<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>moron4hire</author><text>&amp;gt; no developer is paying attention to proprioception&lt;p&gt;That is not true at all. Proprioception is top of mind for every serious VR developer. Outside of poor software performance, it&amp;#x27;s the #1 cause of simulator sickness. Short of hacking the vestibular system, there&amp;#x27;s nothing we can do about the lack of virtual acceleration cues. So we design within the constraints we have. It&amp;#x27;s why you see teleport locomotion. It&amp;#x27;s why developers get into such arguments over &amp;quot;smooth movement&amp;quot; with gamers who think they know better. Lack of proprioception with virtual movement is a huge problem that we would love to solve, but laypeople have an irrational fear of a little extra electricity getting piped through their ears, so I doubt we&amp;#x27;re going to see much change there.&lt;p&gt;Fixed-view, wearable displays violate proprioception even more than VR HMDs, because they don&amp;#x27;t even give you the &lt;i&gt;real&lt;/i&gt; acceleration cues you get from &lt;i&gt;actually&lt;/i&gt; moving your head.&lt;p&gt;As for your question about distance, I suspect you&amp;#x27;re looking for &amp;quot;accommodation&amp;quot;. Accommodation is the physical distortion of the eye to change the focal distance of the lens. Combined with vergence (the distance at which our binocular vision rays converge), the two systems work together to give you a sense of how far away something is (among other things, like atmospheric hazing, parallax, and trained memory of similar objects). Most modern VR systems lack the ability to account for accommodation, leading to what is called &amp;quot;vergence-accommodation conflict&amp;quot;. It can be a source of eye-strain for some people, but it tends to be adaptable over time.&lt;p&gt;Note that I said &amp;quot;most&amp;quot; modern VR systems. It&amp;#x27;s an active area of hardware research, as the solutions--light field displays and varifocal lenses--are large, complex, and therefore expensive. The latest developments in &amp;quot;pancake&amp;quot; optics, where focal distance for the lens is folded in on itself via a clever system of internal reflectance, has a possibility of bringing the size down, but unfortunately not the complexity or cost.&lt;p&gt;So again, it&amp;#x27;s really not fair to say developers are &amp;quot;ignoring&amp;quot; these problems. We are all extremely aware of the them. There are just some things you can&amp;#x27;t do anything about without a major breakthrough.</text><parent_chain><item><author>Maursault</author><text>&amp;gt; This is an intriguing idea&lt;p&gt;It is an obvious idea. AR&amp;#x2F;VR is hard. Dumb displays are not. I think we should have had similar products a decade ago, and if I&amp;#x27;m not mistaken, these exist in cheaper SD versions from noname manufacturers.&lt;p&gt;That said, I want this, and not Meta&amp;#x27;s thing or whatever Apple is cooking up, because I knew ahead of time that no one is going to get the VR part right initially. They are barking up the wrong tree, because as far as I know, no developer is paying attention to proprioception. From what I can tell, they&amp;#x27;re focused on the eyes only, and proprioception is essential for VR. AR is different, maybe they&amp;#x27;re getting that right. I&amp;#x27;m just not interested in AR. It&amp;#x27;s great for a futuristic technology in a film, but in practice, it seems silly to me.&lt;p&gt;But I don&amp;#x27;t know everything, hardly anything, really. What is the metric called that is the &lt;i&gt;distance&lt;/i&gt; to where the display &lt;i&gt;appears&lt;/i&gt; to be? It is not focal length, and I need really a word for what that is called. If the display appears to be, say, 10&amp;#x27; away, I probably don&amp;#x27;t want it. It would be awesome if this apparent distance was adjustable. I am near sighted, hate contacts and correctable lenses cause me migraine. Thus, I prefer to view displays quite close, no more than 2&amp;#x27;, or to appear no more than 2&amp;#x27; away when it is actually much closer to the eye and using a magnifying lens. Pads have worked well for me for consuming media because I can hold at the right (close) distance for comfort.&lt;p&gt;Really hope I get what I want, have wanted it for about 25 years and been confused why HMDs had only mostly been used for military purposes, for insane prices.&lt;p&gt;It is about time someone has ignored the difficult to get right AR&amp;#x2F;VR tech, and just gave us a high quality, personal, wearable display.</text></item><item><author>crazygringo</author><text>This is an intriguing idea, possibly much more convenient and ergonomic for productivity than a fully fledged VR headset.&lt;p&gt;But the fact that these are 1080p internal displays suggests it&amp;#x27;s a &amp;quot;fixed&amp;quot; 1080p screen that moves with your head, not a &amp;quot;virtual&amp;quot; screen that appears to stay in place as you move your head.&lt;p&gt;Does anyone here have any experience with how usable that is? When I start up my Oculus Quest 2 and it has the fixed startup screen logo before it switches to head-tracking mode, it&amp;#x27;s rather disorienting, since visual cues are totally mismatched with my sense of balance.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not sure whether I could get used to a big screen &amp;quot;tethered&amp;quot; to my head angle like that, or if you get used to it?&lt;p&gt;Also I wonder about the brightness here -- the Quest 2 isn&amp;#x27;t very bright at all, but it&amp;#x27;s OK since virtually all surrounding light is blocked out and my eyes adjust. Whereas this device is basically large sunglasses that lets in tons of surrounding light -- does the screen brightness compete?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Lenovo’s Glasses T1 let you bring a private big screen display with you</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/1/23332907/lenovo-glasses-t1-yoga-smart-display-ifa</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>kfarr</author><text>Yeah these have been around for almost a decade as cheap VR knockoffs for the unsuspecting, albeit I haven&amp;#x27;t seen the direct USB c output option before. Not until you take it home and turn it on do you realize the resolution of 1080p strapped to your eyes is a pixelated mess and the lack of even basic 3DOF makes these things uncomfortable for most people.</text><parent_chain><item><author>Maursault</author><text>&amp;gt; This is an intriguing idea&lt;p&gt;It is an obvious idea. AR&amp;#x2F;VR is hard. Dumb displays are not. I think we should have had similar products a decade ago, and if I&amp;#x27;m not mistaken, these exist in cheaper SD versions from noname manufacturers.&lt;p&gt;That said, I want this, and not Meta&amp;#x27;s thing or whatever Apple is cooking up, because I knew ahead of time that no one is going to get the VR part right initially. They are barking up the wrong tree, because as far as I know, no developer is paying attention to proprioception. From what I can tell, they&amp;#x27;re focused on the eyes only, and proprioception is essential for VR. AR is different, maybe they&amp;#x27;re getting that right. I&amp;#x27;m just not interested in AR. It&amp;#x27;s great for a futuristic technology in a film, but in practice, it seems silly to me.&lt;p&gt;But I don&amp;#x27;t know everything, hardly anything, really. What is the metric called that is the &lt;i&gt;distance&lt;/i&gt; to where the display &lt;i&gt;appears&lt;/i&gt; to be? It is not focal length, and I need really a word for what that is called. If the display appears to be, say, 10&amp;#x27; away, I probably don&amp;#x27;t want it. It would be awesome if this apparent distance was adjustable. I am near sighted, hate contacts and correctable lenses cause me migraine. Thus, I prefer to view displays quite close, no more than 2&amp;#x27;, or to appear no more than 2&amp;#x27; away when it is actually much closer to the eye and using a magnifying lens. Pads have worked well for me for consuming media because I can hold at the right (close) distance for comfort.&lt;p&gt;Really hope I get what I want, have wanted it for about 25 years and been confused why HMDs had only mostly been used for military purposes, for insane prices.&lt;p&gt;It is about time someone has ignored the difficult to get right AR&amp;#x2F;VR tech, and just gave us a high quality, personal, wearable display.</text></item><item><author>crazygringo</author><text>This is an intriguing idea, possibly much more convenient and ergonomic for productivity than a fully fledged VR headset.&lt;p&gt;But the fact that these are 1080p internal displays suggests it&amp;#x27;s a &amp;quot;fixed&amp;quot; 1080p screen that moves with your head, not a &amp;quot;virtual&amp;quot; screen that appears to stay in place as you move your head.&lt;p&gt;Does anyone here have any experience with how usable that is? When I start up my Oculus Quest 2 and it has the fixed startup screen logo before it switches to head-tracking mode, it&amp;#x27;s rather disorienting, since visual cues are totally mismatched with my sense of balance.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not sure whether I could get used to a big screen &amp;quot;tethered&amp;quot; to my head angle like that, or if you get used to it?&lt;p&gt;Also I wonder about the brightness here -- the Quest 2 isn&amp;#x27;t very bright at all, but it&amp;#x27;s OK since virtually all surrounding light is blocked out and my eyes adjust. Whereas this device is basically large sunglasses that lets in tons of surrounding light -- does the screen brightness compete?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Lenovo’s Glasses T1 let you bring a private big screen display with you</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/1/23332907/lenovo-glasses-t1-yoga-smart-display-ifa</url></story>