These are tactile controls arranged in a 3D space.
The 2D equivalent would be a flat screen with virtual knobs, wheels, and switches, and would be completely unusable.
The problem with AR is that it's 2.5D. Physical 3D is fully tactile in every dimension. AR lacks that kind of tactility.
True - not just visual - VR would have fingertip touch control of every object in the scene. That would (literally) be a game-changer, but we don't have the technology to make it happen yet.
The 3D "mice" that exist for AR/VR are clunky and crude with hand-level resolution rather than fingertip resolution.
Compare with a 2D touchscreen which has good tactile control. And a 2D desktop which (usually) gives you a bigger screen area in return for simplified but still very usable tactile control with a mouse.
In other words, VR/AR is not just about the visuals.
The 2D equivalent would be a flat screen with virtual knobs, wheels, and switches, and would be completely unusable.
The problem with AR is that it's 2.5D. Physical 3D is fully tactile in every dimension. AR lacks that kind of tactility.
True - not just visual - VR would have fingertip touch control of every object in the scene. That would (literally) be a game-changer, but we don't have the technology to make it happen yet.
The 3D "mice" that exist for AR/VR are clunky and crude with hand-level resolution rather than fingertip resolution.
Compare with a 2D touchscreen which has good tactile control. And a 2D desktop which (usually) gives you a bigger screen area in return for simplified but still very usable tactile control with a mouse.
In other words, VR/AR is not just about the visuals.