You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Jeremy Bailenson jumps into the violence in video games debate arguing * VR is the ultimate training platform * VR FPS games can train mass shooters * Therefore game devs should use curved bullet physics (not line-of-sight), non-skeuomorphic reload mechanics, & non-human targetshttps://twitter.com/StanfordVR/status/970699391026708480 …
I don't even know where to start in terms of addressing this piece. It's super bizarre, and seems to be totally ignorant to how poor of a training platform consumer VR games are for RL shooting, and that neeearly all of the ways they _are_ effective don't require a realistic gun.
Even the best VR experiences that use mock firearms with pneumatic recoil systems, the expensive shit the military purchases, are largely for operational/team/communication/evaluation training, not for marksmanship/weapon usage.
Further, the suggestions to try to... interrupt the verisimilitude of simulated interaction are kind of missing the point. The interface, even in a platonic form, is massively abstracted from the real thing. Everything from optics to focal plane, weight, pose, etc.
As the creator of the most accurate _by far_ representation of VR firearms in the consumer space, I think the level of kinesthetic similarity between the very best representation and a real gun is comically overstated. Airsoft/paintball are orders of magnitude closer.
But do you see that gap closing with peripherals like VRsenal's VR-15, which replicates some of the recoil and haptics of an AR-15? It seems like we're moving towards symbolic representations that are indistinguishable to reality at an unconscious & embodied level (not visually).
It doesn't replicate the two most important properties of a gun by _far_. >140db Sound Pressures (and the explosion near your head that causes them), and the focal behavior of an actual sight/scope/etc. We are a decade from being able to do the latter in real time due to perf.
In the same way that even firing an airsoft gas gun doesn't prepare you for dealing with the real thing. Even the 'ar-15 equivalent recoil' guns are at best hand-wavily so. I've tried them. They still feel like a linear driver inside a toy mockup.
What I mean to say is... anyone who thinks that these things can stand as proxy for actually training with the _real_ thing, grossly underestimates how much exposure time/RL training, is required to use a firearm under duress. I think this is just more new-medium scaremongering.
A CNN op-ed wasn't the best outlet for fostering a deep conversation with VR folks. In that context, it's scaremongering. But I believe these are valid philosophical questions that need to be addressed within the next 10 years, & the solution is more cultural than technological
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
