5
Asus ROG and Xreal partner to deliver gaming-optimized AR glasses — 240 Hz Micro-LEDs with a 171-inch virtual viewing area (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/augmented_reality@lemmy.world
comment fedilink hide all child comments
 

The mission to boost refresh rates extends to AR glasses

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
5 comments in c/hardware@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I really dislike those artificial >100inch virtual screen marketing numbers because they mean nothing. You can watch >9000" virtual screens without issue on the shittiest XR devices. That virtual screen is just really, really far away.

Edit: The viewing angle is 57 degrees. In comparison most VR headset have a viewing angle of 90-110 degrees.
Those 57 degrees are the same as with the XREAL One. If you're interested in the product category here is the only video review i found a few months back which approaches those glasses honestly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ7M8ukjxNI
I'm not interested anymore since then. For now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Edit: The viewing angle is 57 degrees. In comparison most VR headset have a viewing angle of 90-110 degrees.

    FOV shouldn't be ignored, but having a large FOV also isn't necessarily desirable on a HMD. It's important for VR, because a major point of that is filling one's peripheral vision, creating a sense of immersion.

    But if you wanted, say, an HMD as a monitor replacement

    something that I'd be interested in

    it doesn't buy all that much, because the stuff that you can see with high detail is only in a small cone in front of you. For a given pixel resolution, I'd rather have a smaller FOV on an HMD for that, because you can take advantage of fairly high angular resolutions within that narrow cone. The real bottleneck on an HMD as a monitor replacement is the limited angular resolution you get

    you can't have something that gets as sharp and crisp as existing conventional monitors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    True, especially with the current state of display technology and 1080p screens in those glasses its a pretty valid compromise.

    I mostly just take issue with those dominant marketing claims of 170" screens. Its just bullshit.

    Eg Valve did the same thing in the trailer for the frame. Just not directly and only with a short sneaky visual cgi representation of how a virtual screen is projected in front of the consumer. Which is from my experience way to big. I own a standalone headset with a measured 104 degrees of fov on my face. But the useable screensize in headset pretty much aligns with my 48" monitor 3-4 feet in front of me. With 57 degrees its probably more like a 32" monitor which sounds way less impressive than a 170" screen which happens to be farther away. Its just in itself a misleading metric which is intentionally used in a misleading way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    Jesus, the marketing material is so cringe that immediately made me lost interest in the product.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I got duped by tech bros after they were all singing it's praises in the early days of "NREAL". It sucks. You can't fit the entire picture in the lenses and there's really bad fringing around the edges. There's obviously an insane amount of light bleed. They look ridiculous. They do not look like a 1000" display, they look like a phone fixed to your face. I don't really know how to describe the difference, other than "unimpressive".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •