Firefox Reality(mixedreality.mozilla.org)
mixedreality.mozilla.org
Firefox Reality
https://mixedreality.mozilla.org/firefox-reality/
166 comments
Mozilla has really gone off the rails. They have deprioritized html 5 compliance and keep chasing spectres like VR and mobile. I really wish they'd just stick to making sure there's a solid, viable alternative to chrome, instead of getting distracted like this.
I don't know if mobile counts as a spectre in 2019. Unless you mean in the sense that gaining significant market share on mobile is a tall order in a way that it isn't on desktop?
I don't think mobile is a mistake, as long as Chrome mobile doesn't have as blocking there's at least one very good reason to use Firefox, also the reader viewer is a life saver.
VR seems like a huge waste of resources though. Yes I think it will take off in the next 10 years, but are people really going to be using VR to browse the web? And can you really make good VR apps in JavaScript? I doubt it.
People still don't use WebGL/WASM for traditional 3D games which are less demanding.
VR seems like a huge waste of resources though. Yes I think it will take off in the next 10 years, but are people really going to be using VR to browse the web? And can you really make good VR apps in JavaScript? I doubt it.
People still don't use WebGL/WASM for traditional 3D games which are less demanding.
> VR seems like a huge waste of resources though. Yes I think it will take off in the next 10 years, but are people really going to be using VR to browse the web?
You could've asked something similar 12 years ago: sure, smartphones will probably take off, but are people really going to be using those small devices to browse the web?
Mozilla missed that boat; they can't afford to miss this one if it's going to take off. Weighing that against investing resources now, at a time when they're financially healthy, makes it a pretty sane direction in my view.
You could've asked something similar 12 years ago: sure, smartphones will probably take off, but are people really going to be using those small devices to browse the web?
Mozilla missed that boat; they can't afford to miss this one if it's going to take off. Weighing that against investing resources now, at a time when they're financially healthy, makes it a pretty sane direction in my view.
I don't think the comparison is meaningful. Twelve years ago, it was obvious to most people that the web on smartphones would be important. Mozilla understood that but they were presumptuous: instead of trying to create the best Android web browser, they tried to make an OS that could rival Android. FirefoxOS/Boot2Gecko failed, and their mobile build suffered from all this.
I don't think that VR sets have the exponential growth that smartphones had on their first years. So this new target of Mozilla may never expand outside a niche market. And I'm afraid their flagship browser could suffer from the side-effects of this focus.
I don't think that VR sets have the exponential growth that smartphones had on their first years. So this new target of Mozilla may never expand outside a niche market. And I'm afraid their flagship browser could suffer from the side-effects of this focus.
I noticed a few months back that the Servo engine (upon which I was building a play/experimental browser) development had shifted significantly in the direction of Mixed Reality (it shifted more than a few months back, but I was not paying that close of attention). At that point I gave up on my browser project.
Some execs at Mozilla think MR is the wave of the future. I think it's mostly a party trick with a very niche market and will always only be a niche market, and wasting top talent on MR seriously detracts from a project that is a hundred-fold more important. But maybe that's just me.
Some execs at Mozilla think MR is the wave of the future. I think it's mostly a party trick with a very niche market and will always only be a niche market, and wasting top talent on MR seriously detracts from a project that is a hundred-fold more important. But maybe that's just me.
> MR seriously detracts from a project that is a hundred-fold more important
I have mixed feeling about this. I’m inclined to agree with you however if it did take off it could mean the difference between Firefox dying and becoming the market leader.
I have mixed feeling about this. I’m inclined to agree with you however if it did take off it could mean the difference between Firefox dying and becoming the market leader.
A bit off topic - but does anyone remember VRML? Did it die out?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML
Absolutely. When I was a kid I did not have any internet access, and most of the software was from CDs from magazines. One of them had a VRML world+editor that I still remember fondly.
I should try to see if the CD is still readable...
I should try to see if the CD is still readable...
You should check on cd.textfiles.com. They have the content of a bunch of those old CDs that would come with magazines. I've spent more time than I'd like to admit download content from textfiles.com and reminiscing of the pre-ubiquitous-internet world :)
Yes and yes, mostly. Some libraries (like three.js) still support loading "Classic VRML" as a scene format, but I don't think it's a popular target these days.
On a similar nostalgia train, does anyone else remember Cycore Cult3D? It was a sort-of-WebGL-ish browser plugin targeted at rendering 3D parts and product views in the browser.
On a similar nostalgia train, does anyone else remember Cycore Cult3D? It was a sort-of-WebGL-ish browser plugin targeted at rendering 3D parts and product views in the browser.
I swear if I get a client that says their site isn't Oculus ready, I'm going to be upset.
Seems a little bit weird to call this "Reality" - the word "Virtual" is not incidental the meaning of the phrase "Virtual Reality", taking it away completely reverses the meaning. It's almost like this is an April Fool's joke.
Branding doesn't need to be literal, just evocative. The word reality is often mentioned in trippy or philosophical contexts, which is the connotation that the term "virtual reality" is trying to evoke. The brand strategy didn't work for you, but I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable one, and I think plenty of people will tap into the connotations they were going for.
I'm curious if Firefox has considered a GSuite competitor. Their IOT/home-router offering looks great, and a similarly privacy-first GSuite might get a lot of cross sell.
That would be cool but a beast of a project and a hard sell to big business. Maybe start with email/calendar/etc. first
I think you've just come full-circle to Mozilla Thunderbird which has been around since 2003.
- https://www.thunderbird.net/
- https://www.thunderbird.net/calendar/
- https://www.thunderbird.net/
- https://www.thunderbird.net/calendar/
I was thinking some version of privacy centric webmail + suite (yes, I get the issue). The market for Thunderbird is just too niche.
It's from even earlier, since from what I recall it's a direct descendant of the email client which was part of Netscape Navigator in the late 90s.
GSuite? Who uses that? Better to invest in VR. /sarcasm
I'm looking forward to Firefox supporting OpenXR, which will open it up to all the headsets supported on GNU/Linux by OpenHMD via Monado.
Maybe this is a stupid question but how would you click on something like this ? With your eyes or your hands ?
For Oculus Go and Google Daydream, you have a tiny controller with a couple of buttons like the one at the bottom of this page: https://www.oculus.com/go/accessories/ Instead of moving it physically "onto" a button in 3D space, you just "point" at the button using the controller, and then click.
Here's a demo of what it looks like inside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93bxZlU-kbA&t=272
Here's a demo of what it looks like inside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93bxZlU-kbA&t=272
Clicking in VR is usually done with your controller. The controller shines a virtual laser pointer making it easy to aim and click.
Doing it with your eyes may be preferable long-term, but eye tracking isn't in consumer headsets yet.
Doing it with your eyes may be preferable long-term, but eye tracking isn't in consumer headsets yet.
"Easy" to aim and click may be a stretch... I have only ever tried the Vive's implementation before but it felt a lot like holding a laser pointer - basically impossible to get any precision because your hand vibrates so much in ways you don't realize.
> Doing it with your eyes may be preferable long-term
On the contrary, gaze control was forced upon us when phone-based VR had no access to a controller. It's actually rather unnatural. We look at many things without wanting to activate them so you have to have a secondary cue for "clicking". Usually a timer: "stare at this for x seconds" which means every interaction is an exercise in patience.
Gesture control is probably the most natural if done well but when done badly it's fairly awful. I still can't master clicking on a v1 Hololens and I avoid using the thing without a clicker.
Simple unobtrusive controllers are going to be the best bet for a fair while I suspect.
On the contrary, gaze control was forced upon us when phone-based VR had no access to a controller. It's actually rather unnatural. We look at many things without wanting to activate them so you have to have a secondary cue for "clicking". Usually a timer: "stare at this for x seconds" which means every interaction is an exercise in patience.
Gesture control is probably the most natural if done well but when done badly it's fairly awful. I still can't master clicking on a v1 Hololens and I avoid using the thing without a clicker.
Simple unobtrusive controllers are going to be the best bet for a fair while I suspect.
I tested a very, very early demo of this, and it used to be hands. I imagine it's still the case.
I have a hard time believing browsing the Internet will ever be in a form like this unless we find an easier way to input information than typing on a keyboard. It's just too much energy.
How about making Firefox work on mac without having to put it in low-res mode?
Wind power really needs something to level demand—either a battery scheme such as Tesla is selling or pumped storage (where you pump water uphill when the wind is blowing and let it flow downhill when it isn’t) it’s
I think you commented on the wrong thing
Viveport, eww.
Yes, note to the Mozilla team: Nobody uses Viveport except new users who are tricked. Publish on Steam if you want to reach Vive users.
Viveport has been growing since Infinity was launched.
And the software is less awful than when it was first released. To be honest, it's not much more awful than the Steam or Oculus apps neither of which are paragons of quality.
And the software is less awful than when it was first released. To be honest, it's not much more awful than the Steam or Oculus apps neither of which are paragons of quality.
Indeed. Software that barely runs and has a scummy history (supposedly). Last time I tried to find this on Viveport I couldn't, I couldn't find a search feature or otherwise locate this software
Do you have any source for this? I've not heard of any issues with Viveport that'd count as "scummy", just being an inferior app store to Steam. A search for "viveport controversy" finds nothing either.
Hmmm.... I thought viveport was doing the Epic games launcher style data tracking. I believe I am wrong about that.
However, being a terrible piece of software seems to be a common complaint, including breaking things unrelated to VR
https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/6jvq06/how_viveport_s...
However, being a terrible piece of software seems to be a common complaint, including breaking things unrelated to VR
https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/6jvq06/how_viveport_s...
I've noticed it's very common for VR marketing material to show young children using the devices. Is stuffing a headset onto your kid going to be the new 'give them a tablet to shut them up' in the future? going to have some very interesting repercussions.
Advertising always shows an exaggerated presence of young children. People like things that are cute and associate positive attitudes with them. I've seen real estate stock photos of offices with people holding toddlers and sometimes businesses like local insurance companies will advertise with just a giant picture of a baby's face; it's the kind of thing you see on bus benches and billboards.
For the millennial generation, dogs are actually the new kids in advertising - but you can't strap a VR headset onto a dog
> but you can't strap a VR headset onto a dog
I think that means you just haven't tried hard enough. I know for a fact an advert of a dog with a vr set strapped on would get my attention
I think that means you just haven't tried hard enough. I know for a fact an advert of a dog with a vr set strapped on would get my attention
It would be a humourous / memorable advertisement of done well. I can even imagine the tagline: "So easy everyone in the family can use it".
The landing page has an illustration of the Firefox fox with a VR headset on, which is almost there
I was going to say, kids are a huge turn off. I run the hell away from any products with kids in their advertisements.
Meanwhile I pay for a membership to a dog park with alcohol and social events : https://fetchparkatl.com
My attitude towards having children may change one day, but it's just not the world we're living in right now.
Meanwhile I pay for a membership to a dog park with alcohol and social events : https://fetchparkatl.com
My attitude towards having children may change one day, but it's just not the world we're living in right now.
Having (and loving) kids counts as default and when you don’t, you’re at least strange or your social integrity can be denied. Sadly, people went a long road to accept all sorts of sexualities, race equality, et cetera (minorities never were a trigger for me from the start), but still put ‘defaultness’ on pedestal. One with no kids can more likely get fired, their desires sacrificed, and so on in otherwise equal conditions. It feels like people did not just erase the border, but drew yet another which now encompasses a slightly bigger circle. We are still outside and this is barely going to change, since those who have kids seem to change on a psychological level and cannot think the other way.
> ... those who have kids seem to change on a psychological level and cannot think the other way.
They do. It's like a switch gets flipped. Or like an ~instant ~unkickable addiction.
They do. It's like a switch gets flipped. Or like an ~instant ~unkickable addiction.
Well, it's how our species survive the 2 millions years so far.
You can't quite transcend biology just yet...
You can't quite transcend biology just yet...
Well, you can just not have kids. Then you don't flip into parenting mode. That was largely intentional for me. Although a couple wives were pretty persuasive. And I've been propositioned for sperm a few times. By women who liked my style, but could see that I'd make a shitty parent.
I think it's because current VR isn't overly impressive to adults, but is to children.
[deleted]
I did not see this on firefox’s reality page. Do you have a link to the offending image?
It's on the homepage:
https://mixedreality.mozilla.org/static/kid-03fadfdcdaaabce0...
https://mixedreality.mozilla.org/static/kid-03fadfdcdaaabce0...
Ugh, still not seeing it. If I go to mixedreality.mozilla.org, that image doesn’t appear at all. I even tried requesting the desktop website and it still isn’t showing.
i hope not. long term effects of a heavy constricting belt on a still-developing cranium must be severe.
People have been doing that intentionally since prehistoric times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation
that ... doesnt look healthy
It shouldn't be adjusted that tight though, that concern would also apply to a child wearing a maladjusted baseball cap as well.
So I would suspect it's a minor concern, I would worry more about mental/cognitive effects more.
So I would suspect it's a minor concern, I would worry more about mental/cognitive effects more.
> heavy constricting belt on a still-developing cranium
How tight are you making the VR headset? Whatever tightness you're using might be a bit much if you consider it "heavy constricting".
How tight are you making the VR headset? Whatever tightness you're using might be a bit much if you consider it "heavy constricting".
"They" don't want you to know how and why they are brainwashing your kid. When you take it off him/her to check, it will revert to some "safe" default show.
</Tinfoil>
</Sarcasm>
</Tinfoil>
</Sarcasm>
I doubt it. Most don't have nearly the stamina for a VR headset as they do for a regular screen.
Even as an adult, 30-60 minutes is about all I can physically take, no matter how engrossed in the game/movie/etc. I am.
How much of this fatigue for you is with your eyes? How much is it with your head/neck?
I just wonder, because even when they "set" the focus of these HMDs to "infinity", your eyes are still technically only looking at a screen at a fixed distance, mere inches away. Everything I have read about so-called "simulator sickness" and other maladies in HMDs have said that eye fatigue results from this "fixed focus" issue. It doesn't cause as much issue for pilots training in simulators, because the actual screen being projected on is several feet away from their eyes, allowing them to become more naturally focused toward "infinity" (parallel).
I also wonder about the head and neck areas and fatigue. Most of the HMDs - while lightweight compared to systems of the 1990s - still seem like they have a lot of "nose weight", and aren't balanced on the head. Proper balance (fore/aft and laterally) is crucial to long-term use with lower fatigue, even with a light weight HMD. Also, the more weight that rests on the bridge of the nose, the worse the amount of fatigue.
Much of this knowledge is based on research that was done in the 1990s and earlier, both with those early HMD systems, and other earlier simulator systems. I'm continually surprised that current commercial offerings seems to either be unaware of such research, or that they ignore it for the sake of marketing (distributing the weight on the head results in a more "helmet like" HMD, which probably isn't as saleable to the public; ultimately, the public probably would like to see something as lightweight and wearable like a pair of sunglasses, but current display and optics technology isn't there yet - if it ever will be).
I just wonder, because even when they "set" the focus of these HMDs to "infinity", your eyes are still technically only looking at a screen at a fixed distance, mere inches away. Everything I have read about so-called "simulator sickness" and other maladies in HMDs have said that eye fatigue results from this "fixed focus" issue. It doesn't cause as much issue for pilots training in simulators, because the actual screen being projected on is several feet away from their eyes, allowing them to become more naturally focused toward "infinity" (parallel).
I also wonder about the head and neck areas and fatigue. Most of the HMDs - while lightweight compared to systems of the 1990s - still seem like they have a lot of "nose weight", and aren't balanced on the head. Proper balance (fore/aft and laterally) is crucial to long-term use with lower fatigue, even with a light weight HMD. Also, the more weight that rests on the bridge of the nose, the worse the amount of fatigue.
Much of this knowledge is based on research that was done in the 1990s and earlier, both with those early HMD systems, and other earlier simulator systems. I'm continually surprised that current commercial offerings seems to either be unaware of such research, or that they ignore it for the sake of marketing (distributing the weight on the head results in a more "helmet like" HMD, which probably isn't as saleable to the public; ultimately, the public probably would like to see something as lightweight and wearable like a pair of sunglasses, but current display and optics technology isn't there yet - if it ever will be).
Cannot speak for OP, but for me, personally, it is the type of things I use VR for that exhausts me. I mostly use it for games, which requires standing and moving around (depending on the game, it can be quite a bit). So I mostly get physically exhausted and sweaty, which prompts me to take the headset off. No motion sickness or eye strain on my end. In fact, my eyes feel way more strained after looking at a computer monitor than after VR.
I don't really consider that to be "simulator sickness" fatigue - it's just exercise and fatigue in general due to the course of the simulation, not because of technical flaws in the implementation of the hardware.
Though I can understand where you're coming from; I recall really "playing" Dactyl Nightmare in the mall (most people would just stand around and stare in the game - it was kinda stupid), and I would walk away fairly sweaty from the "workout" of playing the game (crouching, moving, shooting, aiming, etc).
I always thought that was one of the best aspects of VR gaming - that I could actually be in the game, and not just viewing it through a window semi-passively.
Though I can understand where you're coming from; I recall really "playing" Dactyl Nightmare in the mall (most people would just stand around and stare in the game - it was kinda stupid), and I would walk away fairly sweaty from the "workout" of playing the game (crouching, moving, shooting, aiming, etc).
I always thought that was one of the best aspects of VR gaming - that I could actually be in the game, and not just viewing it through a window semi-passively.
Yep, that's it, I fully agree with you. I was trying to relay that the exhaustion i get from the VR is just inherent to the physical activities I perform while in VR, nothing to do with VR itself. You phrased it much better than I did, so thanks for clarifying to others reading :)
I wish there were more good VR experiences I could do from the couch. When I’m tired and want to relax, it turns out sitting and putting my feet up is a pretty important part of what I’m looking for.
Agreed. Even just for straight up standing experiences, a lot of them involve way too much movement for someone living in a cramped apt. Playing Superhot VR recently, my friend accidentally broke my drinking glasses on the counter :(
It would be nice to be able to just sit down and relax in VR while playing a game.
It would be nice to be able to just sit down and relax in VR while playing a game.
Have you tried Elite Dangerous? It's totally playable from the chair.
I wonder how that game would be to play it relaxing in a "zero-g" recliner/lounge chair?
Have you ever heard of the company Flogiston - and the Flogiston Flostation?
https://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/tb/tech...
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff1998/ch5.htm
You can find some more pictures and stuff with google - the company no longer exists, and I don't know if any of the prototypes or such are still around; if they are, they are probably "unobtainium".
But anyhow, part of the system was a particular style of "zero gravity" posture chair, as you can see from the pictures and such. So playing Elite Dangerous in an HMD from a similar chair might be an interesting experience...
Have you ever heard of the company Flogiston - and the Flogiston Flostation?
https://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/tb/tech...
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff1998/ch5.htm
You can find some more pictures and stuff with google - the company no longer exists, and I don't know if any of the prototypes or such are still around; if they are, they are probably "unobtainium".
But anyhow, part of the system was a particular style of "zero gravity" posture chair, as you can see from the pictures and such. So playing Elite Dangerous in an HMD from a similar chair might be an interesting experience...
For me, I personally feel enclosed and slightly seasick. I don't think it's a weight issue, but something to do with the inherencies of the system. I can stand a hololens longer than a Vive, for instance.
Interesting - are you prone to claustrophobia? It sounds like what you experienced is similar to that, from what little I know about the condition.
Do you have the same response when wearing other kinds of goggles or face shield (say something like welder's goggles, or lab goggles, or a scuba mask, or a welder's hood - things like that)?
I don't think I've ever heard of this being reported, but it doesn't surprise me as a possibility, either. It may even be mentioned in the literature out there (while I have an extensive collection of literature and research papers on VR, I'm certain I don't have anywhere near all of it).
Thank you for responding about it.
Do you have the same response when wearing other kinds of goggles or face shield (say something like welder's goggles, or lab goggles, or a scuba mask, or a welder's hood - things like that)?
I don't think I've ever heard of this being reported, but it doesn't surprise me as a possibility, either. It may even be mentioned in the literature out there (while I have an extensive collection of literature and research papers on VR, I'm certain I don't have anywhere near all of it).
Thank you for responding about it.
I have no problem going two hours of beat saber and/or boxvr, though my Quest’s battery does.
In my experience kids younger than 7 don't do well in VR.
Part of that is using the game controller blind, and having small hands as well. A controller designed for younger kids might help.
Part of that is using the game controller blind, and having small hands as well. A controller designed for younger kids might help.
> In my experience kids younger than 7 don't do well in VR.
I know anecdote is not data but my 4yr old loves feeding his dinosaur in Oculus Quest 'Bogo' game. I limit his VR time to about 15-20 mins/week but he would love to do more if I allowed. I only use the base Quest headset straps/controller - no custom setup. He can easily press the different buttons on the controllers and move around as well as my 60yr old mom.
I know anecdote is not data but my 4yr old loves feeding his dinosaur in Oculus Quest 'Bogo' game. I limit his VR time to about 15-20 mins/week but he would love to do more if I allowed. I only use the base Quest headset straps/controller - no custom setup. He can easily press the different buttons on the controllers and move around as well as my 60yr old mom.
I had heard that there are concerns about children using VR and how it could affect their development. The Oculus Health and Safety Guide says:
> This product should not be used by children under the age of 13. Adults should monitor children (age 13 and older) who are using or have used the Headset for any of the symptoms described below, and should limit the time children spend using the Headset and ensure they take breaks during use. Prolonged use should be avoided, as this could negatively impact hand-eye coordination, balance, and multi-tasking ability. Adults should monitor children closely during and after use of the headset for any decrease in these abilities.
https://scontent.oculuscdn.com/v/t64.5771-25/12331258_477090...
> This product should not be used by children under the age of 13. Adults should monitor children (age 13 and older) who are using or have used the Headset for any of the symptoms described below, and should limit the time children spend using the Headset and ensure they take breaks during use. Prolonged use should be avoided, as this could negatively impact hand-eye coordination, balance, and multi-tasking ability. Adults should monitor children closely during and after use of the headset for any decrease in these abilities.
https://scontent.oculuscdn.com/v/t64.5771-25/12331258_477090...
There is nothing shown about this (who would approve that controlled study?), just lots of suspicions (as usual). Screen time in general is bad for kids’ developing eyes, however.
The precautionary principle suggests limiting time until it’s proven that there’s no impact on young, developing brains
Nothing can be proven like that. They can’t even run studies, so without any further information, usage among kids will grow anyways (because kids think it’s fun and lots of parents will ignore suspicions).
I’m not going to nit pick on what “proven” means, and studies on this kind of thing certainly can be run, they just haven’t yet. That’s why caution is being applied.
A controlled study on the effects of VR on children would involve running experiments on lots of children. Try getting that by your clinical ethics board....
Have you read Ready Player One?
Do you find science fiction to be a good predictor for the near future?
If you think sci-fi is not a good predictor for the near future, just post it as a statement, not a rhetorical question. I agree with you, though, that RPO is not meant to be realistic in any way and a bad example, but the way you generalized it to all of sci-fi makes it also not very helpful. Try The Martian from Andy Weir, or some of Daniel Suarez' books like Kill Decision. There is some scary realistic sci-fi out there.
I haven't read Kill Decision, but I have read The Martian, so I'll answer in that vein.
I don't think The Martian is realistic, or even a good predictor of anything. Now, there may be an expedition to Mars in future, but AFAICT there's really no good reasoning for it. What's your argument for an expedition to Mars?
EDIT: I just wanted to add: You and I -- humans that we are -- only remember the hits, i.e. the predictions that turned out to be true. There are a lot or predictions (sci fi novels, etc.) that turn out to not be true and are thus forgotten. QED
I don't think The Martian is realistic, or even a good predictor of anything. Now, there may be an expedition to Mars in future, but AFAICT there's really no good reasoning for it. What's your argument for an expedition to Mars?
EDIT: I just wanted to add: You and I -- humans that we are -- only remember the hits, i.e. the predictions that turned out to be true. There are a lot or predictions (sci fi novels, etc.) that turn out to not be true and are thus forgotten. QED
> What's your argument for an expedition to Mars?
You seem to have missed the point of my comment completely. Your takeaway from my saying "just post it as a statement, not a rhetorical question" and "the way you generalized it to all of sci-fi makes it also not very helpful" (for which the books were supporting examples) is to ask what makes me think humanity should go to Mars? The book doesn't even argue we should or shouldn't go to Mars, but it contains a ton of research into how these missions could work and may actually (contrary to your generalization) be a realistic representation.
As for survivorship bias, sure, I can think of a million sci-fi books that are unrealistic. I never made the argument all sci-fi is good or that their authors have done research or that they are good predictors. But that most don't even try to be predictive doesn't mean some might not be a realistic enough example to relate it to the choices we make and how it might play out. RPO just isn't one of them.
You seem to have missed the point of my comment completely. Your takeaway from my saying "just post it as a statement, not a rhetorical question" and "the way you generalized it to all of sci-fi makes it also not very helpful" (for which the books were supporting examples) is to ask what makes me think humanity should go to Mars? The book doesn't even argue we should or shouldn't go to Mars, but it contains a ton of research into how these missions could work and may actually (contrary to your generalization) be a realistic representation.
As for survivorship bias, sure, I can think of a million sci-fi books that are unrealistic. I never made the argument all sci-fi is good or that their authors have done research or that they are good predictors. But that most don't even try to be predictive doesn't mean some might not be a realistic enough example to relate it to the choices we make and how it might play out. RPO just isn't one of them.
Ok, so this is a dense comment, so I'm going to try again.
AFAICT, your nested quotations contained a quote (by you!), which said "it contains a ton of research into how these missions could work and may actually [...]"
Ok, so a "ton of research". By whom? An author... of sci-fi?
Look, I'm not per se against imagination or exploration, but I am very much for realism.
AFAICT, your nested quotations contained a quote (by you!), which said "it contains a ton of research into how these missions could work and may actually [...]"
Ok, so a "ton of research". By whom? An author... of sci-fi?
Look, I'm not per se against imagination or exploration, but I am very much for realism.
[deleted]
VR is just "screen time" reaching its logical extreme conclusion. Put another way "fully addressable visual cortex".
It'll get really weird when "glued to your phone" starts being literal as wearable AR stuff gets adhesive bonds.
It'll get really weird when "glued to your phone" starts being literal as wearable AR stuff gets adhesive bonds.
> "fully addressable visual cortex".
I prefer the concept of visual cortex framebuffer.
I prefer the concept of visual cortex framebuffer.
Neuralink will be filling your visual cortex soon enough. :)
I think this is Servo? Is there any progress with Servo outside of VR/AR? Really looking forward to a browser with parallel layout.
Yes! There's an active Servo Layout 2.0 project going on right now, which is a revamp of layout to make it production-quality. Anthony developed some Rust iterator magic to allow us to write sequential-looking code that actually runs in parallel, which is a major improvement in maintainability over what we had before.
Most of the work is currently going on out-of-tree in Simon's victor project, if you're interested: https://github.com/SimonSapin/victor
Most of the work is currently going on out-of-tree in Simon's victor project, if you're interested: https://github.com/SimonSapin/victor
Java added fairly seamless parallel iterators via streams but there is a huge amount of overhead there and often it is slower than normal iterators, depending on the work being done at each iteration. Hopefully Rust is able to avoid that sort of downside.
The parallelism in Servo layout is powered by Rayon, which is extensively optimized and shipping in Firefox.
Fantastic, thanks!
Not by default yet, but you can enable it for testing. Requires a recompile with a properties file to make the option appear.
>Experimental Servo support
>To compile with Servo support, create a file called user.properties in the top-level project directory and add enableServo=1. Then to enable Servo in Firefox Reality, go the Developer Options panel in the Settings, and toggle the Servo option. Then a new button will be added to the navigation bar. Clicking that button will reload the current page with Servo.
https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality
>Experimental Servo support
>To compile with Servo support, create a file called user.properties in the top-level project directory and add enableServo=1. Then to enable Servo in Firefox Reality, go the Developer Options panel in the Settings, and toggle the Servo option. Then a new button will be added to the navigation bar. Clicking that button will reload the current page with Servo.
https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality
Is this for Oculus Quest yet?
Note that multi-window support isn't released on Quest yet, but should come once they get to the bottom of this: https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/issues/1459
What _is_ it? A new headset? A new browser? What?
A application for existing 3D headsets. I've had this on my Oculus Go for a while.
Not sure what the situation is for tabbed browsing in this.
"Viewing multiple pages concurrently" issue repeatedly mentions tabs as something that needs to be designed https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/issues/635, in May saying "Will keep this issue open for designing Tabs. Feel free to make changes to track the design + engineering."
But then in June it's "Closing this in favor of new meta bug #1319"
And #1319 does not mention tabs anywhere. https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/issues/1319
Maybe tabs have been implicitly bundled into "multiwindow" when they're talking about that? Can't check myself because the Quest version doesn't have any multiwindow support, it looks like they're working on a crash issue for it.
I tried a dev build sideloaded last week on the Quest and being in a single-window no-tab environment where you can only have one page open at a time is very limiting. But as soon as that's worked out, I'll be switching to this as the main browser.
I wonder if it will be possible for someone to patch Oculus Home so that the Browser button opens this instead.
"Viewing multiple pages concurrently" issue repeatedly mentions tabs as something that needs to be designed https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/issues/635, in May saying "Will keep this issue open for designing Tabs. Feel free to make changes to track the design + engineering."
But then in June it's "Closing this in favor of new meta bug #1319"
And #1319 does not mention tabs anywhere. https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/issues/1319
Maybe tabs have been implicitly bundled into "multiwindow" when they're talking about that? Can't check myself because the Quest version doesn't have any multiwindow support, it looks like they're working on a crash issue for it.
I tried a dev build sideloaded last week on the Quest and being in a single-window no-tab environment where you can only have one page open at a time is very limiting. But as soon as that's worked out, I'll be switching to this as the main browser.
I wonder if it will be possible for someone to patch Oculus Home so that the Browser button opens this instead.
Hi! As we mentioned in the recent Quest release blog post, https://blog.mozvr.com/firefox-reality-for-oculus-quest/, we have some designs for multi-window support and synchronization of content between platforms. We're still working on options around tabs / additional content beyond the number of windows you have open, alongside our really awesome Seattle-based design partners, Podipo: http://podipo.com/
Once we have some concrete designs, we'll have issues open and on our public roadmap for comment and we often have early builds available in our releases page for sideloading if people are interested in testing and giving feedback.
Once we have some concrete designs, we'll have issues open and on our public roadmap for comment and we often have early builds available in our releases page for sideloading if people are interested in testing and giving feedback.
EDIT:
I took a quick look at the codebase for the browser (https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality), and it isn't what I was expecting (once you dive to app/src) - definitions for the main three supported systems are each at this root level, and I didn't see any kind of "template" or "empty" definition file or anything to guide someone wanting to make one themselves - but maybe that's not possible.
It appears that these files are wrappers around the APIs used for those other products (?). So your only hope would be to base your wrapper on these existing ones, which while feasible (working with the API docs too), isn't what I would call "ideal". Plus, there doesn't seem to be a separation of concerns when it comes to input vs output.
I mean, what if I wanted to use my hacked powerglove with my Rift HMD? Or what if I wanted to use my Vive controllers with my Virtuality Pro?
I understand that the supported systems are nominally "all-in-one" solutions, but the parts (HMDs, controllers, tracking) are available separately (at least in some of the cases) - so mixing and matching might be something someone would want to do. It would definitely be that case for those implementing their own "mixed setup", where they might have an old VPL datasuit and glove, plus some other old pro-level HMD that they like to play with.
As it is, it seems like each setup would have to be a custom "all-in-one" for that setup, so if you had two different systems that used two different HMDs and tracking, but both used the same Powerglove Minelli interface - the code couldn't be "shared" in a reasonable manner (yes, I know with the right symlinking and other buggery it could be accomplished within the current structure, but it isn't ideal).
I was hoping the structure would be more like /plugins, with /input /output, and under those /controller /glove /wand and /hmd /motionplatform /cave, then under each /occulus /vive /google /example
Or something like that. Am I wrong here?
---
Ok - I know this is likely open source and thus can be changed, but I honestly wish that things like this offered (and marketed) a means - via plugins or something (and maybe this does - hence, marketed) - the ability to expand on what i/o devices are allowed.
Sure - should the "main players" be featured? Of course. But what about those of us who might like to - oh, I don't know - throw on an old Forte VFX-1 and a Powerglove and go at it? Maybe we want to recreate the experience of using REND386?
Or what if you have access to a Polhemus or Ascension magnetic tracking system (or any number of other "pro-level" tracking)? Or HMDs? Or other input devices? Or motion platforms?
Maybe you're a developer of something completely new, and want to play in this same environment and make it compatible...
Again - I haven't dug into the code, and maybe it's designed to accommodate these kinds of use cases. I'd just love to see that availability, if it exists, to be advertised more. I guess its because I get the same feeling around software released for my OS of choice, where Windows and Mac are prominently advertised, and Linux is at best, if it's offered at all, the classic step-child stuffed in a closet.
As an aside, I never can figure out the argument that "we don't offer support for Linux because the market is so small, it isn't worth it for us" - well, if everyone keeps saying and doing that, what do you think will ultimately occur? Do you think that market will grow, stay the same, or shrink?
I took a quick look at the codebase for the browser (https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality), and it isn't what I was expecting (once you dive to app/src) - definitions for the main three supported systems are each at this root level, and I didn't see any kind of "template" or "empty" definition file or anything to guide someone wanting to make one themselves - but maybe that's not possible.
It appears that these files are wrappers around the APIs used for those other products (?). So your only hope would be to base your wrapper on these existing ones, which while feasible (working with the API docs too), isn't what I would call "ideal". Plus, there doesn't seem to be a separation of concerns when it comes to input vs output.
I mean, what if I wanted to use my hacked powerglove with my Rift HMD? Or what if I wanted to use my Vive controllers with my Virtuality Pro?
I understand that the supported systems are nominally "all-in-one" solutions, but the parts (HMDs, controllers, tracking) are available separately (at least in some of the cases) - so mixing and matching might be something someone would want to do. It would definitely be that case for those implementing their own "mixed setup", where they might have an old VPL datasuit and glove, plus some other old pro-level HMD that they like to play with.
As it is, it seems like each setup would have to be a custom "all-in-one" for that setup, so if you had two different systems that used two different HMDs and tracking, but both used the same Powerglove Minelli interface - the code couldn't be "shared" in a reasonable manner (yes, I know with the right symlinking and other buggery it could be accomplished within the current structure, but it isn't ideal).
I was hoping the structure would be more like /plugins, with /input /output, and under those /controller /glove /wand and /hmd /motionplatform /cave, then under each /occulus /vive /google /example
Or something like that. Am I wrong here?
---
Ok - I know this is likely open source and thus can be changed, but I honestly wish that things like this offered (and marketed) a means - via plugins or something (and maybe this does - hence, marketed) - the ability to expand on what i/o devices are allowed.
Sure - should the "main players" be featured? Of course. But what about those of us who might like to - oh, I don't know - throw on an old Forte VFX-1 and a Powerglove and go at it? Maybe we want to recreate the experience of using REND386?
Or what if you have access to a Polhemus or Ascension magnetic tracking system (or any number of other "pro-level" tracking)? Or HMDs? Or other input devices? Or motion platforms?
Maybe you're a developer of something completely new, and want to play in this same environment and make it compatible...
Again - I haven't dug into the code, and maybe it's designed to accommodate these kinds of use cases. I'd just love to see that availability, if it exists, to be advertised more. I guess its because I get the same feeling around software released for my OS of choice, where Windows and Mac are prominently advertised, and Linux is at best, if it's offered at all, the classic step-child stuffed in a closet.
As an aside, I never can figure out the argument that "we don't offer support for Linux because the market is so small, it isn't worth it for us" - well, if everyone keeps saying and doing that, what do you think will ultimately occur? Do you think that market will grow, stay the same, or shrink?
I think your design taste is sound. But there are some constraints.
The VR/AR vendor market has largely collapsed into a few big players with vertical-integration ecosystem-capture dreams, so high-investment opaque monoliths is what's available. Valve's OpenVR apis being the biggest multi-vendor exception. And they're immature, in a complex and still-evolving design space, making it harder to abstract commonality. And gaming VR imposes strict performance constraints, so some paths may have little slack with which to pay some abstraction costs. So having vendor-specific monoliths, joined only at the top, could be the right choice. Any failure to have their javascript-level joining be flexibly mixable... seems regrettably traditional for browser apis, and I don't know the cultural background for that.
I've mixed Vive lighthouse and custom optical tracking, Vive and WMR and now drone HMDs, on linux. I took a custom browser-as-compositor stack. (But there's also the Vrui VR Toolkit.)
The VR/AR vendor market has largely collapsed into a few big players with vertical-integration ecosystem-capture dreams, so high-investment opaque monoliths is what's available. Valve's OpenVR apis being the biggest multi-vendor exception. And they're immature, in a complex and still-evolving design space, making it harder to abstract commonality. And gaming VR imposes strict performance constraints, so some paths may have little slack with which to pay some abstraction costs. So having vendor-specific monoliths, joined only at the top, could be the right choice. Any failure to have their javascript-level joining be flexibly mixable... seems regrettably traditional for browser apis, and I don't know the cultural background for that.
I've mixed Vive lighthouse and custom optical tracking, Vive and WMR and now drone HMDs, on linux. I took a custom browser-as-compositor stack. (But there's also the Vrui VR Toolkit.)
> Forte VFX-1
Man I remember seeing those in copies of PC Gamer as a kid. You can find modern reviews online. They had a lot of issues; mostly due to low resolution leading to motion sickness.
There were attempts at 3D web standards in the past. Who remembers VRML?!
Man I remember seeing those in copies of PC Gamer as a kid. You can find modern reviews online. They had a lot of issues; mostly due to low resolution leading to motion sickness.
There were attempts at 3D web standards in the past. Who remembers VRML?!
VRML contained the technology to crash both Netscape Navigator and your entire X display, frequently under a minute.
> You can find modern reviews online.
Which I don't think do them real justice; it's like people growing up with modern cars doing a review of a Model T - a fair review you have to try to replicate everything around what is being reviewed, or at least have that mindset. A good review would use an old Pentium running Duke Nukem 3D with the patches meant for the VFX-1 (for the head tracking and "puck" usage).
> They had a lot of issues; mostly due to low resolution leading to motion sickness.
Most consumer HMDs of the time had low resolution, low field of view, contrast issues, etc. If they had any kind of tracking, coupled with the PC hardware and software of the era, the frame lag to changes would also cause simulator sickness issues.
One thing though - if you look at research papers from the era - there was discussion of what was termed a "looking past the pixels" effect.
That is - if you didn't focus in on the pixels themselves, the screen-door effects (terrible at those low resolutions, especially if the FOV was made large - which in most cases, it wasn't), and the small FOV - that psychologically (maybe neurologically too) some people would report seeing things at a better resolution and FOV.
It wasn't investigated too much - but what was thought was that for those participants, the mind would fill in the "gaps" using it's mental model - so long as they weren't focusing on those gaps. There are many other experiments that have been done that proves the mind does this in the "real world" - so in theory, that effect could be real. I suspect it is, but only if the imagery being displayed in the HMD matches some imagery the mind has seen before. For instance, my memory of playing Duke Nukem 3D in a VFX-1 setup seems far better than I am sure it was, but then, I had played the game a lot on a regular monitor at a higher resolution, so I had a "model" of it in my mind. It might be a different experience today, since I haven't played it in a long while - or if I played another game in that HMD that I hadn't played before.
> There were attempts at 3D web standards in the past. Who remembers VRML?!
Mark Pesce was behind that - among other pioneers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pesce
These earlier attempts have led to and informed newer frameworks being played with today. VRML had its good and bad points; the main concept was to make VR as accessible to normal people as the Web was via HTML. But it really was a technology that was too early for the hardware that people had available (unless they had access to some high-end SGI machinery). That kinda gave it an unfair reputation, and was a part of the reason it never caught on well.
Today we have a range of other options, some more "standard" than others, but most things "VR" still seem to be cobbled together from "scratch", or at best layered on top of WebGL - while things like Three.js have made WebGL easier for people to use, it still isn't anything like typing in simple VRML.
Another note: One thing I liked about the VFX-1 that I haven't yet seen in current HMDs was the "flip up" design. It was meant so you could easily "enter and exit" a virtual world as you designed it. Today, it may not really be needed as much as resolutions and FOV increase in HMDs - instead, we're slowing seeing the concept of "recreate the monitor inside the HMD" kind of approach. But I still thought the concept was interesting, and I was kinda surprised that Oculus didn't do something similar, since Palmer Luckey hacked the VFX-1 to death on the 3DMTBS forums prior to the kickstarter.
Which I don't think do them real justice; it's like people growing up with modern cars doing a review of a Model T - a fair review you have to try to replicate everything around what is being reviewed, or at least have that mindset. A good review would use an old Pentium running Duke Nukem 3D with the patches meant for the VFX-1 (for the head tracking and "puck" usage).
> They had a lot of issues; mostly due to low resolution leading to motion sickness.
Most consumer HMDs of the time had low resolution, low field of view, contrast issues, etc. If they had any kind of tracking, coupled with the PC hardware and software of the era, the frame lag to changes would also cause simulator sickness issues.
One thing though - if you look at research papers from the era - there was discussion of what was termed a "looking past the pixels" effect.
That is - if you didn't focus in on the pixels themselves, the screen-door effects (terrible at those low resolutions, especially if the FOV was made large - which in most cases, it wasn't), and the small FOV - that psychologically (maybe neurologically too) some people would report seeing things at a better resolution and FOV.
It wasn't investigated too much - but what was thought was that for those participants, the mind would fill in the "gaps" using it's mental model - so long as they weren't focusing on those gaps. There are many other experiments that have been done that proves the mind does this in the "real world" - so in theory, that effect could be real. I suspect it is, but only if the imagery being displayed in the HMD matches some imagery the mind has seen before. For instance, my memory of playing Duke Nukem 3D in a VFX-1 setup seems far better than I am sure it was, but then, I had played the game a lot on a regular monitor at a higher resolution, so I had a "model" of it in my mind. It might be a different experience today, since I haven't played it in a long while - or if I played another game in that HMD that I hadn't played before.
> There were attempts at 3D web standards in the past. Who remembers VRML?!
Mark Pesce was behind that - among other pioneers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pesce
These earlier attempts have led to and informed newer frameworks being played with today. VRML had its good and bad points; the main concept was to make VR as accessible to normal people as the Web was via HTML. But it really was a technology that was too early for the hardware that people had available (unless they had access to some high-end SGI machinery). That kinda gave it an unfair reputation, and was a part of the reason it never caught on well.
Today we have a range of other options, some more "standard" than others, but most things "VR" still seem to be cobbled together from "scratch", or at best layered on top of WebGL - while things like Three.js have made WebGL easier for people to use, it still isn't anything like typing in simple VRML.
Another note: One thing I liked about the VFX-1 that I haven't yet seen in current HMDs was the "flip up" design. It was meant so you could easily "enter and exit" a virtual world as you designed it. Today, it may not really be needed as much as resolutions and FOV increase in HMDs - instead, we're slowing seeing the concept of "recreate the monitor inside the HMD" kind of approach. But I still thought the concept was interesting, and I was kinda surprised that Oculus didn't do something similar, since Palmer Luckey hacked the VFX-1 to death on the 3DMTBS forums prior to the kickstarter.
I guess there's a limit on time you can edit your post...
Other comments I have read here indicate that this software is for "standalone" systems - and not, as I presumed, for "component" systems (I'm not sure what else to term them).
Which would make my concerns (mostly) irrelevant.
Other comments I have read here indicate that this software is for "standalone" systems - and not, as I presumed, for "component" systems (I'm not sure what else to term them).
Which would make my concerns (mostly) irrelevant.
[deleted]
Sad that the daydream version on a Moto Z in Google Play gives me a "Your device isn't compatible with this version" for me even though I can run Daydream and other daydream apps
Unfortunately, we don't currently support phone-based Daydream or Gear VR devices. There's both a bunch of extra work to support all of the phone in/out/notification lifecycle scenarios and we have a pretty small engineering team and the long tail of phone/chipset-specific bugs is pretty substantial. We might evaluate support for it or Cardboard in the future, but for right now we're mainly focused on standalone headsets.
That said, we're all in favor of people who want to sideload and play with it! https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/wiki/Sidelo...
That said, we're all in favor of people who want to sideload and play with it! https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/wiki/Sidelo...
It is meant only for standalone Daydream headsets. Why this is the case, I cannot fathom.
Even standalone headsets seem to be a crapshoot. It "runs" on my Lenovo Mirage, for example, but (last I checked) it's pretty crashy.
No support for desktop oculus? Really annoying.
Wow, I had no idea those even existed! Thanks for clarifying.
I get the same result with my Pixel 3 XL.
Oh man, I miss VRML :)
In my collection of VR documents and software "artifacts" - I have a collection of QuickBasic 4.5 programs (source code) that this French team built (circa late 1990s IIRC) to generate various VRML models and "worlds" using code. I don't recall how abstracted it was, but I thought it unique enough to save it for my archive. I should really go through that collection and release it in some manner - I have tons of interesting stuff, much of which has disappeared from the web. Maybe an upload to archive.org would be in order...
"Enter a New Dimension"... of what? I didn't advance beyond the opening screen. Is this going to educate me (mmm), seduce me (eww), stimulate me (eww/mmm?), or just going to advertise to me?
The problem with all of these virtual-X or augmented-X is that they don't provide enough value to me -- as a consumer -- they're just "grand ideas" without any real value.
I'm sure the gimmick effect has some value in and of itself, but c'mon.
The problem with all of these virtual-X or augmented-X is that they don't provide enough value to me -- as a consumer -- they're just "grand ideas" without any real value.
I'm sure the gimmick effect has some value in and of itself, but c'mon.
I also didn't quite understand the landing page. Enter a new dimension can be applied to anything. Scrolling further we find some VR brands, but the title made that clear already. Then your eyes are drawn to the moving game covers. So are they making an app store? Scrolling further, we find "Designed from the Virtual Ground Up". Ha-ha I see what they did there. And then comes the footer.
Only now that I go back through it more slowly to write it up, I find this small text just before the end: "designed to tackle all of the new opportunities (and challenges) that come with browsing in VR". Oh it's a browser! Only after typing the comment about how I scrolled through the whole page and didn't find a meaningful statement, I noticed a line of text hidden between headlines and moving pictures that should have been the title.
Only now that I go back through it more slowly to write it up, I find this small text just before the end: "designed to tackle all of the new opportunities (and challenges) that come with browsing in VR". Oh it's a browser! Only after typing the comment about how I scrolled through the whole page and didn't find a meaningful statement, I noticed a line of text hidden between headlines and moving pictures that should have been the title.
Yeah the page wasn't clear what it was until I saw the video on the Oculus page.
Thought they were releasing a headset or something.
Thought they were releasing a headset or something.
Enter a new Dimension ... or just be disappointed for the fact that you need a VR headset.
Well, no... you can also use a holographic projector if you have one.
And if you don't have a VR headset or a holographic projector you can just 3D print one!
Is there any particular reason they can't offer a damn .exe so I can try this out with my Index? I'm sure the copy on Viveport would work, but I don't want to install Viveport. :(
Edit: Their Github page has releases, but they're all APK's? https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/releases
Edit2: Oh, it's for "standalone" headsets. Never mind I guess...
Edit: Their Github page has releases, but they're all APK's? https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/releases
Edit2: Oh, it's for "standalone" headsets. Never mind I guess...
Thanks! We don't currently have a build of Firefox Reality available for desktop devices, but that work is currently underway. We announced it as part of our deal with HTC and are excited to show it off soon:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/01/08/mozilla-announces-d...
It's not on viveport despite what they say, I've searched for it numerous times, very frustrating.
Any reason iOS is excluded? Last I checked they still have a good share of the mobile user bases out there.
Firefox IOS uses the safari browser because Apple's walled garden is off limits for browsers that are not based on that. So, that makes shipping a VR browser without the Firefox internals impossible/impractical. In this case, it's not only a browser but a content store that is not iTunes, which complicates things further.
I'm not aware of any iOS-based VR headsets.
They are probably not targeting the el-cheapo cardboard variety.
They are probably not targeting the el-cheapo cardboard variety.
[deleted]
There's no standalone VR headsets running ios.
Until Mozilla fixes Firefox and stops treating users like children, I will continue to use other browser options. What a slow sad death :(
[deleted]
Firefox Reality is a version of Firefox targeted at VR headsets. You can install it from the store of the Oculus Quest (the headset I own, I imagine others are supported). It's not meant to run on a regular workstation.
The interesting feature of this browser is navigating VR ready websites that provide an immersive experience (aka. webvr). You can also browse the regular web from your headsets, of course, but that's not particularly exciting.
The interesting feature of this browser is navigating VR ready websites that provide an immersive experience (aka. webvr). You can also browse the regular web from your headsets, of course, but that's not particularly exciting.
It is very odd how vague their product description page is. Naming a product Firefox Reality seems like good marketing: what could be a better brand than all of Reality? However in reality, their site doesn’t say exactly what parent says: Firefox Reality is a browser built for (standalone) XR devices.
I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant VR, given that I've never heard of XR, and thus wouldn't really be an improvement in terms of vagueness...
No, XR is a thing now. It's a general name for VR, AR and MR (mixed reality).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Reality_(XR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Reality_(XR)
> It is very odd how vague their product description page is.
Surely the oddity is solved by postulating that it is a marketing strategy to build interest?
Surely the oddity is solved by postulating that it is a marketing strategy to build interest?
Thanks! We also find that a lot of our users really like watching 360 or even 2D videos, taking advantage of the ability to resize the screen to get their own personal theater.
Right now, we only have Firefox Reality available for standalone VR headsets, but we're bringing the experience to desktop VR and a variety of standalone AR headsets in the second half of this year.
Right now, we only have Firefox Reality available for standalone VR headsets, but we're bringing the experience to desktop VR and a variety of standalone AR headsets in the second half of this year.
My problem with the whole VR world, Firefox Reality included, is that it requires me to use stores, open accounts, and do all kind of stuff that seems to me unnecessary.
Do I get it wrong?
Do I get it wrong?
Firefox Reality includes support for WebVR, so you can use web based VR applications through the browser.
Part of the reason you might choose to install Firefox Reality on your VR headset is because it's important to you that developers of VR apps always have an option to use the web to share their apps, which will avoid forcing their users in the way you mention.
We've built a social VR application called Hubs (hubs.mozilla.com) to showcase the potential of web based VR applications.
Part of the reason you might choose to install Firefox Reality on your VR headset is because it's important to you that developers of VR apps always have an option to use the web to share their apps, which will avoid forcing their users in the way you mention.
We've built a social VR application called Hubs (hubs.mozilla.com) to showcase the potential of web based VR applications.
Thanks for the answer.
A little off topic, but what a world we live in when a prominent browser maker is advertising a new browser with a webpage that doesn’t properly display its main tagline on small devices (iPhone SE) https://i.imgur.com/WkqsUEZ_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f...
If they can’t get it right, what does that say about the state of the web as a platform?
If they can’t get it right, what does that say about the state of the web as a platform?
If its like the analytics for the 45MM users I get on the sites I manage the SE traffic is less than 0.5%.
And to be clear, its not broken, the alignment is slightly off: https://imgur.com/a/GBLe5Jt I would totally let this pass QA for such a minority view.
And to be clear, its not broken, the alignment is slightly off: https://imgur.com/a/GBLe5Jt I would totally let this pass QA for such a minority view.
1) I didn’t say broken, I said ‘doesn’t properly display‘.
2) How many other smaller phones exist on the market? It’s disingenuous to say it’s .5%.
This is not some complex item- it should simply not look like this. If the simple stuff is misaligned, what can you expect the rest of the page and more complex items to work like?
2) How many other smaller phones exist on the market? It’s disingenuous to say it’s .5%.
This is not some complex item- it should simply not look like this. If the simple stuff is misaligned, what can you expect the rest of the page and more complex items to work like?
[deleted]
Even Apple doesn’t care about the iPhone SE anymore. I installed the iOS 13 beta on my iPhone SE and in several places the built in apps or parts of the operating system don’t properly fit on the screen. It’s a shame
Most websites break around the 300px mark, even when responsive. According to Chrome's dev tools the iPhone SE has a 320px width. Alignment issues are going to be common on that device.
How many smartphones display at that kind of width? I’m guessing it’s not a negligible percentage.
Couldn't tell ya. But iPhone SE is the smallest screen in the emulated devices list.
Same issue on iPhone 6