Is watching sport in VR worth a shot?

I don’t follow football, but I don’t see what UN and a rant about ladies in M&S has got to do with the topic.

We find all sorts of ways to enhance pleasure and will continue to do so. That is why tv was invented. Some pleasurable inventions will be more successful than others. VR is a great tool for exploration of things and sights you could not otherwise achieve easily. If it enhances a fan’s enjoyment of a game I see no problem, as long as they do not wander into the road while their mind and eyes are elsewhere.

We have a VR system and although it’s comparatively early days, yet, what it can already do is quite astonishing. I might be tempted to watch downhill skiing or ski jumping in VR, as well as Luge and Toboggan.

And what on earth is ‘UN reality’?

I think that was a misprint for ‘unreality’. I was confused at first.

There are obviously three concepts – ‘reality’, ‘virtual reality’, and ‘unreality’. But on a TV screen they are all distortions of the actuality [just look at the way the goal nets change shape when the replays are shown from different angles]. The amazing thing is that our brains can cope with this and compensate for it.

I used to work with someone who, when he wanted his view accepted, would begin “The reality is….” As he was MD he virtually always got his own way anyway. Some of his pronouncements were unreal…………………

This comment was removed at the request of the user

D’you mean brains can’t work as well as Irises and optic nerves? Not sure what the Iris has to do with anything, but the optic nerves and the brain are really extensions of each other.

Or are you saying that VR is a dreadfully bad thing? If it was I would expect the makers of such devices to be paying billions for damage caused, unless there’s some conspiracy preventing us from getting to know…

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Scarring of corneas was always a potential problem when they were reshaped. one reason I avoided it and stick with contact lenses. However there have, I believe, been many successful operations, including lens replacement, particularly good for those who had cataracts

This comment was removed at the request of the user

duncan lucas says:Today 15:52If you had read my links you would find out the effect of expanded irises while watching VR effects the brain . I am not saying its a “terrible bad thing ” …etc.

I did read your links, Duncan, but they’re three years out of date which, in an industry as fast moving as the VR industry is a lifetime. And they say nothing new. We have known for a long time that any close screen work causes blink rate to decline rather quickly, and that’s not pleasant for the eyes, causing tiredness and discomfort.

It makes sense (and the warnings are clear on this) to use the headsets for only short periods at a time. And they’re not that pleasant to use for extended periods, certainly, but they’re not demanding anything of the eyes or primary visual cortex that hasn’t been asked throughout the ages.

But the fact is that the learning potential of the VR systems – once they get a decent FOV – is almost limitless and the sheer pleasure of using a set will, one hopes, only increase.

And drawing a comparison between a potentially dangerous eye operation with only 50% success rate even now, and a completely non-invasive entertainment system such as VR shows a seriously flawed understanding of comparative risk.

I was not suggesting Optical Express were a reliable operator, duncan. Yes, I have followed those Convos.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Part of the link says ““There’s not been a lot of research done in the field and that’s the concern because it is unknown,” he said.

“Virtual reality is wonderful technology and will play a big role in our future, but the reality is that we just don’t know yet what the impact it will have on people’s eyes in the long run.”

And it’s 18 months old, Duncan, which is nowhere near as recent as we need studies to be.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

One issue is that VR sets have not been in use by the public long enough to form definitive opinions on the dangers, if indeed there are any. But meanwhile we have vast numbers of ‘experts’ willing to tell anyone who will listen of he possible dangers. Often, I imagine the same ‘experts’ who blamed children’s TV shows for the ‘moral decline’ in youngsters.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

re VR – Just like mobile phone dangers were “possible”. Proper research needs to decide when possible dangers become very possible or unlikely. Scaremongering is of no help, unless someone knows something crucial that no one else has picked up.

There has been extensive research on noise over many leading to, for example, H&S requirements.

Duncan: you cannot compare the potential (and real) dangers associated with excessive noise levels, on which a massive amount of research has been done and the dangers of which have been known for many years, with the possible effects of using VR systems, where the visual cortex is not being obviously strained and damaged the way the auditory system is by vibrations. Sound and vision work in entirely different ways; the very nature of sound is potentially damaging, since it employs rarefaction and compression in the air to produce what we know as ‘sounds’, and which are the same processes which have long been known to cause partial or total deafness. Light and vision work in utterly different ways.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I would rather go neither.

We do and I had no idea there was porn. But I think it;s only from internet sites.

For me, anyway, the most popular uses are the VR sims: deep sea diving’s one of my favourites, followed by the roller coaster sim and any flying sims. But I can only manage 20 minutes of immersion before coming up for air.

On the optics front I doubt they do anywhere near as much damage as walking around on a sunny day in mid summer, or driving into the sun.

On the lead in petrol point it’s been thought lethal for as long as I can remember, but the BBC discovered that was possibly a criminal link:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40593353

Lead was included (as tetraethyl lead) for the benefit of engines. The manufacturers were forced to improve the materials used in their engines and change the chemical composition of petrol. The lead content of petrol was reduced but what forced its removal was the introduction of three-way catalytic converters to remove benzene and other carcinogens, since any lead would render them ineffective.

Like Ian I knew that lead in petrol was harmful for many years. I think I first read about this in New Scientist when I was at school. I wonder what they have to say about VR.

Lead was included in paints many years ago. You just need to be careful when burning off or sanding down any very old paint. Old painted toys not good to chew or suck either. Arsenic was used in wallpaper in Victorian times and was responsible for sickness and death.

Interesting history of lead in petrol, with a sad ending. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40593353

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user