't provide support anymore for whatever reason, all the tools will be there.
One thing that you have to consider is touch typing is easy when it's just home-row keys and general typing, but even doing brackets vs curly braces forces me to look down at my keyboard. Also, modifier keys are tougher. Meta is trying to solve this with tracking keyboards with either overlays that have to be re-calibrated on move or with a special Logitech keyboard. These two videos explain the issue with working in VR in more detail.
For me the linux desktop use case is too weak to spend so much money on a headset. Probably, the picture would change, if WebXR would be supported. This would introduce at least one widely accepted UI framework with VR scope to the platform.
The linux desktop is the killer feature. Why recode 30 years of a rich ecosystem when you can benefit from it now ?
You can use a web browser with all your extensions, code with a real local vs code, issue git commands in a terminal, watch any video with vlc / download them with youtube-dl / torrent them, get your emails with thunderbird, in a huuuuuge screen, open all my 1000 of different chats, play on steam while voicing on discord, query a postgres db, render a scene in blender, ssh to my work server and enjoy my ebook collection using calibre.
Why would I want a limited, badly supported, barely developed system?
> You can use a web browser with all your extensions
Since WebXR is not supported yet, this breaks the value proposition for me currently, as all VR content delivered via browser will not yet work. As I said, once this issue is solved (I think they are working on it), I'd reconsider.
If it were cheaper, I'd buy one. While VR gaming has promise, even today "working in a customised Linux workspace" is a personal killer feature for me.
2D panels in VR are interesting for me, but not a killer feature.
What would be a killer feature would be a VR designer for blender, unreal, unity etc.
I think, this would be a way to really differentiate from closed platforms (which I also expect Apple RealityOS to become).
Unfortunately, the expectation that easy to use apps and tools for creating and consuming VR content will only be available only on closed platforms is quite reasonable.
Those prices are insane. No way. My Oculus Quest 2 is performing brilliantly for the $300 I paid. In fact had I paid $2000 for the OC2 I would’ve been well satisfied. FB/Meta have put billions into software development and are likely selling the Quest units at a loss to grab marketshare before Apple introduces its take on XR. If Simula want to compete with the FOSS angle they need to get costs down, especially considering that few have expendable income because of Covid and many have been burned by fantastical kickstarters that never deliver, and this is a highly technical project we have no idea if the authors have the experience or qualifications to pull it off.
As you said, you can not compete against Facebook by price. They don't have billions and will NEVER be able to compete on that field.
They need to sustain themselves and do that with something that facebook could not copy.
While OQ is way cheaper, it also forces you into using facebook accounts and you pay with your personal or even worse, with your company information, that is way more valuable than the cost of the simula.
A surveillance device with two cameras and microphone and eye tracking of your workers is something unacceptable for lots of companies.
The price is OK if they manage to offer something that improves productivity and make companies money. Juts a month of paying an engineer is way more than this price.
I don't care if it makes companies money or otherwise benefits them. I want this to be accessible to ALL hackers, on a personal basis, whether they are backed by a corporation or not.
And for that to happen, the cost must go down. Just like the PinePhone is IMO the first practically obtainable phone designed to be hacked, we need something like this for VR. Otherwise we'll just end up with a bunch of Librems that only rich US engineers can enjoy.
Not the same thing at all. Smartphones have reached the point where further improvements are largely superficial for years now. Pinephone's price point is only possible because of over a decade of the proliferation of cheap smartphone components.
Consumer VR headsets are nowhere close to that point. The Quest 2 is right at the edge of usably clear text for work - with a price point that is only possible through the backing of a giant corporation desperately gambling their future on their whole metaverse shtick.
Trying to do better means requiring optics and display technology that is going to drive that price point up, especially for a hackable headset that is automatically going to rule out monetisation through user data.
tldr: nobody should care about providing cheap hardware to entitled "hackers" at their own loss. Hardware doesn't grow on trees.
OK, I agree. Why are you calling me entitled, though? I'm not demanding that the headsets be sold at loss. By "I don't care whether it makes companies money", I meant "I don't care whether it makes more money for the company purchasing them" (because the context of the discussion was that it would be companies purchasing these headsets for their own corporate efficiency reasons). A selling company must obviously make enough money to keep the production line going, how is it sustainable otherwise?
All I am saying is that:
A) certain conditions need to occur for a hackable home headset space to flourish
B) said conditions haven't occurred yet, and will not until the price comes down
I understand your hesitation, but our specs are pretty top end. The headset itself will be comparable to a Varjo Aero in picture quality and there's a relatively beefy integrated, detachable x86 compute pack. And high-quality AR mode that's usually reserved for Varjo's >>5k units.
Will we reach Varjo's level of polish? No way. But I'm confident we can get 80% of the way there at least.
Hey, just an idea - most folks looking at your product probably have some VR experience. Maybe you can provide a comparison with various contemporary headsets, showing why/how yours is better, esp. for working and not just gaming or watching vids?
Like, I'm certain I cannot work in my Index, not for any prolonged time. It's awesome for games, but not for any text-heavy stuff. I've tried a few times, my take is that problem is the resolution is not good enough => I would need giant fonts => turning my head a lot => extra neck strain (as if headset, even with a counterweight not bad enough in this regard) => fatigue and headaches. If I could see a honest (simulated) rendering of what I'd see in an Index vs what I'd see in Simula One, that would be amazing.
Good idea. We have a listing in one of our blog posts, but I'll see if I can do a simulation.
I think the best bet actually would be for me to just take a camera and do a through-the-lenses shot through both. Our current optical train needs a second iteration for the mold, but once it meets our specs we'll do a blog post about it.
I don't particularly disagree with the price point argument but since you're here...
"high-quality AR mode" -- do you have public SDK documentation for this and does it have a mixed passthru VR / AR mode like the Quest 2? The quest actually is a bit underpowered for doing this properly imo so I can see a higher price point potentially being necessary to pack it with the right hardware.
Not that I'll ever build it but somewhere along the line some cordless headset is going to have great passthru and the ability to replace the windows in my house with the beach or a beautiful mountain vista.
Also just an observation -- x86 on your face makes me think it probably gets quite hot :)
No documentation yet, but I can give you an overview.
We have two wide-angle RGB cameras mechanically locked to the users' PD. The cameras itself are around 2k x 2k at 90 fps. For the standalone mode, the data is pushed over a PCIe gen 3x4 link so we can hit <12ms latency. Tethered is a bit more tricky as we can't count on the bandwidth being available, but we'll either compress it or do a reduced resolution.
The actual sensor is still TBD. I'd like to do this properly with a global shutter sensor (IMX547), but they're a bit too expensive. If we don't have the margin for it, something like a IMX715 is the fallback.
The compute pack will be on the back of your head, so a bit easier to cool and not as severely annoying. Also helps balance the headset.
Very impressive product- I certainly applaud your efforts and agree that the price is competitive for what it is. You can even use ultra wide monitors at similar resolutions as a comparison point. (Though of course they end up way ahead in terms of ppd)
Has there been any work in the distro related to 3d UI stuff? Maybe a 3d representation of the file system, for example. Anything related to facilitating shared virtual spaces?
For the future, have you looked into micro LED displays with waveguide optics? It seems like the thing that is going to allow for glasses-style VR/AR.
To me it's a no-brainer to tether that type of display to a phone. Could just use a long cable going to a pocket or hang the phone around the neck etc.
Not yet. It's planned to significantly improve the software, but we only have so much bandwidth right now.
uOLEDs with waveguides (for AR) or pancake lenses (for VR) are... really complicated. Both systems currently do not offer the visual quality that a traditional refractive system can offer due to low light transmission, ghost images, and so on.
The pixel size on a high-res uOLED is so small that getting the same PPD requires pancake optics to fit in the headset form factor. Otherwise your spot size (i.e. the minimum resolution of the optics) is too large and you lose the benefit of a high-res display.
Also, bandwidth is a big concern. Our double 2448x2448@90Hz displays require DSC to run even with a DisplayPort 4-lane HBR3 link. I don't think phones can drive that.
How about comfort? I’ve tried working in the Quest 2 using immersive and while I loved it, it just wasn’t the kind of thing I would do for hours on end.
Are you guys confident that your headset will be more comfortable than the Q2? If so, how much more?
I would think PCVR+workstation would be their main competitor or even Hololens. Microsoft has built a more compelling software suite for productivity thats not also locked into a single platform like Oculus.
Reclining can be a nice way to take a break from weight and pressure on head and face. Which can require modding a headset, to pad a back-of-head knob, etc. And hmd thermals aren't optimized for reclined. But here, perhaps this compute unit might be made detachable?
That i7 compute pack should be the first thing you cut to make an affordable product. If the headset is 2-5k in the current market I think you’ll be very lucky to sell 100, but would love to be proven wrong. Get the costs down, get more funding, sell the units at a loss to build a dev community.
I think you guys are making a mistake I once made, focusing on the hardware design for what is actually a software product. You’re building an Android phone, without Android.
We have a software product--we had it for ages. The hardware doesn't exist for it. That's why we're doing this.
We're not doing this lightly. Hardware design is expensive, and risky, and low margin. But we want a cultural victory, not necessarily a financial one. If that means doing it ourselves, then so we will.
Not a thought through attitude. If it sounds like I’m on your case here it’s because I am. You aren’t even giving this product a chance at success. Expendable income for most is $400/mo. Your headset won’t sell in volume over that, especially with the current competition. But I’ll pick one off ebay when you’re done with the cultural victory?
Here's the thing. Let's say you want to work in VR:
Case 1, you do it like Immersed. Virtual monitors that you can position in space. Great, but that's all you can do. I don't believe this will be a way to drive mass adoption of VR computing.
Case 2, you build a window manager. Each window can be positioned individually and you can give specific windows custom handling, or even integrate 3D scenes. Problem is, now you're limited to Linux. Linux headset support is very limited. People don't have Linux installed, even.
How do you solve this? You build a Linux compatible headset. You minimize the friction. You allow people to put on the headset and get to work. Nobody cares that their Android phone is Linux based, after all.
That being said, right now this absolutely is an enthusiast, early adopter product. We'd like to get the costs down, but going into a costs battle when you're doing a new product type is insanity.
I'm sad about the price too, but you can't just say things like that with a dismissive attitude. They are trying to get an entire way of working off the ground. Think how much time, money and design work it took to go from no Raspberry Pi, to Pi 1, to Pi 3 (which IMO was the first one that was generally usable). They are trying to do the same for productivity VR based on Linux.
I'll be that guy. I thought, you must be new around here and sure enough I'm right.
Respectful discourse is important and we strive for something better than the tone you're carrying here. I say "we" only because I like this little respectful discourse corner of the internet and because the site guidelines are fairly clear on the subject. It's the culmination of hard work, cool, and I too hope it finds a lower price point and ends up succeeding.
I just think your comment just signals ignorance of the industry. They're targeting this headset for people who are looking for a portable vr workstation with an angular resolution high enough to simulate 1080p monitors.
How exactly are they going to achieve the visual specs to achieve that at the price point you're expecting?
They are never going to sell something like this at high volume, not only because the market for it isn't there yet but because this goes beyond the specs of consumer level headsets - which means they wouldn't be able to source the required components to even address such a hypothetical demand.
I’m going to take it to the level above offensive tough love and just give up at this point. If you want a $5k headset to emulate a $100 1080p monitor, with a 3 hour battery life, and switches for every sensor so the secret service can’t see how messy your bedroom is, then this product is for you. Good luck
No need to be an ass. Also, you're quoting the limited edition price which seems to amount to aesthetics and priority shipping.
Elsewhere on this page, you literally said that you would have been happy to have paid 2000 for the quest 2 - which this device would utterly dogpile both in terms of optics and raw power.
Cute though that you feel the need to paint the completely normal aversion to having a corporation having the ability to depth scan your surroundings at all times as tin foil hat territory.
I'd rather you skip the hysterics and just "give up" if you have nothing constructive to say.
Let’s not balk at prices when a newcomer stands up to Big Social. Their true customers are the advertisers, and no honest business can compete with ad-driven “free” products on price. I imagine Facebook already sells Quest at a loss, and making its future equivalent free will surely be a logical move for them to capture eyeballs—but that does not mean competitors must be free, otherwise would imply no competitor ever, apart from those backed by nation-states or shady business models.
For the record, I’m sure I’m far from the only one who 1) never had a VR headset yet, 2) would not buy a Facebook product, and 3) could buy one for US$2k+ for experiments if that means no lock-in. It’s the price of a decent laptop. Weren’t the original Oculus prices in that ballpark, before FB came in with its billions?
It depends on how you work. I have a pretty good company laptop, but it's pretty much just a front-end for an SSH client, a web browser, and a local Windows VM. All my actual work happens on remote machines.
These prices are very competitive. You’re comparing two very different product with different capabilities. It’s like saying a flip phone and a new smartphone are the same because they both can make calls.
