Myths and Truths of AR and VR

I was recently talking to someone who asked me what important AR/VR concepts should be conveyed to business students. One of my thoughts is that there is a fair amount of misinformation out there that I would want to clarify what's true and what's false, thus I did this post of "Myths and Truths of AR and VR".

Business and Application

Truth: there is excitement and good funding opportunities in AR/VR from the investment community (e.g. Magic Leap, Meta) and within some large companies (e.g. Microsoft, Google, Intel, etc.). There are also decent activities in AR/VR acquisitions (e.g. Oculus Rift, Metaio, Recon Instruments, etc.). Myth: the above truth means there are many companies who have generated big revenues due to AR/VR. Actually, there has not been much evidence of this, yet.

Truth: AR/VR is quite effective for games and entertainment. Myth: AR/VR is only good for games and entertainment. Though it is true that AR/VR has focused a lot on games and entertainment, both AR/VR have some interesting use-cases in simulations, real-estate and advertising, etc. AR has also received some attention in industrial applications such as MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) of equipment.

Truth: AR/VR share some common use cases. Myth: anything that works well in one reality works just as well in the other reality. It is often not true. VR is perfect when a totally artificial world (e.g. you’re in space!) is being viewed – AR cannot do this well because it relies on the live world as part of the context. On the other hand, AR is great when it provides context to the live world, such as the MRO of equipment, because it walks you through the procedures in context to the live equipment.

Viewing/display devices

Truth: articles on AR/VR are generically represented by VR goggles and AR glasses as the viewing/display devices, such as the image above.  Myth: the above suggests VR goggles and AR glasses are the end-all and be-all. It may be the most commonly discussed, but not the only appropriate choices. For VR, there are alternatives, such as: 1) CAVE environment, with immersive, wall-sized displays surrounding the user; 2) Projective technologies, which allows an alternate reality projected onto any shape; 3) ZSPACE, which provides polarized lenses for stereoscopic display. For AR, there are alternatives: 1) VR goggles and the smartphone camera, to show monocular AR; 2) Tablets are still ideal for many use cases – e.g. Pokémon GO; 3) Contact lenses for display.

Truth: AR glasses are expensive, and it can get into the hundreds or thousands. VR goggles are less expensive, but still usually in the hundreds. Myth: the really cheap VR goggles (less than $25) can’t be any good. Actually, having tried a few (Google cardboard, Emio Infinivision), they are decent enough for the user to appreciate most VR experiences, capabilities and concepts.

Truth: you have to remove your own glasses before putting on most VR goggles or AR glasses. As a result, your AR/VR experiences tend to be fuzzy (not focused). Myth: all VR goggles and AR glasses require that you remove your own glasses. This is not true, because I have tried Hololens (AR) with my glasses on, and it worked fine; I was also fine with Wearality Sky glasses (VR) without having to take off my own glasses; I was pleasantly surprised when ZSPACE had clip-ons for my glasses. It is not unclear if this might be a selling point for these vendors, but it is important to someone who needs glasses to see well.

Maneuvering and Spaces

Truth: maneuvering in 3D space is difficult because it’s traditionally done on a 2D screen (e.g. laptop). Myth: maneuvering freely in 3D space with AR/VR becomes simple. Actually, it is difficult to point at, touch, or perform measurements on the digital object, because there is usually no haptic feedback to confirm you’re there. Similarly, with freeform 3-space, you cannot do accurate, detailed work (without the proper constraints as in the live world), such as drawing – for example, if you tried very hard to draw a rectangle freehand, you will soon realize you just drew a curved rectangle when viewed from a side angle. This is because, in the live world, you would draw a rectangle on a desk, which constrains you to draw the straight lines.

Truth: all the VR goggles and AR glasses are meant to be mobile. Myth: AR/VR demos must be trivially mobile as a result. Not always true, and in some cases, a big VR demo problem is that it may require some open space for the VR experience, otherwise, trying the VR demo will be very dangerous, knocking over stuff or bumping into walls. A big AR demo problem is likely that the subject matter you want to demo against is not where you currently are, so you can’t really demo it – for example, we needed to demo an AR app against a big and heavy P-100 water pump, which is not something I can easily carry into a client site.

Truth: because you are totally blocked out of reality, there are dangers of VR with user movement, where you can knock over things or crash into a wall. Myth: there is no danger with AR glasses because you are not blocked out of reality – there is only partial occlusion. Even with partial occlusion, you can be misled into thinking the situation is safe when it is not.

Related technologies

Truth: shadow computations are simple to do in VR – it’s just a rendering capability that any self-respecting platform would have. Myth: shadow computations are simple to do in AR. It is much more complex – to prepare it for rendering, it needs the complete 3D digital data from the live scene, needs to identify the live light sources and properties of the light sources (lights that cast the shadows), and some modified algorithms to render shadows on the live vs. augmented objects. 

Truth: in certain immersive AR applications (sometimes called mixed reality), there is a need to extract 3D digital data from live objects, to do proper tracking, synchronization or account for object occlusions (even shadows). There are multiple tools to do this, such as the sensors embedded within Hololens, or separate add-ons such as Occipital, etc. Myth: these tools are always dependable to extract good-enough 3D digital data from the live objects. In fact, there are many limitations to be aware of that can generate bad 3D digital data, due to: black objects, semi-transparent objects, mirror-reflective objects, and in some cases, shiny (highly specular) objects.

Truth: holograms are a wonderful technology. Myth: most mentions of holograms within the context of AR is truly a hologram. It most certainly is not – most are traditional 3D rendering of objects on see-through displays and/or mirror-reflections. For example, check out this video, where it looks like a hologram at the start of the video, but soon the trick is revealed, using the mirror-reflections rendered from the smartphone onto the transparent pyramid.

What is your AR/VR myth and truth?

In this post, I have listed some misinformation that I can immediately recall. It is important for the business student to understand both the business and technical myths and truths, so they have better information to make business decisions regarding an exciting field. Would love to hear from you on some AR/VR misinformation you have encountered (including stuff you disagree with in this post).