Impossible

https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/stretchy_buffer.... Although I get you want an official standard library version, or a built in language feature.

Modern VR motion controls are better. Much of the innovation in physics based gameplay and things like sword mechanics is happening in VR, because the controls are accurate, expressive and low latency. Wii had the idea but lacked real tracking (a smartphone accelerometer can do Wii gameplay better than Wii).

100ms a frame is a vaguely interactive slide show.

Generally speaking it feels better and makes for better gameplay, even if that gameplay is unrealistic. Most games have projectile weapons that have some lead time so there isn't much of a performance reason.

HN users tend to think deeper/more complex simulation is directly correlated to better gameplay (see the sword conversation above), but one of the interesting things about games is abstraction.

That said more simulation focused games with larger maps (some Battlefield games, ARMA) have bullets with travel velocities and bullet drop.

The best selling VR game isn't FPS it's a rhythm game. Sure there are plenty of FPS games, but there are also RPGs, adventure games, strategy, etc. Your response highlights my point, games and perception are two of the biggest issues. I agree that VR won't be for everyone (like gaming or anything else) but there is a lack of consumer understanding about what is available that needs to be addressed.

Many HN users are "stuck" in ~2014 era VR (cardboard, DK2, maybe Vive) and haven't really paid attention to VR because it became a small game industry market, as opposed to another market capable of capturing value from existing industries with low effort. To be fair many years in the future I do think VR has the potential to disrupt some of the travel market and take over most of the video conferencing market.

I strongly disagree that simulator sickness is the major adoption barrier for VR. It's a problem, sure but most games and applications do not have the same motion disconnect as a flight simulator would and developers have got pretty good at making high to moderate comfort games, even with heavy locomotion.

The biggest adoption problem is quality VR games (Beat saber is really the only true stand out hit), followed by comfort and form factor of the hardware, followed by marketing a perception of VR. I don't think VR will ever be a smartphone or PC sized market but assuming current growth is maintained it will be a small game console sized market (10-20 million units) in a few years. This could be seen as a failure or a future that never arrived because VR won't be truly mainstream, but for all major players except Facebook (Sony, Valve) I think it will be viewed as a success.

AR hardware should be separated out as well because I think the challenges there are also applications but also technical difficulty. The mythical always on high resolution glasses or contact form factor display that could be a smartphone replacement is a lot longer away than advertised I think. If and onc technical and design challenges are reasonably solved AR hardware could take off.

Unfortunately one of the more interesting responses on this post is from a shadow banned account (JohnClark1337).

The author seems to forget that the internet existed in the 70's and 80's, and smartphones existed before 2009. Back then they were experimental and many people thought they might go away, and they might have gone away if they weren't then refined into technologies that average consumers could more easily use.

While it's already kind of problematic to call nerds 'cast off from "normal" society' like they were an oppressed minority, I don't think the comparison is relevant. Most tech bros would have been working in finance or as lawyers or some other lucrative field. Many of them don't care about technology beyond how it can make them money, you see this attitude again and again on HN (countless posts about how the only value a programmer brings in business value). Most tech bros are not nerds that love technology for the sake of it, although there are of course people that work in tech that have this passion. The only way your comment works is if you apply "tech bro" to everyone working for a tech company...

I completely agree with you, but looking at this from the perspective of a middle manager, especially a lower ranking one, rather than a shareholder or senior leadership view, it starts to make sense and isn't quite as cynical. A single IC or low ranking manager leaving a large or middle sized company will probably have no effect on the company ROI, but could seriously affect that managers goals. Outside of that the manager has a personal relationship and perhaps sees themself as a mentor to the employee that leaves, so they might take it as a personal loss even if they entirely understand the reason for departure.

I'm aware of the dot com bubble. My point wasn't that people weren't making money, my point is tech looked risky and new, especially the web based companies that dominate now. Microsoft, IBM, Oracle etc were stable jobs but they were for engineers/nerds. There was money to be made back then of course but money isn't the only thing that makes jobs attractive. Social and cultural status and stability are important as well. A doctor is a safe, high paying, high status job. Tech is only just now starting to look that way to mainstream people.

The majority of people fall into the first category, regardless of sex. There are a lot of people who with exposure might consider software development as a career, but didn't think of it as an option. For various historical reasons (exposure to programmable computers, video games, adults that can explain or teach programming, access in school, peers that program, role models, etc) the people that tend to realize programming is a career option and understand what that career might entail tend to be white and asian males. That isn't to say there aren't many white and asian males that also don't know programming is a career option.

Now that "tech" is so important and lucrative I'm sure this is changing to some extent, but this is a recent trend that's probably 5 years old at most. Tech wasn't viewed the same as it was now in 2012-2014 and felt like a much more risky and inaccessible field. Now it looks a lot more like any other high paying corporate job.

Google has similar courses for web development and Android development among others (https://developers.google.com/training/). Many of these have made the front page of HN at some point, but ML courses tend to get upvoted more often than web development or general programming.

A lot of HN users couldn't run it and have a reasonable experience because they don't own computers with GPUs capable of generating a response in a timely manner.

I get 60 fps on a Pixel 3

You can still be burnt out and engerized or interested by a side project. Actually that might be even more of sign that you're burnt out. The burn out seems like it isn't coding fatigue but a disconnect with your work and customers/product.

Vive is 2015 :). Buy an Index and get the game for free.

It's an interesting choice by Valve. They're basically making a bunch of white men play as a black woman. In practice I agree with the other response that it's not a big deal. Most VR experiences either race or gender swap me (I'm a black male) or turn me into an abstract form or a robot. It can be disorienting at first but you get used to it.

Steam supports all major PC VR HMDs, including Oculus Quest shortly with a remote link cable. There are some games that are only available on the Oculus store (mostly those funded or developed by Oculus) but the majority of PC VR content is on Steam.

Yes this game is literally a system seller, it comes free with Index. Even if it doesn't make VR mainstream by tech benchmarks it will significantly grow the PC VR market and might make it a more attractive development target.

This is the rule in game development rather than the exception. It's why polished commercial engines like UE4 and Unity have been so successful. In house tools even at some of the biggest most successful game developers are rough and undocumented. They are also generally made by engineering teams an order of magnitude smaller than Unity or Epic.

This isn't entirely true for most games, clients run world simulation for prediction and sometimes can make authoritative changes. Almost no multiplayer games are complete dumb terminals ,you'd end up with the same latency issues that Stadia has.

Complex physics with high object counts can be difficult because synchronizing a lot of state is bandwidth intensive. Most games with lots of moving objects (RTS for example) use deterministic lockstep so only inputs need to be transferred, even if there is an authoritative server.

CS:GO launched in 2012 so that's impressive :). You might have meant Counter-Strike (2000), Counter-Strike Source (2004) and then Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (2012), which are three different similar games in the same series.

It's a stretch to say DOTA 2 or CS:GO were initially made by outside firms. Sure they're based on community mods, but so is PUBG, TF2, all the autochess games. Outside of Half-Life and L4D (which was originally a Turtlerock game) all of Valve's games are polished commercial versions of mods or student games (Portal series), but with the exception of Counterstrike all of the originals were good ideas with fatal execution flaws.

Valve has also released DOTA Underlords and Artifact in the two years. With HLA and Underlords Valve is actually releasing two games this year.

This whole announcement has been a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for Valve in terms of reception. At this point Valve has put a lot of investment in VR. For years people have asked for a big first party VR game from Valve, often explicitly a Half-Life game. They announce it and many responses are "why did Valve release a game for their own hardware". It's possible that growth will slow in VR and Valve will give up, but why do it now when they have a game ready for release and solidly selling first party hardware?

Just wearing an HMD with a comfortable experience probably shouldn't make you sick within minutes. If you're running on an underpowered PC, or a PC that is adding latency due to outdated drivers, bad hardware, bad software, USB controller issues (the list goes on) that could be the cause. If your IPD adjustment isn't correct that could be a problem as well. Lastly if you jumped right into uncomfortable experiences (potentially anything with artificial locomotion or any unoptimized game) that could make you sick as well. It's possible that you are unusually sensitive but it's likely that this is something that can be fixed.

I worked on a game called Luna (https://store.steampowered.com/app/605770/Luna/) and many of the people who play tested it said it was the first VR game they played that didn't make them sick, previously they thought "VR makes me sick". It was optimized for player comfort and is a pretty slow paced relaxing game so I think that helped.

The long term goal seems to be to get to something Dynamicland like, even if the current version has no Realtalk equivalent and is just a projector. Dynamicland itself started partially as a "random AR experiment" (http://tablaviva.org/).

You might also want to look at natural language datalog (https://github.com/harc/nl-datalog), which is a prototype of the query language used in Dynamicland.

Carmack built rockets and id bought $100Ks of NeXT machines to make Doom so I wouldn't put it past him to have incredible amounts of hardware... even at home. Considering his position at Facebook and that he is industry famous he probably has access to data and cloud resources that a researcher outside of OpenAI, Nvidia, Google, etc. normally wouldn't have access to. He could also raise money relatively easily to pursue more intense research.

I feed it a bunch of articles currently on the front page and tabs I had open that I might submit and got bad on all of them. Then I started typing stereotypical Hackernews click bait and got a pretty solid score.

Paul Graham Rust VC IPO growth Bad: 0.0026 - Good: 0.9976

So far adding any kind of grammatical structure to the random list of keywords that turns it into a title that makes sense completely ruins the score...