VR, as it is currently, is puzzling in terms of the reality of it compared to the hype.
1. There is a lot of hype around "where VR is going", and some people could lump AR into this as well. We can't foresee every new application the future will bring, but we can already see really interesting applications being developed. If you want examples let me know, but there are really cool applications for education, story telling, gaming (of course), and shopping already being demo'd.
2. There is probably too much hype around what we already have. Having an HMD with tracked controllers is incredibly immersive. The SteamVR trailer is probably the best way to show that without trying it, and it still falls short. I will say that without AT LEAST tracked controllers, VR feels like a gimmick.
Also, while I realize some will disagree, augmented and virtual reality are not the same thing; meaning my comments and the article were on VR, not AR.
Seriously consider how irrational that may sound at the very least to me; which to say if you're able to explain why VR is not hyped or why people being irrational is not puzzling - I'm happy to listen and more importantly, acknowledge that I've been unreasonable.
Otherwise, to me, your just supporting my view of the situation.
The USAF experimented with synthetic-reality environments for piloting in the 1980s with projects such as VCASS. But eventually they settled upon augmented reality, as did the Army.
30 years on the 'how' of synthetic / virtual reality has advanced hugely but have we answered the 'why'?
Appears you're saying that augmented (sythentic) and virtual reality are equivalents, but also state the US military has decided they're not.
Am I missing something?