Korg Gadget VR

AudioGus

@Krupa said:

@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.

I have yet to even try VR which is shameful and embarrassing given how much I raved about it in the 80s to my friends who had no bloody idea what the hell I was talking about.

Foleslaw

@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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

AudioGus

@NeuM said:

@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.

You are talking about tactility right?

NeuM

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

Krupa

@NeuM said:

@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.

I feel like you’re splitting hairs in order not to back down from a fairly glib statement to be honest. You’ve clearly not had the experiences being shared and you’re unwilling to simply enjoy being enlightened by us sharing them. Sorry about that.

Foleslaw

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

You might be mistaking interactivity with tactility as mentioned here. As for swiping a finger on glass You could also say that gripping and pressing the buttons on a Touch controller is as interactive as that.

AudioGus

@Krupa said:

@NeuM said:

@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.

I feel like you’re splitting hairs in order not to back down from a fairly glib statement to be honest. You’ve clearly not had the experiences being shared and you’re unwilling to simply enjoy being enlightened by us sharing them. Sorry about that.

Aww come on homie, don't cramp their style.

Krupa

@AudioGus said:

@Krupa said:

@NeuM said:

@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.

I feel like you’re splitting hairs in order not to back down from a fairly glib statement to be honest. You’ve clearly not had the experiences being shared and you’re unwilling to simply enjoy being enlightened by us sharing them. Sorry about that.

Aww come on homie, don't cramp their style.

Yeah I know, I’m just being crabby cause I like conversations to develop rather then go round in circles 😁

AudioGus

@Krupa said:

@AudioGus said:

@Krupa said:

@NeuM said:

@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.

I feel like you’re splitting hairs in order not to back down from a fairly glib statement to be honest. You’ve clearly not had the experiences being shared and you’re unwilling to simply enjoy being enlightened by us sharing them. Sorry about that.

Aww come on homie, don't cramp their style.

Yeah I know, I’m just being crabby cause I like conversations to develop rather then go round in circles 😁

It seems 50/50 at best in internetland.

NeuM

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

You might be mistaking interactivity with tactility as mentioned here. As for swiping a finger on glass You could also say that gripping and pressing the buttons on a Touch controller is as interactive as that.

Tactility is also interactivity. Direct physical interaction provides the greatest ability to determine resistance, weight, scale, etc.

Krupa

@AudioGus said:

@Krupa said:

@AudioGus said:

@Krupa said:

@NeuM said:

@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.

I feel like you’re splitting hairs in order not to back down from a fairly glib statement to be honest. You’ve clearly not had the experiences being shared and you’re unwilling to simply enjoy being enlightened by us sharing them. Sorry about that.

Aww come on homie, don't cramp their style.

Yeah I know, I’m just being crabby cause I like conversations to develop rather then go round in circles 😁

It seems 50/50 at best in internetland.

Indeed, and sorry @NeuM , you’re just incredibly good at winding me up 😅

Foleslaw

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

You might be mistaking interactivity with tactility as mentioned here. As for swiping a finger on glass You could also say that gripping and pressing the buttons on a Touch controller is as interactive as that.

Tactility is also interactivity. Direct physical interaction provides the greatest ability to determine resistance, weight, scale, etc.

Which doesn’t mean that interactivity has to be tactile.

NeuM

@Krupa said:

@NeuM said:

@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.

I feel like you’re splitting hairs in order not to back down from a fairly glib statement to be honest. You’ve clearly not had the experiences being shared and you’re unwilling to simply enjoy being enlightened by us sharing them. Sorry about that.

I recognize the advances made in VR over the last… (checks notes)… 62 years*, but a headset and gloves (even a full body suit) will never be a substitute for direct physical interaction with a real object. It just won’t.

(* 1960 – The first VR Head Mounted Display

…the Telesphere Mask (patented 1960) was the first example of a head-mounted display (HMD), albeit for the non-interactive film medium without any motion tracking. The headset provided stereoscopic 3D and wide vision with stereo sound.”)

Krupa

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

You might be mistaking interactivity with tactility as mentioned here. As for swiping a finger on glass You could also say that gripping and pressing the buttons on a Touch controller is as interactive as that.

Tactility is also interactivity. Direct physical interaction provides the greatest ability to determine resistance, weight, scale, etc.

Which doesn’t mean that interactivity has to be tactile.

This is the point; the interactivity takes place, as with all sensation, in the mind… for instance, one day when we were working together, I’d drawn a wall sized piece of stuff. I picked it up and turned to petition it among some other stuff, but saw my mate was behind me as I did. I had a palpable moment of shock that I was about to whack him with an enormous object, before reality came back and told me it was fine. I still waited for him to get out of the way before putting it in place…

NeuM

@Krupa said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

You might be mistaking interactivity with tactility as mentioned here. As for swiping a finger on glass You could also say that gripping and pressing the buttons on a Touch controller is as interactive as that.

Tactility is also interactivity. Direct physical interaction provides the greatest ability to determine resistance, weight, scale, etc.

Which doesn’t mean that interactivity has to be tactile.

This is the point; the interactivity takes place, as with all sensation, in the mind… for instance, one day when we were working together, I’d drawn a wall sized piece of stuff. I picked it up and turned to petition it among some other stuff, but saw my mate was behind me as I did. I had a palpable moment of shock that I was about to whack him with an enormous object, before reality came back and told me it was fine. I still waited for him to get out of the way before putting it in place…

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

This was my challenge and I don’t think I’ve been proven wrong by any statements or examples yet.

Even though we are living in an time in which it might eventually be possible to transfer the recorded experiences of another person and experience them for yourself, it will still not be an experience of pure interaction, which requires physical feedback.

AudioGus

@Krupa said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

You might be mistaking interactivity with tactility as mentioned here. As for swiping a finger on glass You could also say that gripping and pressing the buttons on a Touch controller is as interactive as that.

Tactility is also interactivity. Direct physical interaction provides the greatest ability to determine resistance, weight, scale, etc.

Which doesn’t mean that interactivity has to be tactile.

This is the point; the interactivity takes place, as with all sensation, in the mind… for instance, one day when we were working together, I’d drawn a wall sized piece of stuff. I picked it up and turned to petition it among some other stuff, but saw my mate was behind me as I did. I had a palpable moment of shock that I was about to whack him with an enormous object, before reality came back and told me it was fine. I still waited for him to get out of the way before putting it in place…

Hehe, years of meatspace conditioning. I wonder if kids growing up with VR may be more accident prone?

Krupa

@NeuM said:

@Krupa said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

You might be mistaking interactivity with tactility as mentioned here. As for swiping a finger on glass You could also say that gripping and pressing the buttons on a Touch controller is as interactive as that.

Tactility is also interactivity. Direct physical interaction provides the greatest ability to determine resistance, weight, scale, etc.

Which doesn’t mean that interactivity has to be tactile.

This is the point; the interactivity takes place, as with all sensation, in the mind… for instance, one day when we were working together, I’d drawn a wall sized piece of stuff. I picked it up and turned to petition it among some other stuff, but saw my mate was behind me as I did. I had a palpable moment of shock that I was about to whack him with an enormous object, before reality came back and told me it was fine. I still waited for him to get out of the way before putting it in place…

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

This was my challenge and I don’t think I’ve been proven wrong by any statements or examples yet.

It depends how one defines ‘pure interaction’; if it’s defined as how you can affect something then it’s actually debatable, and strictly dependent on context, and in that sense I’ve definitely had better interaction with the concepts and imagery in the digital realm during this project than I ever could have with real objects. If however you wish to limit it to physical affecting things, then it’s nonsensical to even try to compare the two…

Krupa

@AudioGus said:

@Krupa said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

You might be mistaking interactivity with tactility as mentioned here. As for swiping a finger on glass You could also say that gripping and pressing the buttons on a Touch controller is as interactive as that.

Tactility is also interactivity. Direct physical interaction provides the greatest ability to determine resistance, weight, scale, etc.

Which doesn’t mean that interactivity has to be tactile.

This is the point; the interactivity takes place, as with all sensation, in the mind… for instance, one day when we were working together, I’d drawn a wall sized piece of stuff. I picked it up and turned to petition it among some other stuff, but saw my mate was behind me as I did. I had a palpable moment of shock that I was about to whack him with an enormous object, before reality came back and told me it was fine. I still waited for him to get out of the way before putting it in place…

Hehe, years of meatspace conditioning. I wonder if kids growing up with VR may be more accident prone?

Quite possibly, it’s definitely got after effects that last for hours, so prolonged use would certainly train the body some questionable habits 😅 I’ve had to be careful crossing roads and that sort of thing after heavy weeks for instance. I have really enjoyed it and it’s honestly been a mind blowing experience, but there are caveats. I think I’ll much prefer a hybrid option, see though glasses that have a solid graphics layer to work with - I don’t like being entirely shut away from natural light for hours…

NeuM

@Krupa said:

@AudioGus said:

@Krupa said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

You might be mistaking interactivity with tactility as mentioned here. As for swiping a finger on glass You could also say that gripping and pressing the buttons on a Touch controller is as interactive as that.

Tactility is also interactivity. Direct physical interaction provides the greatest ability to determine resistance, weight, scale, etc.

Which doesn’t mean that interactivity has to be tactile.

This is the point; the interactivity takes place, as with all sensation, in the mind… for instance, one day when we were working together, I’d drawn a wall sized piece of stuff. I picked it up and turned to petition it among some other stuff, but saw my mate was behind me as I did. I had a palpable moment of shock that I was about to whack him with an enormous object, before reality came back and told me it was fine. I still waited for him to get out of the way before putting it in place…

Hehe, years of meatspace conditioning. I wonder if kids growing up with VR may be more accident prone?

Quite possibly, it’s definitely got after effects that last for hours, so prolonged use would certainly train the body some questionable habits 😅 I’ve had to be careful crossing roads and that sort of thing after heavy weeks for instance. I have really enjoyed it and it’s honestly been a mind blowing experience, but there are caveats. I think I’ll much prefer a hybrid option, see though glasses that have a solid graphics layer to work with - I don’t like being entirely shut away from natural light for hours…

Those comments are exactly why I see more of a future for AR compared to VR.

Krupa

@NeuM said:

@Krupa said:

@AudioGus said:

@Krupa said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw said:

@NeuM said:

@Foleslaw 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. 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.

And maybe going back to the topic of actual Korg Gadget VR - It will definitely not be as good as the real thing in terms of interaction… oh wait… Gadget is a piece of software on a screen Then maybe interacting with it in VR will be more interactive than just swiping your finger on glass?

Swiping your finger on glass is still more interactive than interacting with a completely virtual model in space.

You might be mistaking interactivity with tactility as mentioned here. As for swiping a finger on glass You could also say that gripping and pressing the buttons on a Touch controller is as interactive as that.

Tactility is also interactivity. Direct physical interaction provides the greatest ability to determine resistance, weight, scale, etc.

Which doesn’t mean that interactivity has to be tactile.

This is the point; the interactivity takes place, as with all sensation, in the mind… for instance, one day when we were working together, I’d drawn a wall sized piece of stuff. I picked it up and turned to petition it among some other stuff, but saw my mate was behind me as I did. I had a palpable moment of shock that I was about to whack him with an enormous object, before reality came back and told me it was fine. I still waited for him to get out of the way before putting it in place…

Hehe, years of meatspace conditioning. I wonder if kids growing up with VR may be more accident prone?

Quite possibly, it’s definitely got after effects that last for hours, so prolonged use would certainly train the body some questionable habits 😅 I’ve had to be careful crossing roads and that sort of thing after heavy weeks for instance. I have really enjoyed it and it’s honestly been a mind blowing experience, but there are caveats. I think I’ll much prefer a hybrid option, see though glasses that have a solid graphics layer to work with - I don’t like being entirely shut away from natural light for hours…

Those comments are exactly why I see more of a future for AR compared to VR.

Indeed, VR gaming is possibly still gonna have an edge in places, maybe some of the better film/experience stuff, but AR ftw in industrial and creative applications, also group games, but then again I’d rather play real tennis or settlers of catan if someone is actually with me…

Doc_T

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

It is alot cheaper and much less ressource intensive.

NeuM

@Doc_T said:

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

It is alot cheaper and much less ressource intensive.

Michael_R_Grant

Has anyone tried Virtuoso on the Quest? It’s a really fun music jamming/creation app in VR.

https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/4705981139481778/

gothamoddisee

Virtuoso looks cool, it even has MIDI out (though lacks MIDI export).

How do the quest controls feel to you? Particularly scenarios where you’re switching from entering notes to making adjustments on virtual encoders etc..?

KirbyMumbo

Virtuoso is pretty fun from the pre-release version I played around with. I haven't really put time into making anything other than on the fly loops in it but you can import custom samples and record tracks.

The korg gadget VR seemed really dumb to me from their trailer. As a VR app, it didn't make sense from what they showed. Seems like a waste of resources on their part that could've been used to improve the actual app instead of just selling more soundpacks.

chimp_spanner

Is it dead then? I was definitely in the camp of it being potentially cool/exciting. The closest thing to it I’ve tried is Synthlab VR, which is a modular synth environment. It’s kinda limited in what you can do but as a proof of concept I think it’s great. You can definitely perform with it in a more immersive and full body way than you can in a 2D/touch space. I also had a quick go on Pioneer’s virtual CDJ (bought it to help my partner practice for her first big DJ gig as she doesn’t own big decks). Fiddly, but again, a proof of concept for me. Would be a shame if Gadget VR never materialised. Although while I’ve been waiting for it, I just acquired a bunch of real synths instead so…I’ll live haha.