Yes, the company I work for has started using Hololens 2. We have a program that can overlay the 3D models from our CAD program onto the physical steel assemblies for QC. When it works, it works well and enables our quality checkers to perform checks faster and more accurately than using tape measures while going back and forth looking at a 2D drawing printed on 11 x 17 paper.
The biggest hurdles is that none of the large companies think there is enough profit to be made from AR. The Hololens 2 is the only headset on the market both capable of running the program required while also being safe to use in a active shop enviroment (VR with passthrough is not suitable). Unfortunately the Hololens 2 is almost 6 years old as is being stretched to the absolute limits of its hardware capabilities. The technology is good but feels like it is only 90% of the way to where it needs to be. Even a simple revision with double the RAM and faster more power efficient processor would alleviate many of the issues we've experienced.
Ultimately from what I've seen, AR is about making the human user better at their job and there are tons of industries where it could have many applications, but tech companies don't actually want to make things that could be directly useful to people that work with their hands, so instead we will just continue to toss more money at AI hoping to make ourselves obsolete.
The biggest issue comes from area mapping. In order to keep the hologram steady and anchored you need to perform a mapping process so that the helmet recognizes both the physical steel assembly and a bit of the surrounding area to keep it steady when moving around. The 8GB of RAM puts a limit on the amount of mapping data that can be stored putting a limit of the size of assembly you can work with, and since the mapping process relies on using the helmets own software that has not been work on in years it is extremely sensitive to any sort of background movement, which means it works best in as controlled of a environment as possible.
Right now we are just using it for special projects that are complex and have little margin for error. We'd like to be able to use it for everything but that isn't feasible with where the tech is currently stuck at.
Quick question about your use case - is the 3D overlay really that important, or would you get most of the value simply seeing the blueprints in your heads-up display, maybe doing a quick finger swipe or voice command to switch between pages/images?
Yes, the 3D overlay is the entire point. A heads up display is just looking at the blueprint on a piece of paper with an additional layer of complexity, it wouldn't remove the need to manually measure, nor would it provide any assistance in spotting missing attached pieces (or some extra pieces). Once the model is overlayed QC goes from having to measure the placement of every pieces and the location of every hole to just walking around the finished assembly and ensuring that every conforms to the civil engineer approved model. A half hour process can be done faster and more precisely in 5 minutes, you notices very quickly when there is solid steel where the hologram has a hole, or thin air where the hologram shows that a plate was suppose to be welded on.
Have you looked into OpenSplat type of post-processing? You take a bunch of pictures and then let hardware create a 3d model. It's really competent and could easily create a rectified model for measurements. To get actual values, you'd need some control points, but beyond that, a pipeline that continiously creates models could be feasible.
Then your QC guys are mostly behind computers and rotated to the floor when things are identified.
Ultimately, your VR isn't doing anything more technically accurate than this.
Very interesting, and I agree with your assessment of the difficulties using the aging HoloLens.
I am curious, what size of clients are you working with and how many contracts has it realistically turned into?
I also believe proper AR hardware/software can revolutionize the QA and inspections industry.
What I am noticing is a chicken/egg problem where companies want proof it works, while also reluctant to put their money where their mouth is and invest in the R&D. Which then leads to Microsoft and similar refusing to fully invest in new AR tech.
As such, it all stays mostly in experimental and drawing board land, never quite fully reaching the market.
We work with all of the large general contractors in the steel construction industry. Right now, it's turned into one contract, but we are the second company the client has employed since the first company they hired failed to produce a single assembly that met their requirements. The client was the one that originally was using this tech since they wanted a way to do their own QC after the first experience, and we decided it was worth while pursuing ourselves since successfully pulling this project off while be a HUGE boost to our reputation. The construction industry is all about your portfolio of past projects.
QA is the big sales point of the software we are using, but there are many other potential applications for the same product. It should be possible to overlay the model on the main assembly prefab then use that to quickly mark where holes should be drilled and additional pieces attached. The other potential application that is being explored is using the holographic overlays to construct things out of the usual order, instead of building part 1 then starting part 2 since it needs to be built to conform to the first part you can instead build around the hologram so that your not relying on the previously built parts to ensure your angles are correct.
I agree about the chicken/egg problem. Its an emerging technology where the payoff might be a decade away, customers need software that will actually benefit them, developers need reliable hardware capable of running software that has practical uses, and hardware companies want to know there is a customer base. The issue is AR falls under the category of product that the customer does not know they actually want, so the only way it is going to be developed is if one of the hardware manufactures takes a leap of faith and makes the long term investment. Sadly, I feel like AR is a million dollar idea with practical uses that has to contend with a business climate where you can make billions making some doodad that collects private data then displays ads to the masses.
An additional layer of insight to the chicken/egg problem: the developer of the software we are using was founded by someone in the construction industry, not software. I think one of the issue with the adoption of AR is that there is currently a disconnect between the people who have a problem and the people who could produce a solution. Compared to 'a solution in search of a problem', AR seems to be 'a solution that is failing to introduce itself to the problems it can solve'
There are thousands of ways companies can invest to make their employees more efficient. My guess is companies are choosing to invest in lower hanging fatter fruits.
Companies have put billions into R&D, but still haven't delivered a product that surpasses the hurdle rate.
The problem is there's no growth market, there's no easy to canibalize existing market, and the tools are not "we'll buy a new one every year".
The world in which capitalism has taken hold is not one that produces incrementally better products for niche markets.
You end up mostly with passionate people improving niche markets, and if it involves hardware, we're just at the beginning of small time custom hardware makers to make a dent into this type of market need.
I've gone down this rabbit hole with customers as a PM still working in the space. Here is what I've learned. The past decade of devices (hololens, realwear, google glass, vuzix, etc) were some combination of way too heavy, expensive, fragile, short battery life, no wifi connectivity, too much UI long to get to point of value and/or simply not useful. That and most customers had a content problem. The AR/VR use in the field typically came down to looking something up in a manual or calling someone. Both easily and perhaps more effectively done on a smartphone. There was an instance where I asked techs why they weren't using the headset for showing what they were seeing in realtime and they said, it's easier to facetime (hard to argue that). The cool AR 3-D demos or overlays rarely worked in the field on real equip or didn't actually convey anything useful (everyone knows the basics of how the machine works). There are training VR use cases (like learning to operate a crane), but once again it's a nice to have supplement and not a replacement. Recent advances with LLMs (specifically voice) + Meta type "glasses form factor" have created intrigue again with innovation centers at large companies. The use case we're currently working on is inspections or filling out forms with audio/videos.
Thanks for your comprehensive response! I've also been watching the field for a while, have done some contracting for others trying to make their own AR devices, and tipped my toes in the water making some basic prototypes myself.
>some combination of way too heavy, expensive, fragile, short battery life, no wifi connectivity, too much UI long to get to point of value and/or simply not useful
Was the screen quality, resolution, visibility in brightness, etc also one of these limiting factors? Or would you say screen quality has gotten reasonable by now?
>The AR/VR use in the field typically came down to looking something up in a manual or calling someone.
That's good to hear as someone interested in the field, I've been skeptical of the fidelity and utility of the fancy augmented 3D overlays.
Ah I see you realized something similar:
>The cool AR 3-D demos or overlays rarely worked in the field on real equip or didn't actually convey anything useful (everyone knows the basics of how the machine works).
>Both easily and perhaps more effectively done on a smartphone.
Surely there are some use cases where hands-free operation would be a game changer, but I don't know enough about potential industries where this would be the case.
>The use case we're currently working on is inspections or filling out forms with audio/videos.
That's pretty interesting, do you even need a screen, or just voice? I would think a pretty quick-and-dirty way to do it is to take pdf forms, enumerate (put small numbers) next to every editable field, and then use voice commands like, "write the following in field 3: ...." The purpose of having a screen would be to verify what the LLM + voice is inputting in the form. Then at the end you can tell it to save/submit or whatever.
My MSc project was testing VR headset with office-based employees. Even if you ignore the expense, health-risks of sharing headsets, lack of decent tools, and power requirements - you still have to contend with a large subset of people feeling sick when using VR.
I use VR for gaming. The headsets are uncomfortable after about 45 minutes, they're hot and sweaty, and they're incredibly isolating. All that's fine if you want to slay baddies while alone at home, but utterly propellant to most people.
Yes.
In the past I was working in a F500, one of the world leaders in energy services.
They introduced VR to implement remote assistance and support for very remote places (like offshore platforms, oilfield in the middle of nowhere or in risky countries).
A local operator will wear the VR and then a service engineer from HQ can drive him on diagnostic and troubleshooting. The service is immediate, as the engineer will not spend time on flight and they can save a lot of money.
They also use the platform for training, saving time for the learners and avoiding to deploying huge and complex machineries just for training.
I saw it couple of time in action, it's really impressive.
The Viture's I use as a lightweight alternative to VR headsets like the Meta Quest. I lay down on the couch/in bed and watch videos while wearing them.
The Vuzix are meant to be daily-wear glasses with a HUD, have yet to break them in.
Later this year, Google/Samsung are due big AR releases, so is Meta I think as well.
My bet is that having a physical monitor will
always be the luxury option and that XR will never be able to get away from the annoyance of having something on your face. Curious if you agree or if maybe you prefer Vitures over a physical monitor?
For me the Vision Pro is my main machine now (supported by a MacBook Pro). And I absolutely love it.
Which is saying something. My second most ergonomic situation is a 120" screen with two 55" screens tilting in from both sides (both in portrait, so all 3 screen verticals line up). All wall mounted. I started wall mounting to get screens off my desk, at which point it was clear bigger was always better.
But for the Vision it took many rounds of trying third party head gear, and customization, before I could wear it comfortably for unlimited time. I just kept trying things until I got there.
I am an obsessive optimist when it comes to ergonomics. Once the Vision is ergonomic for one's head, then it becomes a super ergonomic solution over all. The screen can be wherever you need it for best neck, back and body posture, whether at a desk, couch, (non-driving) car seat, or in bed. And a very wide screen beats any screen patchwork. Although I would like the Vision even more if I could have more than one Mac driven screen when I wanted to. (Recommend expansion batteries that clip on the original, and round magnetic USB-C cable adapters, for more spontaneous mobility.)
I like the standard Apple straps in a pinch. But my face needs a serious break from the weight they distribute on it, every 30-120 minutes.
Agreed. The AVP works so well as an external monitor. I use it a lot while traveling but I’ve found myself preferring it even at home.
Comfort during long sessions can be a challenge. While I’m fine with Apple’s dual strap, my current setup is an Anapro forehead strap and no light shield. It does leave an unsightly mark on your forehead but I find it very comfortable and I like letting my face breathe.
I settled on a CMA1 Comfort Mod, and a couple of those little plastic adapters that let me add a small sized Apple padded band on top, for super duper extra support. And no light shield.
I also have a custom foam light shield, that I made from layers of 1/4" firm craft foam. It is basically scoped goggles that wrap around the lenses, and expand out just around my eyes and sides of nose to black out all light. They are so light they don't need any support but the snug fit on the lenses.
I think that _eventually_ VR/AR will be a superior screen-viewing experience, but from what I've tried it's not there yet.
It's good enough for watching videos, but for working and reading text, I personally haven't used a device with high enough text quality to prevent eye strain.
I'm very bullish on AR though, and I'm willing to bet that consumer grade devices which are genuinely comfortable to work in will become available within the next 2-3 years.
To me, AR is the next step in Human-Computer Interaction while we wait for full BCI (Brain-Computer Interface) devices.
I find the quest 3 with virtual monitors actually pretty good from a text-reading perspective and I can use it for a long time, but that’s using a lower resolution than my native monitors. One thing I think is interesting about it is I don’t need my reading glasses, whereas I very much do when looking at a real monitor. I find the virtual display setup somewhat intolerable for other reasons, though, like the inflexibility about how the displays are arranged, and there’s the physical bit about having a bulky HMD on.
Regarding inflexibility of monitor placement, what are you using as the interface application? Virtual Desktop Streamer let's you move monitors basically anywhere that you want them.
I’m one of the founders @ resolvebim.com YCW15. We built a VR and (some) AR platform to help engineering and construction companies use HMDs in their everyday workflows to enhance their 3D BIM review workflows.
We post case studies regularly on our blog, so you can read about real world deployments there: blog.resolvebim.com
From my experience the hardware is still a hurdle simply because it doesn’t completely replace all pc based workflows right now and therefore has to be used selectively at the right moments alongside 2D monitors.
Thanks for your response, that's certainly an exciting use case, and what I'd hope AR headsets could help with in the future.
From your company's landing page, I saw the video and it looks like you're working with in-office project managers and similar white-collar types.
Do you work with any products in the field, like on the job sites? Is that something that would be interesting or valuable? Some examples: letting workers be able to quickly share first-person recorded videos of issues, first-person video chat with supervisors, ability to pull up blueprints and instructions in their heads-up displays, etc? Assuming perhaps a different platform than the Meta, as I don't think fully covered VR would be appropriate for a worksite.
Some of our clients do take the quest into the field, but we advise them about the safety hazards. There are use cases where you can use the HMD while standing still and not moving to eliminate the risk of trip hazards. You can see one of our clients doing it here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tony-duan-6085021a4_bim-resol...
You can see in that video that you can markup the site virtually and yes you can record video, leave issue markers, pull up 2D plans from other tools we integrate with like Procore, ACC, etc. However, it still is primarily a stationary tool on site because of the field of view limitations.
There are some rumors about next gen MR headsets allowing for a "full field of view" by basically removing the head gasket altogether. We'll see.
I just got a pair of TCL Rayneo air 2 display glasses since I'm farsighted and my eyes become fatigued after a day of working on a conventional monitor. The increased focal distance seems to help, but the nose piece is weirdly designed and the pressure under the pads becomes a little painful after an hour or two. Also the field of view is too wide and so the edges are blurry (hard to see clock, corner buttons in fullscreen windows, health bar in video games, etc).
Worked great to avoid eye fatigue/posture issues on airplanes though. I'm happy I have them, but in hindsight I'd have gotten a Viture or something with a better nose bridge and a narrower field of view.
I am actively looking into an Oculus 3 for a virtual desktop environment that I can use portably, such as in an Airbnb, instead of lugging around a 43" 4K monitor. I'm also looking at projectors for this purpose. The context is remote work.
I am currently traveling and for the past few weeks have been using an Oculus 3 with Immersed (https://immersed.com/). Pleasantly surprised how usable it is for 3-6 hour stretches, more productive than just a laptop screen alone. At home I'll likely return to physical monitors though.
Tips: Get an upgraded headband, silicone face cover and carrying case. Use a physical USB connection for lower latency (& turn off the wifi/bluetooth as it's no longer needed). Bring a cloth for keeping the lenses clean. Bump the Retina quality up in the Immersed client (on Mac). Lower resolutions (1920x1080) are more comfortable to use over longer periods. Use a travel neck pillow for reclined usage. Bring replacement batteries and a charger for the controllers.
Try to find a way to try various facial interfaces and head strap arrangements. The stock ones can be uncomfortable for longer-term usage on many people's faces. I don't find this to be much of an issue while playing games (I use Ace, the competition pistol shooting simulator), but it gets to me when viewing movies or reading text/code. Also, extended batteries mean you can't easily rest your head in a chair.
Not them, but I have one. I love it for movies or gaming where I can lay down and easily readjust it, but it's just no good for sitting/standing over long periods.
It's not actually the weight. I have a Quest 3 with a BoboVR head strap, external battery, etc that all add up to be heavier than the AVP, but I can easily go for multi-hour social sessions with that on without any physical discomfort. You can put a ton of weight on your head with perfect comfort as long as it's balanced properly.
The AVP's real problem is that its ergonomics are just shit. As with a bunch of other things, they designed for the ads instead of actual usability, so it's significantly worse than headsets that are actually much heavier, and the earband design with the way-too-far-back connectors and no top connections makes it nigh impossible for third parties to improve on it.
The closest thing I've seen to making it comfortable is the third-party ResMed Kontor headstrap, and that's being produced in such low numbers that it's functionally impossible to actually buy.
Thanks! I'm intrigued by the idea of being able to do serious multi-monitor computing under a tree, armed with only a small mobile device and smart glasses. Maybe in a few years!
I could see a frequent traveler using an AVP as a "full setup" on the go. In my experience, I can get away with most with a MacBook. Some projects really benefit from the extra screen real estate (and a mechanical keyboard.)
For me, the problem is that if I don't see it, it doesn't exist. Slack, server monitoring, other communications channels, they all take up real estate. My daily driver is a 43" 4K monitor. Basically 4x 24" 1080p monitors in one. It's the exact opposite of portable.
I can get any task done with my laptop. But not a full day's work. And if I want to travel while I work (which I would like to do) then I need a better solution. This is why I'm looking into VR and also a 4K projector, but a projector would have to be able to be seen in a bright environment, and I don't know what the current state of projectors is.
Its less mental strain to just lay out the windows spatially. Who doesn't like more monitor space? However, its much more physical strain than multiple monitors.
I work at a company that does CAD data translation (multiple formats into 3D PDF), and a while back we had an internal hackathon where one of the projects added basic support for VR glasses to our desktop app. It was really neat, and there was some excitement about it, but there hasn't been much follow up. I think the key issue is whether or not it adds enough value to justify buying everybody a headset, and for our use case I don't know if it does, though I'm just a lowly programmer, I don't know what the customers think about it.
We have another product that's geared towards collaborating and sharing data between teams and vendors, and it seems better suited there, but that one is a web application, and I don't know how well VR glasses are supported there.
I think it'd be awesome in the CAD applications themselves but I don't know if any of them support it out of the box.
There is at least one use case where I would want AR. I was doing some cable runs last night 30' in the air, and AR would have been very beneficial to highlight the exact path instead of spending a lot of time confirming and reconfirming with the team.
The adoption of it in various industries for training is larger than most people might suspect. First responders and retailers have some of the largest internal deployments out there, but they aren’t massively publicized (most people would never guess who’s fielding the largest fleet of headsets right now). That said, it’s still not mass adoption.
At the end of the day, you are asking someone to put something on their face that is still very different ergonomically than glasses (and I’m not sure even glasses would overcome enough friction). The ROI has to overcome the business (or personal) friction of buying the hardware, the friction of the form factor plus any friction from changed workflows.
Now put that in an operational workflow instead of training and the risks go up. Most are still skeptical of device reliability (not to say there aren’t suitable devices for operational roles but the perception is still a hurdle, and the applicability is often device-specific). Now add on to that limited experience with devices (many decision makers have never put one on), added security complications, specialized software development skills, limited content libraries and very real accessibility concerns and a lot of enterprises can never get past an “innovation center demo.”
For many industries the value proposition just isn’t there yet. But that said, I’d recommend digging a little deeper as there’s a lot of existing use-cases and deployments, both failed and successful, outside of IVAS.
This. I’ve seen businesses where sending a crew to a very remote location in the wilderness (natural resources, oil, mining, etc) is very cost prohibitive. The less time spent over there figuring out what’s up, the better. They’ll have software devs model the remote site in Unity or whatever then have the crew rehearse the task at hand in VR.
>First responders and retailers have some of the largest internal deployments out there, but they aren’t massively publicized (most people would never guess who’s fielding the largest fleet of headsets right now)
Very curious, don't leave us hanging! Assuming it's not confidential.
Worked in field installation of gas and electric meters and I went to a few conferences probably 5+ years ago where aug reality would be used to help installers complete there work. The idea is they would have basic training, but could get help from a few "expert" technicians in a central location, this could be by highlighting fault areas of the meter in the goggles. There was a lot of interest, but as far as I'm aware it hasn't gone anywhere yet.
I spent a lot of time in graduate school researching AR/VR technology (specifically regarding its utility as an accessibility tool) and learning about barriers to adoption.
In my opinion, there are three major hurdles preventing widespread adoption of this modality:
1. *Weight*: To achieve powerful computation like that of the HoloLens, you need powerful processing. The simplest solution to this is to put the processing in the device, which adds weight to it. The HoloLens 2 weighs approximately 566g (or 1.24lb), which is a LOT of weight compared to a pair of traditional glasses, which weigh approximately 20-50g. Speaking as someone who developed with the HL2 for a few years, all-day wear with the device is uncomfortable and untenable. The weight of the device HAS to be comfortable for all-day use, otherwise it hinders adoption.
2. *Battery*: Ironically, making the device smaller to accommodate all-day wear means that you're simultaneously reducing its battery life, which reduces its utility as an all-day wearable: any onboard battery must be smaller, and thus store less energy. This is a problematic trade-off: you don't want the device to weigh too much that people can't wear it, but you also don't want the device to weigh too little that it ceases to have function.
3. *Social Acceptability*: This is where I have some expertise, as it was the subject of my research. Simply put, if a wearer feels as though they stand out by wearing an XR device, they're hesitant to wear it at all when interacting with others. This means that an XR device must not be ostentatious, as the Apple Vision Pro, HoloLens, MagicLeap, and Google Glass all were.
In recent years, there have been a lot of strides in this space, but there's a long way to go.
Firstly, there is increasingly an understanding that the futuristic devices we see in sci-fi cannot be achieved with onboard computation (yet). That said, local, bidirectional, wireless streaming between a lightweight XR device (glasses) and a device with stronger processing power (a la smartphone) provides a potential weigh of offloading computation from the device itself, and simply displaying results onboard.
Secondly, Li+ battery tech continues to improve, and there are now [simple head-worn displays capable of rendering text and bitmaps](https://www.vuzix.com/products/z100-smart-glasses) with a battery life of an entire day. There is also active development work by the folks at [Mentra (YC W25)](https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/mentra) on highlighting these devices' utility, even with their limited processing power.
Lastly, with the first two developments combined, social acceptability is improving dramatically! There are lots of new head-worn displays emerging with varying levels of ability. There was the recent [Android XR keynote](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nv1snJRCEI), which shows some impressive spatial awareness, as well as the [Mentra Live](https://mentra.glass/pages/live) (an open-source Meta Raybans clone). In terms of limited displays with social acceptability, there are the [Vuzix Z100](https://www.vuzix.com/products/z100-smart-glasses), and [Even Realities G1](https://www.evenrealities.com/g1), which can display basic information (that still has a lot of utility!).
As an owner of the Vuzix Z100 and a former developer in the XR space, the progress is slow, but steady. The rapid improvements in machine learning (specifically in STT, TTS, and image understanding) indirectly improve the AR space as well.
As a bachelor thesis I created a HoloLens 1 app that communicated with Rhino3D to place waypoints for a 5 axis robot arm to cut with a plasma cutter after calculating and previewing the robot arm movements and confirming.
In my day job I occasionally hear about some AR startup doing demos for training and parts setup in CNC machines but the value add seems to be too insignificant for the work required.
Not really "hardware/engineering", but I use Apple Vision Pro for work every day, ~8h/day.
And by "for work" I mean: I use it as an extended monitor, I don't write any software related to AVP.
I just received a evenrealities smart glasses yesterday and it was very cool initially. The live translation feature feels like it’s from the future. I do also own Apple Vision Pros and haven’t worn them in a year, but this feels so much lighter and more wearable for long periods. Next up is trying to extend it with custom software
Explicitly banned by policy at my employer. Possibly due to concerns around data leaks, possibly due to not wanting to create a haves / have not situation. Policy is always enforced but rarely explained.
I use mine heavily for programming. It's a nice comfortable third monitor. I don't do anything special, it's just another monitor in Xorg with no spacial yadda yadda.
They seem to be popular among a certain subset of surgeons as a better alternative to the screens they already use for robotic instruments, but I've never seen many surgeons on HN.
We’ve developed VR based industrial safety training, as a self-contained, portable product for blue collar workers in India - launched about 24 months ago with regular updates.
Multiple companies have bought it, and we have large companies as clients who’ve used it to train 1000s of their blue-collar workers, even in sectors such as construction in a relatively challenging (in terms of pricing and value) market.
We have a significant (I think!) number of devices deployed, and most of my clients end up purchasing more after the initial purchase and pilot.
I think that’s for a few reasons:
1) VR, when well designed, can offer 1st person experience of being an accident victim due to the viewer’s own oversight / someone else’s oversight. That makes it a far more effective way to draw the learner’s attention to the importance of the safety protocols, etc.
2) Our solution is multi-lingual: it’s currently available in 10 regional Indian languages - that matters, since a significant fraction of the workforce may not understand English. Our localisation extends beyond that, but language is a big thing in enabling access and usage.
3) if you have to invest 10-15 min per learner (often one-on-one as the instructor) to onboard each learner before they can use your solution, it becomes very difficult to scale and raises the bar for cost-effectiveness. So that’s something we focus on heavily.
4) Setup time- don’t create a solution that requires IT support, someone who understands how to setup / load SteamVR / Oculus Link / meta Horizon. If the solution adds 20-30 min workload to the staff on a site, then adopting it becomes that much more painful - so we’ve worked very hard to develop an integrated system where the instructor can quickly onboard 10-15 learners and get going with the session in 5 min.
5) workflow changes: often, introducing VR means changing some part of the organisation’s workflow - many VR solutions don’t consider this / acknowledge this in their design- clients get initially excited, but when it comes to actually using it on a daily basis, the deployment and workflow frictions can completely tank VR adoption.
I’ve seen multiple solutions fail because of this, and we focus extensively on this when we design our solutions.
India is a hard market for VR, honestly because it’s very price sensitive. But I think we’ve made some progress here, because we’ve focused extensively on system robustness, ease of deployment, localization, and a lot of user-centered design.
We’ve also developed sophisticated VR - based training solutions for SOP training. VR can be / is, very effective for initial onboarding and SOP training. Again, the challenge here is usability - most of the learner’s don’t know how to use the controllers. Learning how to use the controllers is not easy and takes time. So that onboarding is critical and needs to be done well.
In SOP training, our experience is that it can, if designed well, significantly reduce on-boarding time; however, you still need the last 20% of training on the actual thing for it to stick, and for the learner to actually _learn_.
AR is much harder as a solution to deploy at scale, I think.
First off, most solutions work poorly out in day light - especially the bright Indian sun. So that automatically adds friction in terms of deployment opportunities / field deployment.
The second issue is the limited FoV: 40-45 degrees. That's a pretty small display area to play with in terms of pushing detailed information, etc.
Third, again, the usability, ruggedness and user-onboarding challenges.
So, the use case has to be important enough and significant enough that the user / organization needs to accept all these frictions and still derive enough value out of the solution - that leaves very few use cases.
Add to that, HoloLens is expensive, hasn’t seen any significant development in the past few years, and real wear type devices too aren’t cheap for large scale adoption - a smartphone / tablet in hand is often a better / more maintainable / cost effective solution even compared to real wear - I’ve seen clients securely mount a smartphone on their helmet and setup a teams call for remote viewing - it works!
Talk to an architect. (The kind that designs buildings, not software.) Last I knew a decade ago there were already early adopters from that field making daily professional use of VR. Mostly for showing clients the concept, I believe.
I worked in a firm for ~6 years and there was very little design work done in VR. It was all client presentations and some clients were very adverse to wearing the headset themselves. They wanted to watch on a monitor as a team member explored the virtual building.
I work on the other side of this industry. I make the software and hardware for doing AR/XR stuff for industry.
We haven't been able to get a contract in nearly two years. Almost all of our competition in this sector have gone bust, and my company is about to follow suit.
The answer appears to be "no". The industry at large does not have enough interest in AR/XR to sustain any sort of competitive business to provide those products.
Yes, the company I work for has started using Hololens 2. We have a program that can overlay the 3D models from our CAD program onto the physical steel assemblies for QC. When it works, it works well and enables our quality checkers to perform checks faster and more accurately than using tape measures while going back and forth looking at a 2D drawing printed on 11 x 17 paper.
The biggest hurdles is that none of the large companies think there is enough profit to be made from AR. The Hololens 2 is the only headset on the market both capable of running the program required while also being safe to use in a active shop enviroment (VR with passthrough is not suitable). Unfortunately the Hololens 2 is almost 6 years old as is being stretched to the absolute limits of its hardware capabilities. The technology is good but feels like it is only 90% of the way to where it needs to be. Even a simple revision with double the RAM and faster more power efficient processor would alleviate many of the issues we've experienced.
Ultimately from what I've seen, AR is about making the human user better at their job and there are tons of industries where it could have many applications, but tech companies don't actually want to make things that could be directly useful to people that work with their hands, so instead we will just continue to toss more money at AI hoping to make ourselves obsolete.
The biggest issue comes from area mapping. In order to keep the hologram steady and anchored you need to perform a mapping process so that the helmet recognizes both the physical steel assembly and a bit of the surrounding area to keep it steady when moving around. The 8GB of RAM puts a limit on the amount of mapping data that can be stored putting a limit of the size of assembly you can work with, and since the mapping process relies on using the helmets own software that has not been work on in years it is extremely sensitive to any sort of background movement, which means it works best in as controlled of a environment as possible.
Right now we are just using it for special projects that are complex and have little margin for error. We'd like to be able to use it for everything but that isn't feasible with where the tech is currently stuck at.
I wish I could edit CAD models (in Solidworks or similar) while in a VR environment.
Like, real work modifying sketches and dragging points around in 3D.
When VR first came out (well, around the time HTC Vive was first launched) I searched madly for something to do this but all the apps felt like toys.
Have you used something you would recommend toward this end, on the design portion of things?
Thank you very much for sharing your experience.
Quick question about your use case - is the 3D overlay really that important, or would you get most of the value simply seeing the blueprints in your heads-up display, maybe doing a quick finger swipe or voice command to switch between pages/images?
Yes, the 3D overlay is the entire point. A heads up display is just looking at the blueprint on a piece of paper with an additional layer of complexity, it wouldn't remove the need to manually measure, nor would it provide any assistance in spotting missing attached pieces (or some extra pieces). Once the model is overlayed QC goes from having to measure the placement of every pieces and the location of every hole to just walking around the finished assembly and ensuring that every conforms to the civil engineer approved model. A half hour process can be done faster and more precisely in 5 minutes, you notices very quickly when there is solid steel where the hologram has a hole, or thin air where the hologram shows that a plate was suppose to be welded on.
Have you looked into OpenSplat type of post-processing? You take a bunch of pictures and then let hardware create a 3d model. It's really competent and could easily create a rectified model for measurements. To get actual values, you'd need some control points, but beyond that, a pipeline that continiously creates models could be feasible.
Then your QC guys are mostly behind computers and rotated to the floor when things are identified.
Ultimately, your VR isn't doing anything more technically accurate than this.
Very interesting, and I agree with your assessment of the difficulties using the aging HoloLens.
I am curious, what size of clients are you working with and how many contracts has it realistically turned into?
I also believe proper AR hardware/software can revolutionize the QA and inspections industry.
What I am noticing is a chicken/egg problem where companies want proof it works, while also reluctant to put their money where their mouth is and invest in the R&D. Which then leads to Microsoft and similar refusing to fully invest in new AR tech.
As such, it all stays mostly in experimental and drawing board land, never quite fully reaching the market.
Thoughts?
We work with all of the large general contractors in the steel construction industry. Right now, it's turned into one contract, but we are the second company the client has employed since the first company they hired failed to produce a single assembly that met their requirements. The client was the one that originally was using this tech since they wanted a way to do their own QC after the first experience, and we decided it was worth while pursuing ourselves since successfully pulling this project off while be a HUGE boost to our reputation. The construction industry is all about your portfolio of past projects.
QA is the big sales point of the software we are using, but there are many other potential applications for the same product. It should be possible to overlay the model on the main assembly prefab then use that to quickly mark where holes should be drilled and additional pieces attached. The other potential application that is being explored is using the holographic overlays to construct things out of the usual order, instead of building part 1 then starting part 2 since it needs to be built to conform to the first part you can instead build around the hologram so that your not relying on the previously built parts to ensure your angles are correct.
I agree about the chicken/egg problem. Its an emerging technology where the payoff might be a decade away, customers need software that will actually benefit them, developers need reliable hardware capable of running software that has practical uses, and hardware companies want to know there is a customer base. The issue is AR falls under the category of product that the customer does not know they actually want, so the only way it is going to be developed is if one of the hardware manufactures takes a leap of faith and makes the long term investment. Sadly, I feel like AR is a million dollar idea with practical uses that has to contend with a business climate where you can make billions making some doodad that collects private data then displays ads to the masses.
An additional layer of insight to the chicken/egg problem: the developer of the software we are using was founded by someone in the construction industry, not software. I think one of the issue with the adoption of AR is that there is currently a disconnect between the people who have a problem and the people who could produce a solution. Compared to 'a solution in search of a problem', AR seems to be 'a solution that is failing to introduce itself to the problems it can solve'
There are thousands of ways companies can invest to make their employees more efficient. My guess is companies are choosing to invest in lower hanging fatter fruits.
Companies have put billions into R&D, but still haven't delivered a product that surpasses the hurdle rate.
The problem is there's no growth market, there's no easy to canibalize existing market, and the tools are not "we'll buy a new one every year".
The world in which capitalism has taken hold is not one that produces incrementally better products for niche markets.
You end up mostly with passionate people improving niche markets, and if it involves hardware, we're just at the beginning of small time custom hardware makers to make a dent into this type of market need.
I've gone down this rabbit hole with customers as a PM still working in the space. Here is what I've learned. The past decade of devices (hololens, realwear, google glass, vuzix, etc) were some combination of way too heavy, expensive, fragile, short battery life, no wifi connectivity, too much UI long to get to point of value and/or simply not useful. That and most customers had a content problem. The AR/VR use in the field typically came down to looking something up in a manual or calling someone. Both easily and perhaps more effectively done on a smartphone. There was an instance where I asked techs why they weren't using the headset for showing what they were seeing in realtime and they said, it's easier to facetime (hard to argue that). The cool AR 3-D demos or overlays rarely worked in the field on real equip or didn't actually convey anything useful (everyone knows the basics of how the machine works). There are training VR use cases (like learning to operate a crane), but once again it's a nice to have supplement and not a replacement. Recent advances with LLMs (specifically voice) + Meta type "glasses form factor" have created intrigue again with innovation centers at large companies. The use case we're currently working on is inspections or filling out forms with audio/videos.
Thanks for your comprehensive response! I've also been watching the field for a while, have done some contracting for others trying to make their own AR devices, and tipped my toes in the water making some basic prototypes myself.
>some combination of way too heavy, expensive, fragile, short battery life, no wifi connectivity, too much UI long to get to point of value and/or simply not useful
Was the screen quality, resolution, visibility in brightness, etc also one of these limiting factors? Or would you say screen quality has gotten reasonable by now?
>The AR/VR use in the field typically came down to looking something up in a manual or calling someone.
That's good to hear as someone interested in the field, I've been skeptical of the fidelity and utility of the fancy augmented 3D overlays.
Ah I see you realized something similar: >The cool AR 3-D demos or overlays rarely worked in the field on real equip or didn't actually convey anything useful (everyone knows the basics of how the machine works).
>Both easily and perhaps more effectively done on a smartphone.
Surely there are some use cases where hands-free operation would be a game changer, but I don't know enough about potential industries where this would be the case.
>The use case we're currently working on is inspections or filling out forms with audio/videos.
That's pretty interesting, do you even need a screen, or just voice? I would think a pretty quick-and-dirty way to do it is to take pdf forms, enumerate (put small numbers) next to every editable field, and then use voice commands like, "write the following in field 3: ...." The purpose of having a screen would be to verify what the LLM + voice is inputting in the form. Then at the end you can tell it to save/submit or whatever.
My MSc project was testing VR headset with office-based employees. Even if you ignore the expense, health-risks of sharing headsets, lack of decent tools, and power requirements - you still have to contend with a large subset of people feeling sick when using VR.
I use VR for gaming. The headsets are uncomfortable after about 45 minutes, they're hot and sweaty, and they're incredibly isolating. All that's fine if you want to slay baddies while alone at home, but utterly propellant to most people.
Yes. In the past I was working in a F500, one of the world leaders in energy services. They introduced VR to implement remote assistance and support for very remote places (like offshore platforms, oilfield in the middle of nowhere or in risky countries). A local operator will wear the VR and then a service engineer from HQ can drive him on diagnostic and troubleshooting. The service is immediate, as the engineer will not spend time on flight and they can save a lot of money. They also use the platform for training, saving time for the learners and avoiding to deploying huge and complex machineries just for training.
I saw it couple of time in action, it's really impressive.
I own two AR devices:
- Viture Pro XR glasses
- Vuzix Z100 glasses (through Mentra)
The Viture's I use as a lightweight alternative to VR headsets like the Meta Quest. I lay down on the couch/in bed and watch videos while wearing them.
The Vuzix are meant to be daily-wear glasses with a HUD, have yet to break them in.
Later this year, Google/Samsung are due big AR releases, so is Meta I think as well.
It'll be the debut of Android XR.
My bet is that having a physical monitor will always be the luxury option and that XR will never be able to get away from the annoyance of having something on your face. Curious if you agree or if maybe you prefer Vitures over a physical monitor?
For me the Vision Pro is my main machine now (supported by a MacBook Pro). And I absolutely love it.
Which is saying something. My second most ergonomic situation is a 120" screen with two 55" screens tilting in from both sides (both in portrait, so all 3 screen verticals line up). All wall mounted. I started wall mounting to get screens off my desk, at which point it was clear bigger was always better.
But for the Vision it took many rounds of trying third party head gear, and customization, before I could wear it comfortably for unlimited time. I just kept trying things until I got there.
I am an obsessive optimist when it comes to ergonomics. Once the Vision is ergonomic for one's head, then it becomes a super ergonomic solution over all. The screen can be wherever you need it for best neck, back and body posture, whether at a desk, couch, (non-driving) car seat, or in bed. And a very wide screen beats any screen patchwork. Although I would like the Vision even more if I could have more than one Mac driven screen when I wanted to. (Recommend expansion batteries that clip on the original, and round magnetic USB-C cable adapters, for more spontaneous mobility.)
I like the standard Apple straps in a pinch. But my face needs a serious break from the weight they distribute on it, every 30-120 minutes.
Agreed. The AVP works so well as an external monitor. I use it a lot while traveling but I’ve found myself preferring it even at home. Comfort during long sessions can be a challenge. While I’m fine with Apple’s dual strap, my current setup is an Anapro forehead strap and no light shield. It does leave an unsightly mark on your forehead but I find it very comfortable and I like letting my face breathe.
Sounds good.
I settled on a CMA1 Comfort Mod, and a couple of those little plastic adapters that let me add a small sized Apple padded band on top, for super duper extra support. And no light shield.
I also have a custom foam light shield, that I made from layers of 1/4" firm craft foam. It is basically scoped goggles that wrap around the lenses, and expand out just around my eyes and sides of nose to black out all light. They are so light they don't need any support but the snug fit on the lenses.
I think that _eventually_ VR/AR will be a superior screen-viewing experience, but from what I've tried it's not there yet.
It's good enough for watching videos, but for working and reading text, I personally haven't used a device with high enough text quality to prevent eye strain.
I'm very bullish on AR though, and I'm willing to bet that consumer grade devices which are genuinely comfortable to work in will become available within the next 2-3 years.
To me, AR is the next step in Human-Computer Interaction while we wait for full BCI (Brain-Computer Interface) devices.
Yea I guess my thought is even if they were light as a single feather they'd still tickle and annoy your face..
Happy to be proven wrong obviously but so far that's my outlook.
I find the quest 3 with virtual monitors actually pretty good from a text-reading perspective and I can use it for a long time, but that’s using a lower resolution than my native monitors. One thing I think is interesting about it is I don’t need my reading glasses, whereas I very much do when looking at a real monitor. I find the virtual display setup somewhat intolerable for other reasons, though, like the inflexibility about how the displays are arranged, and there’s the physical bit about having a bulky HMD on.
Regarding inflexibility of monitor placement, what are you using as the interface application? Virtual Desktop Streamer let's you move monitors basically anywhere that you want them.
I’m one of the founders @ resolvebim.com YCW15. We built a VR and (some) AR platform to help engineering and construction companies use HMDs in their everyday workflows to enhance their 3D BIM review workflows.
We post case studies regularly on our blog, so you can read about real world deployments there: blog.resolvebim.com
From my experience the hardware is still a hurdle simply because it doesn’t completely replace all pc based workflows right now and therefore has to be used selectively at the right moments alongside 2D monitors.
Thanks for your response, that's certainly an exciting use case, and what I'd hope AR headsets could help with in the future.
From your company's landing page, I saw the video and it looks like you're working with in-office project managers and similar white-collar types.
Do you work with any products in the field, like on the job sites? Is that something that would be interesting or valuable? Some examples: letting workers be able to quickly share first-person recorded videos of issues, first-person video chat with supervisors, ability to pull up blueprints and instructions in their heads-up displays, etc? Assuming perhaps a different platform than the Meta, as I don't think fully covered VR would be appropriate for a worksite.
Some of our clients do take the quest into the field, but we advise them about the safety hazards. There are use cases where you can use the HMD while standing still and not moving to eliminate the risk of trip hazards. You can see one of our clients doing it here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tony-duan-6085021a4_bim-resol...
You can see in that video that you can markup the site virtually and yes you can record video, leave issue markers, pull up 2D plans from other tools we integrate with like Procore, ACC, etc. However, it still is primarily a stationary tool on site because of the field of view limitations.
There are some rumors about next gen MR headsets allowing for a "full field of view" by basically removing the head gasket altogether. We'll see.
I just got a pair of TCL Rayneo air 2 display glasses since I'm farsighted and my eyes become fatigued after a day of working on a conventional monitor. The increased focal distance seems to help, but the nose piece is weirdly designed and the pressure under the pads becomes a little painful after an hour or two. Also the field of view is too wide and so the edges are blurry (hard to see clock, corner buttons in fullscreen windows, health bar in video games, etc).
Worked great to avoid eye fatigue/posture issues on airplanes though. I'm happy I have them, but in hindsight I'd have gotten a Viture or something with a better nose bridge and a narrower field of view.
Viture still might be worth it for you, the built-in diopter adjustments might be enough depending on your vision.
They are used for training, personally developing something intended for firefighters.
Hurdles? Battery life, proper hardening against dust/water.
Have you seen the immersive environments by IglooVision ?
Its the opposite- surround projection, so you can put a group in a room into a scenario.
I am actively looking into an Oculus 3 for a virtual desktop environment that I can use portably, such as in an Airbnb, instead of lugging around a 43" 4K monitor. I'm also looking at projectors for this purpose. The context is remote work.
I am currently traveling and for the past few weeks have been using an Oculus 3 with Immersed (https://immersed.com/). Pleasantly surprised how usable it is for 3-6 hour stretches, more productive than just a laptop screen alone. At home I'll likely return to physical monitors though.
Tips: Get an upgraded headband, silicone face cover and carrying case. Use a physical USB connection for lower latency (& turn off the wifi/bluetooth as it's no longer needed). Bring a cloth for keeping the lenses clean. Bump the Retina quality up in the Immersed client (on Mac). Lower resolutions (1920x1080) are more comfortable to use over longer periods. Use a travel neck pillow for reclined usage. Bring replacement batteries and a charger for the controllers.
I am 2 months into having a Quest 3 and I absolutely love it but the resolution feels like it is probably 2 generations away still.
I am sure it is better than any CRT monitor I use to work on all day but my standards are just so much higher with how good monitors are.
I think if you got use to working on it though, you could manage no problem.
Try to find a way to try various facial interfaces and head strap arrangements. The stock ones can be uncomfortable for longer-term usage on many people's faces. I don't find this to be much of an issue while playing games (I use Ace, the competition pistol shooting simulator), but it gets to me when viewing movies or reading text/code. Also, extended batteries mean you can't easily rest your head in a chair.
This is the only use case I have for the Apple Vision Pro, and it works quite well for that, paired with my 16" M3 Macbook Pro.
- How is reading text for long periods?
- Does your neck get tired?
- Do you ever have to be on video calls? I can't talk to clients looking like a spaceman
Not them, but I have one. I love it for movies or gaming where I can lay down and easily readjust it, but it's just no good for sitting/standing over long periods.
It's not actually the weight. I have a Quest 3 with a BoboVR head strap, external battery, etc that all add up to be heavier than the AVP, but I can easily go for multi-hour social sessions with that on without any physical discomfort. You can put a ton of weight on your head with perfect comfort as long as it's balanced properly.
The AVP's real problem is that its ergonomics are just shit. As with a bunch of other things, they designed for the ads instead of actual usability, so it's significantly worse than headsets that are actually much heavier, and the earband design with the way-too-far-back connectors and no top connections makes it nigh impossible for third parties to improve on it.
The closest thing I've seen to making it comfortable is the third-party ResMed Kontor headstrap, and that's being produced in such low numbers that it's functionally impossible to actually buy.
Thanks! I'm intrigued by the idea of being able to do serious multi-monitor computing under a tree, armed with only a small mobile device and smart glasses. Maybe in a few years!
I would search for lighter options if you intend to use it for long periods of time or get a better head strap.
Saw some good reviews of the Viture Pro XR for this use case.
That's actually a great idea. Don't need multiple screens if you can just use AR/VR.
I think alt-tabbing or virtual desktops has less mental overhead and physical strain than using VR though.
This is a good point. I thought about it, too.
I could see a frequent traveler using an AVP as a "full setup" on the go. In my experience, I can get away with most with a MacBook. Some projects really benefit from the extra screen real estate (and a mechanical keyboard.)
For me, the problem is that if I don't see it, it doesn't exist. Slack, server monitoring, other communications channels, they all take up real estate. My daily driver is a 43" 4K monitor. Basically 4x 24" 1080p monitors in one. It's the exact opposite of portable.
I can get any task done with my laptop. But not a full day's work. And if I want to travel while I work (which I would like to do) then I need a better solution. This is why I'm looking into VR and also a 4K projector, but a projector would have to be able to be seen in a bright environment, and I don't know what the current state of projectors is.
Look up laser projectors. Random article: https://www.hisense-usa.com/post/laser-light-projectors-vs-l...
Looks like 3k lumens is your maximum. https://www.google.com/search?q=3000+lumen+projector+in+dayl...
Its less mental strain to just lay out the windows spatially. Who doesn't like more monitor space? However, its much more physical strain than multiple monitors.
I work at a company that does CAD data translation (multiple formats into 3D PDF), and a while back we had an internal hackathon where one of the projects added basic support for VR glasses to our desktop app. It was really neat, and there was some excitement about it, but there hasn't been much follow up. I think the key issue is whether or not it adds enough value to justify buying everybody a headset, and for our use case I don't know if it does, though I'm just a lowly programmer, I don't know what the customers think about it.
We have another product that's geared towards collaborating and sharing data between teams and vendors, and it seems better suited there, but that one is a web application, and I don't know how well VR glasses are supported there.
I think it'd be awesome in the CAD applications themselves but I don't know if any of them support it out of the box.
Equinor (Norway, Oil industry) uses hololens.
https://loop.equinor.com/en/stories/shaping-the-future-with-...
https://loop.equinor.com/en/stories/developers-trip-johan-sv...
There is at least one use case where I would want AR. I was doing some cable runs last night 30' in the air, and AR would have been very beneficial to highlight the exact path instead of spending a lot of time confirming and reconfirming with the team.
The adoption of it in various industries for training is larger than most people might suspect. First responders and retailers have some of the largest internal deployments out there, but they aren’t massively publicized (most people would never guess who’s fielding the largest fleet of headsets right now). That said, it’s still not mass adoption.
At the end of the day, you are asking someone to put something on their face that is still very different ergonomically than glasses (and I’m not sure even glasses would overcome enough friction). The ROI has to overcome the business (or personal) friction of buying the hardware, the friction of the form factor plus any friction from changed workflows.
Now put that in an operational workflow instead of training and the risks go up. Most are still skeptical of device reliability (not to say there aren’t suitable devices for operational roles but the perception is still a hurdle, and the applicability is often device-specific). Now add on to that limited experience with devices (many decision makers have never put one on), added security complications, specialized software development skills, limited content libraries and very real accessibility concerns and a lot of enterprises can never get past an “innovation center demo.”
For many industries the value proposition just isn’t there yet. But that said, I’d recommend digging a little deeper as there’s a lot of existing use-cases and deployments, both failed and successful, outside of IVAS.
This. I’ve seen businesses where sending a crew to a very remote location in the wilderness (natural resources, oil, mining, etc) is very cost prohibitive. The less time spent over there figuring out what’s up, the better. They’ll have software devs model the remote site in Unity or whatever then have the crew rehearse the task at hand in VR.
>First responders and retailers have some of the largest internal deployments out there, but they aren’t massively publicized (most people would never guess who’s fielding the largest fleet of headsets right now)
Very curious, don't leave us hanging! Assuming it's not confidential.
There was a recent Nvidia video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2NijXqBESI) that showcases some of the robotics problems Nvidia is working on.
They use the Apple Vision Pro headset fairly significantly in human interaction and data gathering that they then utilize for simulations.
Worked in field installation of gas and electric meters and I went to a few conferences probably 5+ years ago where aug reality would be used to help installers complete there work. The idea is they would have basic training, but could get help from a few "expert" technicians in a central location, this could be by highlighting fault areas of the meter in the goggles. There was a lot of interest, but as far as I'm aware it hasn't gone anywhere yet.
Hello!
I spent a lot of time in graduate school researching AR/VR technology (specifically regarding its utility as an accessibility tool) and learning about barriers to adoption.
In my opinion, there are three major hurdles preventing widespread adoption of this modality:
1. *Weight*: To achieve powerful computation like that of the HoloLens, you need powerful processing. The simplest solution to this is to put the processing in the device, which adds weight to it. The HoloLens 2 weighs approximately 566g (or 1.24lb), which is a LOT of weight compared to a pair of traditional glasses, which weigh approximately 20-50g. Speaking as someone who developed with the HL2 for a few years, all-day wear with the device is uncomfortable and untenable. The weight of the device HAS to be comfortable for all-day use, otherwise it hinders adoption.
2. *Battery*: Ironically, making the device smaller to accommodate all-day wear means that you're simultaneously reducing its battery life, which reduces its utility as an all-day wearable: any onboard battery must be smaller, and thus store less energy. This is a problematic trade-off: you don't want the device to weigh too much that people can't wear it, but you also don't want the device to weigh too little that it ceases to have function.
3. *Social Acceptability*: This is where I have some expertise, as it was the subject of my research. Simply put, if a wearer feels as though they stand out by wearing an XR device, they're hesitant to wear it at all when interacting with others. This means that an XR device must not be ostentatious, as the Apple Vision Pro, HoloLens, MagicLeap, and Google Glass all were.
In recent years, there have been a lot of strides in this space, but there's a long way to go.
Firstly, there is increasingly an understanding that the futuristic devices we see in sci-fi cannot be achieved with onboard computation (yet). That said, local, bidirectional, wireless streaming between a lightweight XR device (glasses) and a device with stronger processing power (a la smartphone) provides a potential weigh of offloading computation from the device itself, and simply displaying results onboard.
Secondly, Li+ battery tech continues to improve, and there are now [simple head-worn displays capable of rendering text and bitmaps](https://www.vuzix.com/products/z100-smart-glasses) with a battery life of an entire day. There is also active development work by the folks at [Mentra (YC W25)](https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/mentra) on highlighting these devices' utility, even with their limited processing power.
Lastly, with the first two developments combined, social acceptability is improving dramatically! There are lots of new head-worn displays emerging with varying levels of ability. There was the recent [Android XR keynote](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nv1snJRCEI), which shows some impressive spatial awareness, as well as the [Mentra Live](https://mentra.glass/pages/live) (an open-source Meta Raybans clone). In terms of limited displays with social acceptability, there are the [Vuzix Z100](https://www.vuzix.com/products/z100-smart-glasses), and [Even Realities G1](https://www.evenrealities.com/g1), which can display basic information (that still has a lot of utility!).
As an owner of the Vuzix Z100 and a former developer in the XR space, the progress is slow, but steady. The rapid improvements in machine learning (specifically in STT, TTS, and image understanding) indirectly improve the AR space as well.
But why not some sort of hip-clip and cable for battery, or some sort of laser-tag vest with a Mac mini on the front and a battery on the back?
I mean- even the Sony Walkman started with audio streaming from a hip-mounted computer/power device, especially for work/industrial usage?
As a bachelor thesis I created a HoloLens 1 app that communicated with Rhino3D to place waypoints for a 5 axis robot arm to cut with a plasma cutter after calculating and previewing the robot arm movements and confirming.
In my day job I occasionally hear about some AR startup doing demos for training and parts setup in CNC machines but the value add seems to be too insignificant for the work required.
Not really "hardware/engineering", but I use Apple Vision Pro for work every day, ~8h/day. And by "for work" I mean: I use it as an extended monitor, I don't write any software related to AVP.
> work every day, ~8h/day
This is fascinating. What are your most used features?
> extended monitor
Do you also use a real monitor in the field of view?
Pretty impressive to last that long in the AR environment, must be comfortable enough and not bad eye fatigue
The screens on the AVP really are impressively clear. I've never noticed any eye fatigue.
That said, that might be because the thing that always stops me first is how front-heavy the damn thing is. I do wonder how GP deals with that.
I just received a evenrealities smart glasses yesterday and it was very cool initially. The live translation feature feels like it’s from the future. I do also own Apple Vision Pros and haven’t worn them in a year, but this feels so much lighter and more wearable for long periods. Next up is trying to extend it with custom software
What do you use them for specifically? Or are you more of a curious early adopter
Explicitly banned by policy at my employer. Possibly due to concerns around data leaks, possibly due to not wanting to create a haves / have not situation. Policy is always enforced but rarely explained.
Anyone want to buy a barely used Meta Quest Pro? I don't have a use for it.
VR is the zombie category that comes around every 10 years. All that's missing is another Lawnmower Man sequel.
I use mine heavily for programming. It's a nice comfortable third monitor. I don't do anything special, it's just another monitor in Xorg with no spacial yadda yadda.
Wow no one at all with a Vision Pro?
They seem to be popular among a certain subset of surgeons as a better alternative to the screens they already use for robotic instruments, but I've never seen many surgeons on HN.
We’ve developed VR based industrial safety training, as a self-contained, portable product for blue collar workers in India - launched about 24 months ago with regular updates.
Multiple companies have bought it, and we have large companies as clients who’ve used it to train 1000s of their blue-collar workers, even in sectors such as construction in a relatively challenging (in terms of pricing and value) market.
We have a significant (I think!) number of devices deployed, and most of my clients end up purchasing more after the initial purchase and pilot.
I think that’s for a few reasons:
1) VR, when well designed, can offer 1st person experience of being an accident victim due to the viewer’s own oversight / someone else’s oversight. That makes it a far more effective way to draw the learner’s attention to the importance of the safety protocols, etc.
2) Our solution is multi-lingual: it’s currently available in 10 regional Indian languages - that matters, since a significant fraction of the workforce may not understand English. Our localisation extends beyond that, but language is a big thing in enabling access and usage.
3) if you have to invest 10-15 min per learner (often one-on-one as the instructor) to onboard each learner before they can use your solution, it becomes very difficult to scale and raises the bar for cost-effectiveness. So that’s something we focus on heavily.
4) Setup time- don’t create a solution that requires IT support, someone who understands how to setup / load SteamVR / Oculus Link / meta Horizon. If the solution adds 20-30 min workload to the staff on a site, then adopting it becomes that much more painful - so we’ve worked very hard to develop an integrated system where the instructor can quickly onboard 10-15 learners and get going with the session in 5 min.
5) workflow changes: often, introducing VR means changing some part of the organisation’s workflow - many VR solutions don’t consider this / acknowledge this in their design- clients get initially excited, but when it comes to actually using it on a daily basis, the deployment and workflow frictions can completely tank VR adoption.
I’ve seen multiple solutions fail because of this, and we focus extensively on this when we design our solutions.
India is a hard market for VR, honestly because it’s very price sensitive. But I think we’ve made some progress here, because we’ve focused extensively on system robustness, ease of deployment, localization, and a lot of user-centered design.
We’ve also developed sophisticated VR - based training solutions for SOP training. VR can be / is, very effective for initial onboarding and SOP training. Again, the challenge here is usability - most of the learner’s don’t know how to use the controllers. Learning how to use the controllers is not easy and takes time. So that onboarding is critical and needs to be done well.
In SOP training, our experience is that it can, if designed well, significantly reduce on-boarding time; however, you still need the last 20% of training on the actual thing for it to stick, and for the learner to actually _learn_.
Edit: formatting and word choice
AR is much harder as a solution to deploy at scale, I think.
First off, most solutions work poorly out in day light - especially the bright Indian sun. So that automatically adds friction in terms of deployment opportunities / field deployment.
The second issue is the limited FoV: 40-45 degrees. That's a pretty small display area to play with in terms of pushing detailed information, etc.
Third, again, the usability, ruggedness and user-onboarding challenges.
So, the use case has to be important enough and significant enough that the user / organization needs to accept all these frictions and still derive enough value out of the solution - that leaves very few use cases.
Add to that, HoloLens is expensive, hasn’t seen any significant development in the past few years, and real wear type devices too aren’t cheap for large scale adoption - a smartphone / tablet in hand is often a better / more maintainable / cost effective solution even compared to real wear - I’ve seen clients securely mount a smartphone on their helmet and setup a teams call for remote viewing - it works!
Talk to an architect. (The kind that designs buildings, not software.) Last I knew a decade ago there were already early adopters from that field making daily professional use of VR. Mostly for showing clients the concept, I believe.
I worked in a firm for ~6 years and there was very little design work done in VR. It was all client presentations and some clients were very adverse to wearing the headset themselves. They wanted to watch on a monitor as a team member explored the virtual building.
Well, someone near to my heart works in architecture and a LOT of clients want the VR experience and full control.
So ymmv
Totally, to me it definitely seemed generational
I work on the other side of this industry. I make the software and hardware for doing AR/XR stuff for industry.
We haven't been able to get a contract in nearly two years. Almost all of our competition in this sector have gone bust, and my company is about to follow suit.
The answer appears to be "no". The industry at large does not have enough interest in AR/XR to sustain any sort of competitive business to provide those products.
look up the ptc demos
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
The problem for VR isn’t lack of applications, it’s that Paul Graham doesn’t invest in games.
He wouldn’t invest in Palantir either.
Convince the best seed fund in the world that it has a blind spot, maybe some risks will yield something great.