Audiobus: Use your music apps together.

What is Audiobus?Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.

Download on the App Store

Audiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.

Korg Gadget VR

2

Comments

  • @R_2 said:

    @krassmann said:

    @R_2 said:

    @krassmann said:
    More than a year later... and I just learned about it.

    A year? It was announced this January.

    This thread started January 2020

    Thread started January 20th 2021

    Oh man...right. I understood January 20 as 2020. My bad. 😂

  • edited May 2022

    Dies anybody know what happened to Gadget VR? I never heard a thing again after the teaser video.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • I couldn’t care less for this VR update, better focus on making better what’s already there (randomizer/mutation for sequencer), some major new Gadget synths.

  • @Slush said:
    I couldn’t care less for this VR update, better focus on making better what’s already there (randomizer/mutation for sequencer), some major new Gadget synths.

    +1 Don’t care for Gadget Switch/Mac/VR.
    iOS is the OG B)

  • VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

  • Hope it’s still in active development and that they’ll show some new footage from it soon. Or maybe even release it.
    Since I’ve been playing around with SynthVR and a few others I’d really like to have a go with something from a bigger dev like Korg and see what they make of it.

  • @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

  • @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    Yeah we’ve just completed a project where we drew all the 3D assets in remote collaborative VR, possibly the best creative computer experience I’ve ever had in a quarter century of working in various fields…

  • @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

  • @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

  • edited May 2022

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue. Not one UI versus another UI. We can debate which one is “cleaner” to work with, but in terms of interactivity, there is no comparison.

  • @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue. Not one UI versus another UI. We can debate which one is “cleaner” to work with, but in terms of interactivity, there is no comparison.

    There’s no comparison, the kind of work I just did in VR would simply not be possible in reality.

  • edited May 2022

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    (Mmmmmboyee, some 3D Borderlands with cubes and spheres etc would be wild.)

  • @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    That’s not the issue which was being addressed. Interactivity was the issue.

  • @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    That’s not the issue which was being addressed. Interactivity was the issue.

    Still yes

  • @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

  • @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    And car designs are still designed around clay models. Really.

  • edited May 2022

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    A preference for some for sure. Just like some scores will prefer real full on orchestras.

  • edited May 2022

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    A preference for some for sure. Just like some scores will prefer real full on orchestras.

    Again, the point being discussed was interactivity, not options or relative cost or any other factor.

  • @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    A preference for some for sure. Just like some scores will prefer real full on orchestras.

    Again. The point being argued was interactivity, not options or relative cost or any other factor.

    Without having the experience I’ve had, you really can’t speak for it; drawing abstract art in three dimensions with no need to worry about gravity or sticking things together for the past six months, all the while collaborating real time with our massively geographically separated team, has been an incredible experience, and interactively nothing has come close.

  • @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue. Not one UI versus another UI. We can debate which one is “cleaner” to work with, but in terms of interactivity, there is no comparison.

    Actually I do but to be honest they are two completely different experiences with different results. Both give a lot of fun for sure and can compliment eachother.
    As for interactivity sculpting in VR is so well implemented that it feels completely natural. And let’s you get more granular with your work.

  • @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    A preference for some for sure. Just like some scores will prefer real full on orchestras.

    Again. The point being argued was interactivity, not options or relative cost or any other factor.

    I never brought up cost.

    Anyway, for me the use of the word 'interactivity' of digital sculpting is not limited to 'tactility' which I think you may be talking about.

  • edited May 2022

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    A preference for some for sure. Just like some scores will prefer real full on orchestras.

    Again. The point being argued was interactivity, not options or relative cost or any other factor.

    Without having the experience I’ve had, you really can’t speak for it; drawing abstract art in three dimensions with no need to worry about gravity or sticking things together for the past six months, all the while collaborating real time with our massively geographically separated team, has been an incredible experience, and interactively nothing has come close.

    Do you experience more interactivity by waving your arms in the air, or by physically moving something? Can you position something in VR within tiny fractions of an inch instantaneously? Can you instantly determine the scale, weight or depth of something in VR?

  • @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    And car designs are still designed around clay models. Really.

    One major reason for both this and the movie stuff is that in real sculpting it’s difficult to make things that are physically unstable, they acquire a solidity and weight that is easy to get wrong in an entirely digital environment. That, and the old farts who run the massive businesses that pay for it want something they can touch with their greasy fingers, otherwise it just doesn’t seem real in their boomer world view…😅

  • @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    A preference for some for sure. Just like some scores will prefer real full on orchestras.

    Again. The point being argued was interactivity, not options or relative cost or any other factor.

    Without having the experience I’ve had, you really can’t speak for it; drawing abstract art in three dimensions with no need to worry about gravity or sticking things together for the past six months, all the while collaborating real time with our massively geographically separated team, has been an incredible experience, and interactively nothing has come close.

    Do you experience more interactivity by waving your arms in the air, or by physically moving something?

    You’re not really reading what I write 🥂

  • @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    A preference for some for sure. Just like some scores will prefer real full on orchestras.

    Again. The point being argued was interactivity, not options or relative cost or any other factor.

    Without having the experience I’ve had, you really can’t speak for it; drawing abstract art in three dimensions with no need to worry about gravity or sticking things together for the past six months, all the while collaborating real time with our massively geographically separated team, has been an incredible experience, and interactively nothing has come close.

    Do you experience more interactivity by waving your arms in the air, or by physically moving something?

    I have a digital sculpt I am working on. It is fifty feet tall. A real one would require scaffolding and many cumbersome physical tools in order to interact with. i can be at the top of the head or the bottom of the foot in a second. This is interacting with a sculpt.

  • @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    A preference for some for sure. Just like some scores will prefer real full on orchestras.

    Again. The point being argued was interactivity, not options or relative cost or any other factor.

    Without having the experience I’ve had, you really can’t speak for it; drawing abstract art in three dimensions with no need to worry about gravity or sticking things together for the past six months, all the while collaborating real time with our massively geographically separated team, has been an incredible experience, and interactively nothing has come close.

    Do you experience more interactivity by waving your arms in the air, or by physically moving something?

    I have a digital sculpt I am working on. It is fifty feet tall. A real one would require scaffolding and many cumbersome physical tools in order to interact with. i can be at the top of the head or the bottom of the foot in a second. This is interacting with a sculpt.

    I love doing that in VR, building massive stuff that you can manipulate on such a scale is incredible. That and the vertigo are great fun.

  • @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    A preference for some for sure. Just like some scores will prefer real full on orchestras.

    Again. The point being argued was interactivity, not options or relative cost or any other factor.

    Without having the experience I’ve had, you really can’t speak for it; drawing abstract art in three dimensions with no need to worry about gravity or sticking things together for the past six months, all the while collaborating real time with our massively geographically separated team, has been an incredible experience, and interactively nothing has come close.

    Do you experience more interactivity by waving your arms in the air, or by physically moving something?

    I have a digital sculpt I am working on. It is fifty feet tall. A real one would require scaffolding and many cumbersome physical tools in order to interact with. i can be at the top of the head or the bottom of the foot in a second. This is interacting with a sculpt.

    Scale is meaningless in VR. You can zoom in or out until you’re as big as a planet or as small as an atom. Again, that’s not the issue being argued.

  • @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Krupa said:

    @NeuM said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Foleslaw said:

    @NeuM said:
    VR is OK for displaying information, but not great for interacting with information.

    Actually it is. Maybe you just haven’t come across anything worthwhile in VR?

    A physical object cannot be beat by VR in terms of pure interaction. Prove me wrong.

    Don’t worry - Zuck is already working on that as well ;)
    Jokes aside I never said it beats physical interaction. It’s just different, offers new ways to create things and can help merge the interaction between the user and the machine creating a new quality. As an example I definitey prefer sculpting in VR than doing it sitting by my pc and keyboard in some 3d software.
    Another example would be SynthVR (or Synthspace) that I mentioned earlier. I think it’s a great way to learn modular synthesis without going bancrupt.
    I encourage you to give these a try.

    But do you prefer sculpting in VR (or on a PC) versus sculpting in clay? That’s the real issue.

    I sure do. Real clay is slow and cumbersome with far more limited tools by comparison.

    This is true, and there’s multiple undo root when I inevitably chip too much off 😅

    However, I know that in the high end visual FX market there is still a preference for real world sculpting that is scanned, but that’s with practically unlimited budgets and womanpower…

    A preference for some for sure. Just like some scores will prefer real full on orchestras.

    Again. The point being argued was interactivity, not options or relative cost or any other factor.

    Without having the experience I’ve had, you really can’t speak for it; drawing abstract art in three dimensions with no need to worry about gravity or sticking things together for the past six months, all the while collaborating real time with our massively geographically separated team, has been an incredible experience, and interactively nothing has come close.

    Do you experience more interactivity by waving your arms in the air, or by physically moving something?

    You’re not really reading what I write 🥂

    You’re avoiding the original point.

Sign In or Register to comment.