If you kept reading to understand the context of that image, you'd realize that it could be any size, but that you need to enable "partial virtual environment." That was the entire point of that chapter/image, to showcase the three different modes (full virtual, partial, and full pass-through with collision).
I'm no fan of the AVP, but it is inane to post a comment on a picture from the article without taking the time to read the text surrounding it to understand the context. The blog went to great pains to set out the pros/cons, limits/advantages, just to have people half-read it or just look at the pictures...
Sure you can. Just increase the size of a virtual window to fill the entire avaiable field of view (110 degrees or so). It's basically the same effect as sitting in a close-to-the-front row of a theater.
There are VR headsets with wider FoV, but they're pretty bulky as of yet because of the limits of current costs-less-than-literally-$10,000-a-unit optics.
I used to wonder how people watch movies on their iPhone then realized many people sit so far from their living room TV screen that if they held up their iPhone it would be the same apparent size.
By contrast, you can readily set the apparent screen size in the AVP to 40+ degree angle:
× 1.2 (corresponding to 40-degree viewing angle)
THX recommends that the "best seat-to-screen distance" is one where the view angle approximates 40 degrees,[26] (the actual angle is 40.04 degrees). Their recommendation was originally presented at the 2006 CES show, and was stated as being the theoretical maximum horizontal view angle, based on average human vision. In the opinion of THX, the location where the display is viewed at a 40-degree view angle provides the most "immersive cinematic experience", all else being equal. For consumer application of their recommendations, THX recommends ... multiplying the diagonal measurement by about 1.2.
Sort of. Headsets have limited FOV per eye. You can blow up the screen to be huge, but you'd only be able to see part of it at a time. But yeah, 110 degrees FOV can accommodate a very big screen.
The field of view is deceptive in 2d photos. With the VR headset your focal point is at infinity, and in practice it feels more like sitting in front of a big 60" TV on your couch.
Yes and for some reason I would probably find it weird watching a moving with a weird landscape being shown around the "virtual screen" instead of...reality.
That provided no context at all, lol (I legit laughed out loud). Like that's so far out of the common framework that any context provided is lost on most people (including me.)
I'm someone who often debates religion and appreciates someone who finds a philosophy that works for them, so this is no slight against your beliefs. I just find it funny that it was used to provide 'context'.
The context I was trying to provide was that I have a particular philosophical viewpoint that could predispose me towards negative association for traditional religious concepts.
Or, put another way, people like me often hate religion, especially monotheistic religion.
I don't believe you, since you didn't bother to actually post what you found, when you directly responded to someone asking for a citation. Your comment is less than useful, and completely untrustworthy.
"Doesn't stand out in your home" - The chromecast wasn't even visible, so this is a clear downgrade. Why would they even bring it up.
I wanted to love Google Home. I don't have Apple products, and the Alexa app was horrible. But alas, it was Googled. It became such a clusterfuck of convolution that it's not even usable for me anymore. I was using it on my Google Apps email, which I switched from to a regular gmail (because youtube premium wasn't available on Google Apps, neither was Google Home integration with my calendar), and now I can't move my devices to my new account.
All of this, on top of the fact, that Google has proven to be the least trust worthy company when it comes to managing users' data (arguably tied with Meta). I can't wait until my house starts shouting ads at me, or 24/7 listening 'to improve ad quality' becomes standard.
Those funky looking people in the stock photos (looksmaxxers).
The new logo. The letter weights is way off. The L looks anemic.
The logo can be saved with few tweaks. Those people in the photos need to go back to the Abercrombie website. (what should you use instead? Tux, obviously.)
Yes - the logo does need a little work. Maybe the font is the wrong choice? And the L perhaps needs something. It almost looks as though they're leaving room for another L to make an LLM logo.
reply