×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Matrix-Like VR Coming in the Near Future?

Zonk posted about 6 years ago | from the can't-see-anything-bad-happening-there. dept.

Supercomputing 249

Anonymongoose writes "A researcher at Brookhaven National Lab reckons it could be just a few years before computers can pass through the uncanny valley. The article refers to this as a 'Graphics Turing Test': 'a computer can be considered intelligent if it can create an artificial world capable of fooling a person into believing it is the real thing.' Michael McGuigan has been performing some interesting experiments using Brookhaven's Blue Gene/L supercomputer and has shown that it can produce realistic lighting effects in real time. McGuigan's original research paper (pdf) is available online."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

249 comments

I for one... (0)

-Tango21- (703195) | about 6 years ago | (#22957414)

...welcome our new Matix overlords.

This isn't the Matrix... (4, Insightful)

Chmcginn (201645) | about 6 years ago | (#22957508)

This is the Elder Scrolls VI (or maybe VII.) Being able to make a truly photo-realistic real-time rendered image is impressive, true... and it's not that big a step to make it in stereo vision, one for each eye.

But having a direct neural interface, that can mimic all five senses at once, is another thing altogether.

(Not to mention being able to do it for hundreds of thousands of people, some of whom might be spaced out all over the world, with no appreciable lag... Oh, and having many separate strong AIs all running on the same hardware...)

Re:This isn't the Matrix... (2, Insightful)

boiert (934539) | about 6 years ago | (#22957832)

Maybe they use some sort of distributed processing, like, when you're drunk they're actually using your brains ad-hoc to do calculations, (we're also asleep 8 hrs a day)

Re:This isn't the Matrix... (2, Interesting)

Chmcginn (201645) | about 6 years ago | (#22957912)

Actually using human brains to do the processing would probably be a bigger feat than just fitting more gates on an IC.

Re:This isn't the Matrix... (0, Redundant)

Plazmid (1132467) | about 6 years ago | (#22958674)

Well, that idea has a problem, brains don't do calculations very well when drunk. That's the reason , you see drunks stumbling around, because their brain is miscalculating balance. Not to mention the fact that brains are better at pattern recognition than math.

Re:This isn't the Matrix... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 6 years ago | (#22958680)

I'm pretty sure you would go insane and die if you gave your brain over to distributed processing instead of sleeping. It would be like working at double speed when you should be asleep. Ignoring all the other obvious problems with that. Though we could use brain tissue from animals... Though i do like the idea of being able to give up the ability to speak and stand while on my computer to give it a turbo boost (using those sections of the brain for processing). That said its not remotely feasible.

Re:This isn't the Matrix... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 6 years ago | (#22958922)

Or just dumb people down a bit, or use "idle" brainpower, explaining the feeling of a "splinter in your mind."

Which would also make the "hacking" believable, even that it's something that's all in your head, that it's effectively like lucid dreaming -- the machines' mistake for using untrusted nodes for their distributed computer -- although it doesn't explain why they'd make quite such a trivial mistake; I'd expect machines to be able to code flawlessly secure virtualization in a brain between human consciousness and whatever the machine needs.

It'd also explain how an Agent can "take over" a human.

However, that doesn't explain the lack of lag. I'm too lazy to run the calculations, but if you had two people at opposite ends of the globe, what's the minimum latency you can have? That might be prohibitive.

It also doesn't explain the motivation. Blatant disregard for conservation of energy just about kills that movie for me...

And it doesn't explain why it's impossible to unplug at any time, or why Smith was the first actual worm (or why humans couldn't develop a counter-worm)...

This isn't the Matrix, its Duke Nukem Forever (1)

Plazmid (1132467) | about 6 years ago | (#22958656)

No, this is not the Elder Scrolls, its obviously Duke Nukem Forever. I mean they've been working on it for ten years now. Guess what else takes 10 years, FDA clinical trials. Duke Nukem Forever obviously comes with a direct brain neural interface. The game hasn't come out yet because the FDA hasn't approved the surgery to implant the interface.

Yawn (5, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about 6 years ago | (#22957430)

Future Tech Prediction Checklist:

"Researchers" did or said something: x
"A few years" before the tech is out: x
Promises to change the way we think of computers: x
Shitty PDF "research paper" that was probably written by a half drunk college kid: x

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22957504)

"Uncanny Valley" - it's the "Perfect Storm" catchphrase of 2007!

Yeah, but is there anything worth watching? (3, Interesting)

KingSkippus (799657) | about 6 years ago | (#22957448)

I had a couple of hundred television channels, and canceled my satellite service because there was never anything worth watching on.

Having a realistic world doesn't impress me. I'm holding off to see what they do with it before getting excited.

Re:Yeah, but is there anything worth watching? (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | about 6 years ago | (#22957540)

Porn...

I'm holding off to see what they do with it before getting excited.
you will be excited.
With this in the "near" future (whatever the hell that means) we gotta be getting closer to a holodeck type deal, which reminds me:
Kif: The Holosheds broke again and all the characters became real! Cpt. Branigan: Last time this happened i got slapped with 4 paternity suits.
Bender: Oh No, Evil Lincoln, were doomed!

Well, if anyone needs me I'll be in the holoshed

Re:Yeah, but is there anything worth watching? (5, Funny)

Simon Simian (694897) | about 6 years ago | (#22957638)

Maybe in the new virtual worlds there'll be something good on TV.

I think I'd be impressed by a realistic virtual world. This one isn't convincing. There's a dead pixel in Iowa.

photorealistic != realistic (3, Insightful)

glyph42 (315631) | about 6 years ago | (#22957478)

If you can't build a large hadron supercollider in the game and get new insights into particle physics, in real time, then it fails the test. This is NOT near future.

Re:photorealistic != realistic (2, Interesting)

Traxxas (20074) | about 6 years ago | (#22957532)

How can you gain new insights when you can't tell what is going to happen in the real world. You have to completely understand the model before simulating it.

Re:photorealistic != realistic (5, Insightful)

Mr_Tulip (639140) | about 6 years ago | (#22957646)

You fudge it with a nonsensical but repeatable and predicatable algorithm, like quantum theory

Re:photorealistic != realistic (1)

hamster_nz (656572) | about 6 years ago | (#22957880)

Yes, and if you have lots of interactions in a small space, you could just make the local time run slower.

Oh, and if it just gets too hard to simulate it, you just make it not available to the rest of the simulation , and only model the important global properties of that area.

Re:photorealistic != realistic (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22957738)

Oh come on, let's be honest with ourselves shall we?

As far as the real world is concerned, Newtonian physics does just fine. Even for simulation of a 45nm computer, we don't need the physics that LHC provides us insights with. It's like hitting an ant with a sledge hammer.

Re:photorealistic != realistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22957998)

>It's like hitting an ant with a sledge hammer.
Okay, now i KNOW you have done this.

Re:photorealistic != realistic (5, Insightful)

corgan517 (1040154) | about 6 years ago | (#22958318)

I wonder though... particle physics aside, if you were born into the model a la The Matrix, would it matter if it was photorealistic? I have 20/20 vision, but I've heard that people with bad eyes don't really realize how much detail they're missing till they get glasses. If the Matrix had the graphic levels of DOOM or Quake 1, but you never saw what real life looked like, would you buy it?

Re:photorealistic != realistic (5, Insightful)

emjay88 (1178161) | about 6 years ago | (#22958616)

I'd mod you up if I had the points.

Perspective is a very powerful thing. If you know nothing else, it's near impossible to even wonder about how it could be better.
For example, remember when the N64 was new and GoldenEye was the best game ever? I back to GoldenEye every now and then and I wonder how I could ever understand the writing or make out the other players from the background. I've just gotten used to "better" graphics.

Can you imagine a colour that we haven't discovered?

That said, I wouldn't volunteer my children or myself.

Re:photorealistic != realistic (2, Interesting)

grumbel (592662) | about 6 years ago | (#22958442)

The joy of a virtual world is that it can take shortcuts, so it doesn't have to simulate every particle in the gaming world, it just has to create the results you see on your virtual computer screen.

Re:photorealistic != realistic (1)

evwah (954864) | about 6 years ago | (#22958818)

of course we can't do that in the game. the second we do it here, we're all dead anyway

Gimme a P... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22957486)

Gimme an 'O', gimme an 'R', and gimme an 'N'!

It won't have to fool me into believing it's the real thing; I WANT to believe. I'm quite willing to ignore some gaping holes in any VR representation (but not others, nudge & wink).

(In fact my "Top Ten" List would contain more than a couple of anime characters)

Re:Gimme a P... (1)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | about 6 years ago | (#22958310)

yeah, good luck with that tactile feedback thing.

Turns out visuals != experience, and that's probably a really good thing..

This is assinine. (4, Insightful)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | about 6 years ago | (#22957500)

Sure, using a Blue Gene/L you can run a radiosity simulation on top of raytracing in approximately real time. Big freaking whoop!

But will we have the model and shading tools, not to mention the physics engines and such to simulate a realistic environment in 5 years? 10? 20? Curiously the article fails to investigate this.

Instead they have a nicely shaded clump of colored balls. Maybe they'll do a teapot next!!!

What the heck... (0, Offtopic)

Seakip18 (1106315) | about 6 years ago | (#22957512)

What the heck are they going to be rendering? I mean, i keep hearing how it'll be ultra-realistic...but will people suddenly start rendering things like never before? Excuse me for my incompetence though.

Off topic rant..
Ok. So, this new discussion system is kinda half-cocked. I wanna revert it to the good ol' html click boxes. Where the heck is the option under my preferences?

Re:What the heck... (1)

junner518 (1235322) | about 6 years ago | (#22957674)

realistic rendering by technology unfortunately will never manifest completely. There are just too many variables, making only photorealism possible . Maybe in 100 years we will have our first realistic images rendered by computers. Some models are too perfect, and some are less than perfect.

and you can "disable" the new discussion system by unchecking the checkbox at the bottom of the blurb.

Re:What the heck... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 6 years ago | (#22958820)

What the heck are they going to be rendering?
Ender's game, of course.

Once you can make simulations look like reality, you can then pass off reality as a simulation and get fast grade-schooler reflexes behind your remotely operated guns. And not only do you not have to pay them for their service, they'll pay you instead for access to your "game".

(Feigning paranoia is fun!)

So... (1)

dfm3 (830843) | about 6 years ago | (#22957560)

Blue Gene/L possesses 18 racks, each with 2000 standard PC processors that work in parallel to provide a huge amount of processing power â" it has a speed of 103 teraflops, or 103 trillion "floating point operations" per second. By way of comparison, a calculator uses about 10 floating operations per second....

He found that conventional ray-tracing software could run 822 times faster on the Blue Gene/L than on a standard computer.... This allowed it to convincingly mimic natural lighting in real time.


So, does this mean in a few years they'll have a computer that can actually run Crysis with a decent FPS?

You take the red pill.... (1)

syousef (465911) | about 6 years ago | (#22957564)

....you believe everything you read. You take the blue pill, you're skeptical of such far fetched allegations (and you get a hardon that lasts and lasts).

dx11 (1)

TheSpengo (1148351) | about 6 years ago | (#22957570)

Well supposedly vista sp2 will include support for directx 11 which they claim will support raytracing. I don't know how powerful graphics cards will be by then, but to be honest that seems like kind of a long shot to me.

"Matrix-Like" ... sounds like a kid posted (2, Interesting)

ObiWonKanblomi (320618) | about 6 years ago | (#22957572)

I have a lot of karma to burn* so why the fuck not...

The poster sounds like a pup to use the phrase "Matrix-Like". Back when the Wachowski brothers were in high school, Gibson had already formulated the term "cyberspace" in Burning Chrome, which was a "Matrix-Like" VR before there was even a Matrix. Give credit where credit is due!

* I find people who post something along the lines of "I have a lot of karma to burn" before posting a rant end up getting modded plus points. Let's see what happens!

Re:"Matrix-Like" ... sounds like a kid posted (4, Insightful)

QMalcolm (1094433) | about 6 years ago | (#22957818)

Cyberspace is a dead idea anyways. Aside from "the goggles problem" (no one likes to wear geeky equipment), we're already in the /real/ cyberspace. William Gibson has suggested things along these lines.

The barrier between physical and digital is getting smaller all the time. If you go to a party, you can take a picture with your phone and it'll be on facebook in seconds. Cyberspace isn't going to be an "other" place, it's being grafted onto reality.

Re:"Matrix-Like" ... sounds like a kid posted (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 6 years ago | (#22957822)

Crefit where credit is due indeed - although 'cyberspace' was coined as a term in one of gibson's books (I thought it was Neuromancer, but I may well be wrong there), they were all strongly influenced by John Shirley's short story "Wolves of the Plateau" (you can buy it in the anthology Heatseeker).

Re:"Matrix-Like" ... sounds like a kid posted (1)

vimh42 (981236) | about 6 years ago | (#22957984)

The Matrix reference was definitely lame. I would have preferred some sort of reference to the holodeck from Start Trek: The Next Generation.

Re:"Matrix-Like" ... sounds like a kid posted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22958294)

Ever think just maybe "Matrix-like" is something that 'MOST' people would be able to relate with? The Matrix is still semi-current and it's a big name so using it allows people to understand what the Author means.

Re:"Matrix-Like" ... sounds like a kid posted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22958604)

TFA's author should sniff the http referer of visitors. If from slashdot, replace 'matrix' with 'neuromancer'. That way most of the population will be able to understand, while making slashdot geeks happy at the same time.

non-sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22957576)

'a computer can be considered intelligent if it can create an artificial world capable of fooling a person into believing it is the real thing.'

That's true if the user has no senses other than vision. It might look real, but the user will know it isn't , so the "Turing" test will be redundant, right?
  Has there been any significant progress on other sensory technologies to compliment this?

Ray Tracing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22957630)

Super Computer + Ray Tracing = . . .!!!

Future of Video Games (5, Interesting)

jfroot (455025) | about 6 years ago | (#22957650)

This is something that has always made me wonder. When computer graphics reach the point where you cannot readily tell if the image you are seeing is real or synthetic, how will this affect video game violence?

Can you imaging Grant Theft Auto X with full realistic imaging? How would that affect someone when they go beat a whore to death with a baseball bat and the mind cannot as easily dismiss the disturbing imagery as virtual.

Re:Future of Video Games (3, Insightful)

kshade (914666) | about 6 years ago | (#22957728)

Probably won't happen. Just because you can make beating up a whore with a baseball bat 100% realistic doesn't mean you have to.

Re:Future of Video Games (1)

Simon Simian (694897) | about 6 years ago | (#22957790)

Unless a large man armed with a baseball bat "requested" you to produce such a simulation.

Re:Future of Video Games (1)

Remillard (67835) | about 6 years ago | (#22958004)

Unless a large man armed with a baseball bat "requested" you to produce such a simulation.


Or one that involved beating up a simulation coder with a baseball bat.

Re:Future of Video Games (1)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | about 6 years ago | (#22958154)

But if it sells, why not?

Personally, I'm not waiting for that kind of realism, but on the other hand, I sometimes question the way violence in games is censored. In GTA: San Andres you can shop/shoot off someones head, yet the head disappears and the blood is doesn't look realistic at all (as with most of the violence in GTA). IMHO that can backfire as well, as it can make people indifferent and careless to violence. Compare that to real violence which has an strong emotional to even physical sickening effect on people. If a beheading in GTA was as real as in the Real World, I'd probably wouldn't do it.

Re:Future of Video Games (1)

kshade (914666) | about 6 years ago | (#22958214)

Dude, it's a game. There's simply no need for that degree of realism for it to be, you know, fun.

Re:Future of Video Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22958708)

I must have missed that episode of the Real World.

It would have been sweet to see Darwin win one on that show. If I recall correctly one idiot did get his tongue bit off once though.

Re:Future of Video Games (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 years ago | (#22957762)

I think you need to ask a broader question.

Will a realistic world make it difficult to know the difference between real and fake? a kind of cyber-psychosis, if you will.

Violence would just be one part in it.
OTOH, I think people will enjoy games that may look real but clearly aren't. Either the period will be dated. i.e. recreating old event, or creating event's with technology we don't have.

Complelte realism won't really be popular on the mainstream. DO you really want to deal with the sound, smoke and kick of a real gun for more then 5 minutes? I mean your quake game would suck.

Of course the whole premise may be flawed in that you can't 'know' the difference on other aspects. Maybe it would slow the sales of games with violence. Sure, it's funny to see the computer model go flipping through the air, but I would never want to have the actual experience and feeling of driving into someone.... again.

Re:Future of Video Games (1)

Molochi (555357) | about 6 years ago | (#22958798)

"Complelte realism won't really be popular on the mainstream. DO you really want to deal with the sound, smoke and kick of a real gun for more then 5 minutes? I mean your quake game would suck."

Most modern military small arms are quite tame (for the person firing them). While i would think it prudent to limit game noise to level that were of minimal damage to the human eardrum, I fear that most gamers choose already to crank the volume to "uncomfortable levels". Realistic smoke would be less than what would occur on the other side of the VR interface, so that's not an issue. Weapon recoil on most military assault rifles is pretty light. Meanwhile, forcing the idiot who insists on taking a Barret Light 50 every round, to deal with its mass and recoil (and trigger flinch) would be amusement enough to allow it to ignore any armor you could wear and tear off body parts for artistic effect.

Re:Future of Video Games (1)

Valdier (398217) | about 6 years ago | (#22957776)

It will be a relief for the times when you can't get out to beat a whore to death in real life?

Re:Future of Video Games (1)

hamster_nz (656572) | about 6 years ago | (#22957970)

This has already happened with popular media like TV. I think the answer has to be yes. Watching a rape or murder has got to warp people.

You can't say "advertising works", and then say showing graphic violence has no effect.

And I don't understand American TV's hang-up about showing nudity. Why do people watch graphic violence without getting upset, but you can't show a nipple.

Why are 'naked dead bodies' allowed to be shown in crime based TV shows, but not live ones? What's with that, eh?

Re:Future of Video Games (1)

grahamd0 (1129971) | about 6 years ago | (#22958372)

I think morality issues will probably depend more on AI than on graphics.

I was about to suggest that it will change game design, probably making games more dramatic and thought-provoking, like the interactive-novel style of games that Star Trek crew members played in the holodeck, but I got to thinking that would really require passably intelligent and emotional AI characters.

No matter how realistic a GTA X whore looks, you're not going to feel a lot of empathy for her if she just follows a path down the block, day and night, repeating a handful of phrases and behaviors when you interact with her.

Re:Future of Video Games (1)

lordvalrole (886029) | about 6 years ago | (#22958514)

This is an extremely good question. I work for a major gaming publisher as a level builder, and I ask this question a lot. I mean if people are getting upset at the GTA hot coffee mod, then just wait 10-15 years from now. After playing Crysis on a high end machine with everything turned all the way up, we are damn close in being photorealistic. For those who haven't yet played Condemned 2, pick it up. Now imagine that game 10 years from now. It is going to be epic.

Environmental building and lighting are pretty close in being real (lots of haxoring to get things right), now we have to get characters and physics up to speed. Mostly characters though, as soon as I see a character on screen and their mouth is moving, it kills the realism.

Another thing we need is AA. Up until about a year ago we really couldn't do much AA in games because our videocards just couldn't handle it. Right now the 360 is the choice platform for developers and that machine can't do AA very well or at all.

I figure it will take 2 more console generations to really get in the realm of photorealism. Working in the game industry is weird because every few years you change the way you make games. It is always constantly changing in every project (new engines, new software, new limits, etc). It requires a lot brain power to get games to where they are at right now (at least AAA titles). One day though, we can put headsets on and get off like John Spartan and Lt. Lenina Huxley (Demolition man).

Appearances aren't everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22957748)

Physical properties of the materials in the simulated environment would drastically fall short of reality I would imagine. Simulating a realistic appearing universe seems trivial when you try to make the same universe look realistic when digging through sand, or cupping your "hands" to hold some water. How could you possibly say you have a realistic environment when it falls apart the moment you try to interact with the fluid dynamics of the system? I'm sure it is possible to make it convincing with the appropriate hardware, however I doubt that current (and relatively near future) systems would be able to at once handle the computationally intense task of a lifelike appearance as well as handling the smallest physical properties of objects dynamically interacting with each other.

Take the Crysis engine for example. Although we have the facets of gravity and collision detection seeming lifelike, the impacts of your interaction on the environment are limited by your means of interface: i.e. keyboard and mouse as well as the pre-defined scale of your interaction: i.e. you can't interact with the sand or water directly.

All I mean is it seems a recursively controlled depth of interaction control system on top of a material property and interaction control system that could reproduce realistic environments in a way that would pass this sort of "Turing test" would be computationally infeasible without allowing for loss of generality.

My two cents...

didn't DOOM already do this? (5, Funny)

What is a number (652374) | about 6 years ago | (#22957750)

When I played DOOM, I found myself trying to look around the corner of the inside of the computer screen.

It was immersive enough to fool me...

---
I type this every time.

The virtual world was the least impressive thing (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 years ago | (#22957786)

about the matrix. I want to learn how to master kung-fu in a day, and fly a helicopter in a few seconds.
That's real power. Imagine if everybody could know every thing. that means everyone would push new boundaries and the wheel wouldn't ahve to keep getting invented.

The second kick ass thing was the ships.

Re:The virtual world was the least impressive thin (1)

Simon Simian (694897) | about 6 years ago | (#22958352)

New punctuation update "~" (no quotes) at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm.

That's a fantastic idea.(!)

Re:The virtual world was the least impressive thin (1)

droopycom (470921) | about 6 years ago | (#22958750)

You'll only knows how Kung Fu and how to fly the Helicopter in the Matrix. In the real world, you will still be only a regular dude. When they learn kung fu, they basically just donwload a hack or enter the appropriate cheat code.

Just a few more years (4, Funny)

taustin (171655) | about 6 years ago | (#22957806)

A researcher at Brookhaven National Lab reckons it could be just a few years before computers can pass through the uncanny valley.

We can use it for the heads-up display for our flying cars (just a few years away) powered by practical fusion (just a few years away) while travling to the clinic for our immortality tratements (just a few years away).

Thank god all the best things humanity will ever invent are going to be practical at the same time (just a few years away).

Re:Just a few more years (1)

agent_no.82 (935754) | about 6 years ago | (#22958366)

On a more serious note; the ITER [iter.org] project building the hot fusion reactor in Cadrache, France, expects to see the beginning of commercial fusion power in the year 2040, if everything goes according to plan. That's a date that sounds real without being depressing.

How about another shot at that headset VR?! (4, Interesting)

Sark666 (756464) | about 6 years ago | (#22957816)

I remember when I first heard of VR around 1989-90. I'm talking about the big headset with two screens one for each eye drawing a slightly different angle, with it also having head tracking and then draw the screens appropriately.

I thought, what an amazing idea! This seemed like the closest thing you could have to a holodeck (kind of like a holodeck in reverse). Anyway, some games came out in the arcades. One company in particular was virtuality. They had this game called Dactyl Nightmare that I tried a couple of times. It was like a fps where you and a friend were pitted in an arena against each other with a gun. There was also this pterodactyl flying around that would randomly try and grab one of you. Anyway, neat simple idea to showcase VR. Problem was, it was certainly not ready for prime time.

The screens were extremely low res. I mean it seemed lower than 320x240 per screen. But what really ruined the immersion factor was the frame rate. It felt like it was in the teens at best. Most of the time it felt like a slideshow.
Anyway, they had a couple other games at the time, and they were pretty much the same experience.

I still think it's a great idea, just way ahead of it's time. The problem was they were trying to do 3d (on two screens no less) in a 2d world. At that time, I think virtua racing/fighter just hit the scene. Almost all games were 2d still, and most certainly with the consoles/home computers.

I checked their wiki entry just now and there was a sequel to dactyl nightmare which came out about 3 years later that ran on a 486, so I could just imagine what the first ran on.

Anyway, the idea seemed to flop, but I always thought it was an idea ahead of it's time. Certainly we could do two screens at say 640 480 at 60 fps. It's been 16-17 years since I tried this and thought by now the idea would resurface.

Re:How about another shot at that headset VR?! (1)

Sark666 (756464) | about 6 years ago | (#22957894)

just to add, some company now owns virtuality and still sells their equipment (for a pretty penny). They have some videos showcasing the games. Certainly we can do better than this?

http://www.arcadianvr.com/images/Video/Video_Page.htm [arcadianvr.com]

Re:How about another shot at that headset VR?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22958062)

This was run on an amiga. I think an A2000

Re:How about another shot at that headset VR?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22958198)

I imagine they ran on Amiga 3000 computers. Subtle hints include the boot up console and the Amiga 3000 keyboards nearby. :-)

oh puhleeeez... (4, Funny)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 6 years ago | (#22957826)

Sure. when I am CONVINCED some girl is sucking me off, I am supposed to beleive it? And pray tell, how will I know that it's "me" getting "sucked off"? And what about Goedel?

The whole Matrix simulacrum spiel is such a load of shite I find it utterly bizarre that people are still entertaining it.

I'm *sure* that the computer will fool some people into thinking what it makes is real, because THOSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID. It's not that the machines will become intelligent, it's that we're bending the curve on what we think is intelligence to something really stupid - we'll just lower the bar, or collectively enter our idiocracy and think "Hey - fooled me!"

"Gee Johnny, why don't you stop drooling on yourself for a minute and tell me: is the machine intelligent?"

"Id da macheen telligent? Duhh YEAH Boss! Id be willy telligent! Can I have cookie now?"

RS

Re:oh puhleeeez... (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | about 6 years ago | (#22957960)

Then, what say you about the allegory of the cave put forth by Plato? The Matrix is just a movie describing what was put forth 2500 years ago, but with a sci-fi bent.

Can we expect those who grew up with the darkness to ever be accustomed to light of truth?

Re:oh puhleeeez... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22958520)

Please, like the retard above has ever heard of the Plato cave discussion. No way.

Re:oh puhleeeez... (1)

agent_no.82 (935754) | about 6 years ago | (#22958804)

Simple, if the simulation tells people that reality is a hallucination created by their subconscious mind and its "reality" appears to be just as real, people won't know which is which. The only way they could objectively "prove" which one is real is to die.

already have it (1)

the brown guy (1235418) | about 6 years ago | (#22957848)

Some black guy gave me a choice between three pills, a red pill, a blue pill, and a yellow pill he called acid that let me go inside the computer. It was trippy

Re:already have it (1)

SlashWombat (1227578) | about 6 years ago | (#22958626)

Thats sort of like the old Disney classic ... TRON.

However, looks like most of the Nerds on /. want a remake ... To be called PRON.

I have already got one. (1)

Frigid Monkey (411257) | about 6 years ago | (#22957884)

My computer generated diffusely-reflecting sphere sitting on a diffusely-reflecting surface looks exactly the same as my diffusely-reflecting sphere sitting on a diffusely-reflecting surface.

VR is an RV !!! Recreational Vehicle into Freedom (1)

posys (1120031) | about 6 years ago | (#22957898)

Seriously folks, with Robots and Computer doing all REAL work for us, and "good enough" VR, all personalities can be accommodated, all desires, all megalomanias etc, WITH NO VICTIMS.

Can you taste it ?

see more here, and GET SERIOUS about advocating for a ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY in the next 10 years, with the VR RV to smooth out desires...

VR is the new RV [roboeco.com]

Re:VR is an RV !!! Recreational Vehicle into Freed (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 6 years ago | (#22958496)

I get your point but I doubt it'd happen. These are the days when society arrests 17 year olds for having normal sexual relations and they both get charged as being sex offenders.

Virtual worlds are defiantly going to be restricted in the future to what you can and can't do. In fact that am I talking about, they are today. Games like GTA are getting a bad rep for their evil situations.

Ummm... (2, Insightful)

glwtta (532858) | about 6 years ago | (#22957938)

Realistic lighting effects ... immersive virtual reality.

Does anyone else feel like maybe there's a step or two missing there?

Re:Ummm... (1)

CrazeeCracker (641868) | about 6 years ago | (#22958016)

Nope. They can do it all thanks to the new DX11 raytracing support!

P.S. I have it on good authority that Duke Nukem Forever will make extensive use of this revolutionary new feature.

blah (4, Funny)

Sloppy (14984) | about 6 years ago | (#22958052)

I'd rather have Tron-like VR. Screw your stylish coats and sunglasses, I want a lightcycle and gridbugs.

Fast Computers aren't enough for realistic images (4, Insightful)

forkazoo (138186) | about 6 years ago | (#22958072)

If we just need a few years of development to get truly photo-realistic images in real time, then why can't why make those realistic images right now in less than real-time? I mean, sure Hollywood visual effects are great, but they are never perfect. And, that's with a zillion artists working day and night to make frames that often take many hours to render when all is said and done. And, when it comes to people, they aren't even great. Crossing the uncanny valley isn't about FLOPS. It's about creating the content to throw those FLOPS at. It's going to take a long, long time before you have the algorithms in place that can simulate, animate, and render a realistic person. Not that it won't happen. It probably will. I just think we may wind up with hardwrae to run those algorithms before we wind up with those algorithms. So, just pointing at hardware advances and shouting is probably a bit misleading.

"Graphics Turing Test"? Lame definition (1)

merreborn (853723) | about 6 years ago | (#22958208)

a computer can be considered intelligent if it can create an artificial world capable of fooling a person into believing it is the real thing.
If the only aspect of the simulation you consider is "graphics", then I'm pretty sure just about anything capable of video playback qualifies as "intelligent" by this definition.

If the requirement is that the interaction with other "humans" in the simulation be realistic, then you've got two components: simulation of human behavior/interaction/conversation, and graphics. And graphics is comparatively trivial, so really, you can ignore that part of the formula.

What are you left with? A regular old Turing test.

Additionally, reality is really, really high res. And let's not forget that the relationship between required processing power and resolution/poly count is non-linear. So even while graphics are the easy part of this over-hyped "Turing test IN 3D!!11"... 3D truly indistinguishable from reality is still a long way off.

You'll know when it comes. Pixar's films will stop looking like cartoons.

Re:"Graphics Turing Test"? Lame definition (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 6 years ago | (#22958542)

I disagree, although communication with other people in a 3d environment would be a must if the technology was ever going to go anywhere, I think anyone would be convinced by a room full of interact-able static objects.

We don't even have decent VR with todays graphics! (1)

MrSteveSD (801820) | about 6 years ago | (#22958384)

The graphics in today's games are already pretty damn good. Yet, even with the great graphics we have today, there is no immersive VR available. After 20 years of waiting I still can't go into a shop and buy a VR headset that covers my entire field of view with decent resolution. The best you can buy is something with the field of view of a postage stamp stuck to your glasses.

At the moment all of these great games are still stuck behind a little screen. By now we should really be inside the games. When I am in front of a tall building in a game, I should be able to tilt my head to look up and see how high it is. There doesn't seem to be any drive to bring good VR into the market, yet I'm sure it would sell well. People would love the idea of really feeling like they are inside the game, looking around.

Sexy Blacky Girls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22958420)

Go Blackwhitek iss .. c om where many are chatting this online, also i met hundreds of cute black and white ladies...

normal before graphic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22958456)

Doesn't it need to pass the normal Turing Test before? A realistic environment is cool, but if it's filled with NPCs whose only lines are "There are many guards in the castle", I'll get bored soon.

Matrix-Like VR.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22958472)

was just added to the feature list of Duke Nukem Forever

Ray Tracing!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22958872)

Wow! Ray Tracing!!! With one virtual photon per pixel!! That's like 10e-100th of what we see every time we look at something. Reality is just around the corner, I can feel it!

Come back to me when someone's figured out real-time radiosity...

http://fantasylab.com/ [fantasylab.com]
http://www.geomerics.com/ [geomerics.com]

crap....

Waiter! Red pill, please!

And once again the usual BS (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 6 years ago | (#22958900)

Simulating physical rwality (without intelligent beings in it) does not require intelligence. It does require extreme attentioan to detail, is computationally very demanding, but has no connection whatsoever to the turing test.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...