Okay, I feel the same as all of you about the potential and the disappointment so far in AR.

Cromfel echoed the debate that is happening out there as to whether implementations are really AR or not and how making comparisons is challenging. This reminds me of other technology advances which also had a lot of obscurity about future uses.

Personally, I think AR is very interesting as a concept, but I'm constantly disappointed by any demo trying to implement it in practice.

Seems we need way better sensors and a lot more image processing power before it becomes really usable in game development, more then just a fancy tech demo that is fun to play around with for a while until you get frustrated with it losing synch with the physical world all the time.

I did some research last night and found a company working for over a year on solving the AR processing issues directly - Euclideon. Notice the previous limits processed in a laptop have been multiplied beyond estimation by direct reading of data from a drive instead of memory middle management:

Isn't this technology going to allow an extremely realistic scene to be the surroundings for an AR player?

Clinton

I did some research last night and found a company working for over a year on solving the AR processing issues directly - Euclideon.

Euclideon

I stopped reading there. Those guys went to subzero credibility with their "unlimited detail" claims. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything coming from them.

That said, AR is certainly interesting and I'm looking forward to the next few years. I think we'll see a lot of cool stuff by 2020. A lot of the technology already exists but there's still a lot of work needed to make it accessible to the general public.

I stopped reading there. Those guys went to subzero credibility with their "unlimited detail" claims. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything coming from them.

That said, AR is certainly interesting and I'm looking forward to the next few years. I think we'll see a lot of cool stuff by 2020. A lot of the technology already exists but there's still a lot of work needed to make it accessible to the general public.

Even though I can see where you're coming from, did you watch their new video? It's pretty impressive. The guy that does their voice over still sounds like a douche, but the actual tech was pretty impressive.

I understand that we have heard wild claims like "will revolutionize [this or that industry]" many times and were disappointed (Remember the hype about the Segway?), but I feel that we are really overdue for the next giant leap in computer and/or software technology.

Clinton

Omni was mentioned earlier in this thread. For those too lazy to look it up, here's the kickstarter that was launched 2 days ago (and already way surpassed the goal).

It looks very interesting, and will perhaps provide a practical way of physically moving around to navigate a non-physical/virtual space. It'll probably take a few versions before it becomes really polished and functional, but it seems like it has great potential. If it works well, it'll be the great stepping stone between physically moving and some kind of mental hook.

(This is virtual reality rather than augmented reality, as already mentioned)

Cromfel echoed the debate that is happening out there as to whether implementations are really AR or not and how making comparisons is challenging.

Thats how you can interpret the situation if you perceive the AR from its legacy point of view. My opinion being that such question as "Is Google Glass AR or not" is simply wrong question. I would apreciate if you took the time and watch the youtube lecture. It looks long but I encourage you to watch it

In classical sense, where you can pose such questions, you see Augmented Reality in every game already. User interface is contextualized information perfect example of it is TF2 with Oculus rift and how "ARish" the UI actually is (The UI elements in such case are that of Google Glass type and fall under abstract reasoning). Take for example Battlefield 3 and start to analyze what is going on when you play. Your squad members are being overlaid with graphical indicators that are spatially correct and give you enhanced awareness (This is now concrete reasoning AR, where your spatial and temporal parts of brains are tapped into even if the name tags for example are abstract, the main added value is of the spatial reasoning). That is Augmented Reality in Virtual environment right there, in two different games representing 2 of the modalities.

This very thing allows for example me to use Virtual Reality to prototype Augmented Reality applications without developing any real technology. Thats right, for our industrial VR/AR applications we use virtual reality to prototype real systems, for example product or even virtual reality systems themselves (For example use of HMD to evaluate powerwall / cavesetups) and use of VR to prototype any kind of AR application you can imagine without bothering yet with technical development and risking that your application is not actually useful. Mind boggling? No not really. People have just technology oriented fascination and hype on AR without bothering to too much understand what is actually going on with VR and AR.

If you want to create augmented reality game, it would mean that your perception of reality is augmented with synthetic stimuli for the purpose of entertainment. Where as this stimuli would be of gaming nature. Be it solving some kind of puzzle, compete for scoring etc. I suppose you are augmenting visual perception. Now, what kind of game you want the player to experience?

Lets say you wanted to create augmented reality MUD? Google glass would be sufficient for that. You capture the basic components of what makes a good MUD and incorporate the physical presence in specific location to your gameplay. Incorporate google maps to it or whatever. And you make the action as just text based adventure. Future of LARP? Anyway, thats tapping to your abstract reasoning whereas your physical presence at specific spot gives you context. Game content is purely based on your abstract reasoning while being contextualized with concrete reasoning. No, Im not any kind of MUD expert just using it as example to widen the mindset.

Now, I suppose we stick with so called classic AR with overlaying graphical content to real world. Such as 3D objects, say monsters etc, one needs such device that have optical see through (very challenging) or video see through. Google Glass or Meta 1 and such devices will not do. They are still too primitive for the task. Say you had Oculus rift and 2 HD cameras that could provide you with video see through. Then you combine it with some tracking solution like ALVAR from VTT or Metaio pick whatever. Now you can start to overlay graphical content to your field of view s there was monsters crawling etc. Thats pure concrete reasoning right there while you are running away from the zombies that haunt you on the streets. Watch out for reality while you are at it. Dont be fooled by the nice technology demos you see like Meta1 etc. They are appealing only for the audience and not for the user itself. They use optical see through without any benefit of the see through capability. It is even counter intuitive actually due technology limitations. Its exactly same effect what allowed Johnny Lee to demonstrate head tracking. That is tapping to your concrete reasoning even when the medium is normal display. FOr the actual user the AR demos on those videos is not actually delivered. Thats still on the dreaming state.

What I want you to understand that Augmented Reality as technology will not be giving you much cues what kind of game is fun or meaningful or engaging. First of all you must envision the game and what kind of gameplay you want to achieve. Then you go and pick the relevant technology to implement it and be totally objective what you actually want to achieve with your technology. Some games could be just fine with smartphone providing you with the graphics overlay while the GPS and other sensors provide you with contextualization in case you plan to make some geo-tag game. Some games could actually use your visual sense to be overlaid in Oculus Rift kind of way so that you feel immersed by the monsters.

Thats the downside of VR & AR at large. They allow you to do everything. Yes, I mean it, everything you can imagine. But the technology will not make up the lack of meaningful content. Understand your medium. Pick your target audience and then develope a game that respects the medium and the audience. This is for example the reason why "true VR" claim of Oculus rift falls short. The wide field of view is not any more or less VR than some old z800 HMD. In given application the z800 is perfectly fine. It is not about technology when it comes to VR/AR. Sure, good tech widens your scope and gives you higher propability to succeed with your application. (DOnt get me wrong, I love rift Its awesome!)

I feel almost dirty to try make people to see the lecture and try to understand it, maybe over time it will happen. It may be all confusing at large but I promise that you will appreciate understanding these things when you actually want use AR outside of dreaming and hype scenarios, and you are trying to figure out what is exactly the added value of AR in your game.

Historical reasons are what they are and they derail a lot of attention from us, humans, and our perception of reality. Technology is the enabler for us to do all those fancy and nice tricks, but its nothing but technology that we try to harness for specific purposes. When it boils down to design of systems that deliver you ought to understand for what purpose you use what set of technologies. Its not easy for sure, been there done that, failed many times among few successful systems.

We are only starting to get slight understanding what AR actually is, no matter how many experts you see, with perfect confidence, telling you about head mounted displays and floating 3D objects etc. I make a bold claim that these people simply dont know in full widht what they are dealing with ;)

Let me try to give a shot on the AR...

Lecture - What is Augmented Reality and Why it emerged?

Augmented Reality is quite misunderstood concept IMHO. I have been involved with design and implementation of quite many different kind of VR and AR systems over the years. And I always felt uncomfortable with the technology and what emphasis people put on the tech instead of for what purpose this tech is used.

Interesting, I look forward to finding some time to watch this.

I've been involved with a number of AR projects for clients and frankly I fail to see the appeal or relevance, certainly with the current technology, but also in general. There are maybe a handful of AR or AR like projects that I've seen which actually provide some tangible benefit.

The problem I have is that so far in nearly all cases, the overall result of using AR could have been accomplished without using AR at all, the only thing that has been gained is a degree of 'coolness'. For example many AR applications or games involve overlaying 3d models into the world, or usually on top of a specific marker. This model then animates or you can move around the marker to view it from different directions etc. None of which ever needed AR to function, the same results could just as easily be achieved by displaying a model on screen and using gyroscope or accelerometer or even just traditional input methods. So I find myself asking, why bother? What is the point other than shouting hey look at how cool we are using this new technology. Which ultimately makes me feel rather sad.

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely a coolness factor to all this and it can certainly enthral and inspire people, but ultimately it just seems completely superfluous. However I wouldn't claim that AR as a technology is completely pointless, just at present the vast majority of uses of it seem to be. I'm desperately hoping this will change over time and that clients will understand the medium better to enable more interesting applications to be created.

Here is a great example of the most pointless use of AR I've seen to date. It was for some kiosk piece for Shell (a global group of energy and petrochemicals companies), where they stick an AR marker onto a turntable, so that users can rotate it whilst watching themselves on a screen and view a 3d model of a 'Gas to Liquid Plant'. Its utterly pointless in my mind because not only is the marker card superfluous (same result could easily be accomplished with a turntable and 3d accelerometer), but the final display of placing a model in front of a video of the person standing behind it is also superfluous. Sure it has a slight element of coolness to it, but the AR enhanced interactivity and the AR of combining virtual with real world leads to no tangible benefits or results.

Of course i'm making some generalisations here and part of it is definitely out of frustrating with working for clients that end up imposes artificially silly restrictions on what AR is being used (which I wouldn't be at all surprised is why the Shell AR project above turned out like it did). For example one project i'm working on has a collection of iPads to view the markers, but they are tethered, completely removing the ability to move around the markers with them!

I think there are some genuinely good uses of AR. I like the fact that it can be utilised to provide a 'understandable' means of controlling movement through a space. For example using a mobile device to view a virtual environment, where the relative position of the mobile to the AR marker controls the viewable position of the environment, allowing users to navigate through or around a space without having to use gamepads, mouse/keyboard etc. Its the simple aspect that the user is essentially holding a 'camera' into a virtual world that makes this interaction natural and understandable. I think these are the sort of elements where AR can shine.

Thats the downside of VR & AR at large. They allow you to do everything. Yes, I mean it, everything you can imagine. But the technology will not make up the lack of meaningful content.

Pretty much sums up a large amount of the AR work I've seen and been involved with. To a degree the act of using AR can give some extra depth to content, but it can't replace the need for good content and I'd go further and say it requires meaningful content that benefits from being displayed within an AR system.

We are only starting to get slight understanding what AR actually is, no matter how many experts you see, with perfect confidence, telling you about head mounted displays and floating 3D objects etc. I make a bold claim that these people simply dont know in full widht what they are dealing with ;)

Very true. I feel that everyone sort of has an instinctive knowledge or understanding of what AR is, but when you actually get down to it and start looking for more meaningful ways to utilise the technology and go beyond just adding some cool factor, this knowledge breaks down dramatically. I've seen it my own client projects where quite often I realise they are simply trying to mould a touchscreen delivery of content into AR and it just doesn't work.

As such i've started to jot down what I feel are the benefits of AR, what use cases make the most sense of the technology, where does it fail, what other interactions should it be mixed with or not, how do people interact or expect to interact with AR, AR Markers, or the display (e.g. handheld devices) etc. All in order to heopfully help guide potential future clients into developing a project that has better value than previously.

I'd love to discuss this further and to have had time to properly collated my thoughts in order to write and explain them better than I have above, but as ever i'm in a bit of crunch mode for coincidently an AR project ;) So I just wanted to put done some initial thoughts and viewpoint on the matter. Hopefully i'll be able to return to it in a week or so and after i've had time to watch the video posted.

Oh i'm also interested in the whole definition of AR as it could be as broad or as narrow as you want. As such I wonder if the term AR is a little meaningless now since at its most basic it could include anything and everything where by information is overlaid on top of a real or even virtual video stream. That's not really AR to me, its a subset, basically a HUD. However defining and naming these things can cause huge arguments, so i'm unsure how beneficial it is to bother ;)

For example many AR applications or games involve overlaying 3d models into the world, or usually on top of a specific marker. This model then animates or you can move around the marker to view it from different directions etc. None of which ever needed AR to function, the same results could just as easily be achieved by displaying a model on screen and using gyroscope or accelerometer or even just traditional input methods. So I find myself asking, why bother? What is the point other than shouting hey look at how cool we are using this new technology. Which ultimately makes me feel rather sad.

This is indeed one of the plagues haunting AR. On top of the exploitation of how camera Point Of View content shown on youtube videos of marker based tracking with some 3D object floating. This is how people would first of all like to experience things. Per the framework for concrete reasoning when the POV is correct the content looks very appealing for obvious reasons. But it is not how you experience it in reality unles you have proper HMD with video-see-through. And even then the added value is nonexistent if the product is not such as evaluating visual appearance that is of suitable scale for such visualization. And exactly as you said, this very thing could be implemented using other sensors also. Tracking is tracking and its totally detached from the AR experience if you use image based tracking or something else. This is also one of the things people dont distinguish. AR tracking using image is separate thing than using video overlay. Even if they happen to come in same package. One can use magnetic tracking for position and orientation and still use video see through just to give obvious example.

As such i've started to jot down what I feel are the benefits of AR, what use cases make the most sense of the technology, where does it fail, what other interactions should it be mixed with or not, how do people interact or expect to interact with AR, AR Markers, or the display (e.g. handheld devices) etc. All in order to heopfully help guide potential future clients into developing a project that has better value than previously.

This is what should be done more. And it is not simple task to find good way to categorize what exactly makes specific case valuable whereas exactly same application is completely useles in some other case. For me the experience of utilizing VR, as an example, boiled down to fact that the cases where it was most useful was when we had multidisciplinary group of people with various backgrounds who needed to discuss new design of machines such as mining loaders etc. So when I tried to narrow down what was causing this specific setting to be useful was the fact that the concrete experience what the drivers of such machine had was only becoming relevant when they could communicate upon the setting where they would be working. But now in controlled VR experience. Same phenomena was visible where much of the VR utilization was on the sales and most important thing in that situation was outside of the abstract reasoning and product specification, but actually to be sitting inside machine what you are going to buy. Evaluate how it would feel to be inside and do specific job task.

Now when it comes to the usual AR with floating 3D objects. The only differentiating factor was the utilization of physical world in conjunction for a specific purpose. It can be for example that the machine design is at such phase that physical cabin construct is already being built. Now only the dashboard and final button / UI screen layout is being finalized. There it is more useful to utilize the physical structure to provide somatosensory experience, some would call it haptic, and visualize through AR the alternative button layouts and screen configuration where the physical presence in the cabin helps to get feeling of space... Now from what sense point of view this is AR? Again this becomes interesting question when we get rid of the traditional AR view and not only focus on the visual feedback :)

This all will become much more clear to you when you watch the lecture video. Many of these things such as using 500 000$ haptic supermegahyperglove with your VR visualization becomes solved when you just grab a replica of the object being manipulated. My point being that model and simulate only when its necesary. NEVER when it is just because of the coolnes and due "Because I can" setting. This seems very obvious on hindsight... But not so obvious when you go and see some very expensive haptic demo being used for completely irrelevant purpose.

I'd love to discuss this further and to have had time to properly collated my thoughts in order to write and explain them better than I have above, but as ever i'm in a bit of crunch mode for coincidently an AR project ;) So I just wanted to put done some initial thoughts and viewpoint on the matter. Hopefully i'll be able to return to it in a week or so and after i've had time to watch the video posted.

I am looking forward to get some feedback on the framework. It is something I have been coining around for some years but only now got some breathing room from work to put something down in form of presentation. Not even to think about any kind of publication yet. I already see good insight in what you have been saying and much reflects the experience I have had during the years. And it always amazes me how little attention people pay to objectively analyze the situation and squeeze out what is valuable and what is just cool.

Oh i'm also interested in the whole definition of AR as it could be as broad or as narrow as you want. As such I wonder if the term AR is a little meaningless now since at its most basic it could include anything and everything where by information is overlaid on top of a real or even virtual video stream. That's not really AR to me, its a subset, basically a HUD. However defining and naming these things can cause huge arguments, so i'm unsure how beneficial it is to bother ;)

This becomes also somehow bizarre if you adopt the framework. I mean in a good way. It takes away the mystery what many people are trying to build around AR. It does not make AR irelevant, null or void. Quite opposite for me atleast. It removes a lot of unnecesary noise and brings clarity where you can focus on essential. But time will show if other people will perceive the situation in same manner.

Cromfel,

Digesting the aspects of this subject and this conversation is going to take me a little while. I twice watched the video of your lecture. Most of it I have read or heard from various sources but I have never experienced a presentation like that on the related issues. It occurred to me that many of the most popular video games utilized all of the modalities. Some games with amazing visual appeal failed to become popular because of lacking in one or more of the modalities. I agree about the evolution of AR depending on developers being conscious of the modalities and designing future AR games accordingly. The challenge of getting beyond 1st and 2nd modalities is obvious with AR.

More study in this subject is needed by me.

Thank you for your work in this area.

Clinton

There have already been many such apps for cell phones and tablets. I remember one augmented reality game that relied on GPS in your smart phone along with Google Maps to turn your city into a virtual pac-man game. You could hold it up and see the big pac-man pellets hovering over the roads you have not traveled.

There was another game that turned your city into an AR-shooter that you could play with anyone who was connected. You could see where they were on the Google Map display, and once you were close enough and along a line-of-sight on the map you could tap your phone and it would virtually shoot the other player.


Like all new technology advances, it expands the field of what can be done with games. It enables new games to be written.

New games and new technology does not threaten old games. People still clone and sell games that originated from the 1970s. The fact that people can still sell (and profit from) pong clones, asteroid clones, space invaders clones, and so on show that genres don't die as the field expands.