Arkham Asylum - VR coaster at Movie World

[pin142]

It isn't as difficult as it sounds. Your brain focuses more on the VR and the game than what is coming as far as the ride goes. The forces from the ride compliment the VR and don't add any difficultly to processing what's happening to you. The VR experience looks similar to New Revolution at SFMM with a few updates due to being newer. Personally prefer the VR on Arkham to the VR on New Revolution. It might not have the game interactivity but I would rather have the VR suit the existing ride instead.

[Gazza]

@Levithian on the VR coasters you can see a magic box that is used to track train location and speed. This adjusts the playback speed slightly to account for the variance in running speed you get due to ambient temperature and moisture on the track.

[Levithian]

Im not talking about speed. Im talking about direction of movement in relation to the track. The image in the video matches turns with the footage. If you used the same video file for a ride that was basically similar, but was longer or shorter in length, or had a different section of track, you will end up noticing the difference in movement.

The problem with motion sickness is normally because what you are seeing isn't always what you are feeling. So if you used a generic render without an accurate model of the track and had the image moving out of sync with what was happening on the train, then it'll be enough to notice the difference and it'll make some people feel sick. It'll occur if you feel you are traveling faster than what you perceive in your vision too. But that would be a bit of a moot point because you wouldn't expect more than a few km/h difference between runs anyway.

I guess what i was saying is, I was surprised at how smooth the video is. I didn't feel any out of sync issues and ive ridden it in a few different spots. It was pleasantly surprising because there's so much going on in the video, I was kind of expecting to feel sick afterwards. You obviously have to start with some form of mapping of the track layout to be able to create the video, it's not something you can just swap between rides like might have been suggested. It feels like it would be developed/rendered based on your layout. It's also going to be one of those things that the more video frames you pay for, the more immersive and "free flowing" it's going to feel to ride. Gives you more scope for incorporating subtle changes in track layout across a larger number of frames so you don't notice the movement. Compare a game at 30fps vs one at 60fps. You apparently can't consciously notice much more than 30fps, but it certainly feels/looks better side by side, even if you shouldn't be able to equate the difference.

It gets me wondering how much something like this really costs. I mean, what is the price of just the hardware alone? S7's have to be over $1000 each. Couple it with the VR headsets which retail for under $200 right? So thats $1200 just for a phone and something to plug it into. Throw in all the development stuff and the different restraint things movieworld look to have developed, if you said each phone cost you $1500+ it's quite a bit of money being thrown around. Even if you said the budget was a couple million dollars, id be even more surprised at how good the end result is. Yeah, bugs and little issues with getting it up and running smoothly (its still only the first week afterall), it's actually really good for a tight budget. I guess I don't know what I was expecting, given how average the first generation of VR stuff was in the 90's. I wonder how much similar installations have cost other parks? If people are saying it's as good, or better than six flags, certainly that's got to be a win for the park already.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Levithian

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

My thinking on a 'generic' VR course applying to multiple different rides is this:

you don't create a video designed for one track, and then try to copy it over. Instead you create a virtual reality 'world' - a 3 dimensional space in which you can move to any part of it. They had these over a decade ago, albeit the graphics were very basic. All they then need to do is map the ride using onboard sensors to determine speed and direction, to communicate to the headsets 'where' within the virtual world you are, and which way you are facing.

[AllegroCrab]

47 minutes ago, Levithian said:

You apparently can't consciously notice much more than 30fps, but it certainly feels/looks better side by side, even if you shouldn't be able to equate the difference.

That's a myth. I can definitely tell when a TV is playing at 60fps even if it's not next to a 30fps video.

You said it yourself, 60fps looks smoother when you put it side by side with 30fps, so why wouldn't you be able to spot it on its own after observing this?

It gets harder for us to tell the higher you go, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people who can spot 60 vs 90 just by learning the difference through experience.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

side by side comparisons are easy.

Standalone without a point of reference is where it differs. I can't talk video, its not something i've particularly gotten involved in, but in terms of audio, with the proliferation of digital MP3 compressed media - the common bitrate standard found on file sharing and peer to peer networking sites was 128kbps. It was an economy bitrate in the days of dialup internet and 24 hours to download a song. Most people didn't care.

Then internet speeds got faster, but many people continued to rip songs in 128kbps out of habit, or standard.

You can easily hear the difference between 128 and 256. The step between 128 and 192 is less so, and 192 to 256 is almost imperceptible. I know people who can tell me (within limits) whether a radio station is broadcasting digital audio in 128 or 256, but apart from those audiophiles who are keenly tuned into it, the average punter wouldn't know the difference unless they had a side by side comparison... so in terms of video I presume this transfers over - most people who aren't 'learning the difference through experience' probably wouldn't notice the issues with 30fps consciously enough to care.

[ashhole157]

Do you need to use your own phone for this?

 

[Santa07]

No of course not  

[Levithian]

The problem with this is when a ride specific element comes into it, no matter what the sensors pickup, for the video to react the same way someone has to have spent hundreds or thousands of hours even creating that environment to perform maybe 3 seconds of video. That's a serious expensive excerise for people offering VR packages to have to accommodate for. It might be different if you had hundreds of implementations where you can splice segments together, but I can't see it being the case with so few number of rides in operation at the moment. 

I guess you could have a generic theme package or something with basically stock footage that people could buy that doesn't utilise any previously trademarked property. I think you would really see the difference though. You couldn't even begin to legally build an environment around copyrighted material without already having the rights or access to develop that IP. The characters on arkham effectively become the sets and form part of the backgrounds, so I reckon it would be difficult to build a 3d world around them that operates with how the train reacts to the track. It's not a narrow straight ahead view, it's pretty immersive. I think it would be cheaper to start with a model of your track, then start building the world around it.

 

2 hours ago, AllegroCrab said:

That's a myth. I can definitely tell when a TV is playing at 60fps even if it's not next to a 30fps video.

You said it yourself, 60fps looks smoother when you put it side by side with 30fps, so why wouldn't you be able to spot it on its own after observing this?

It gets harder for us to tell the higher you go, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people who can spot 60 vs 90 just by learning the difference through experience.

what source are you viewing on your tv at 60fps? 4k? you cant compare increases in frame rates AND increases in resolution. people are always going to fancy the more detailed image. Im talking about the point where the eye/brain actually notices the juddering. I guess its more optimisation? refresh rates play a massive part in this too, because you can have a 1000fps video that's crippled by a 50hz capable pal display.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Levithian

[downunder]

I just did my first VR coaster which was the SLC at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom on Sunday. It was fun without being mind-blowing, and took my mind off the beating I was getting from the Vekoma.

On this one there's active shooter element when you're going up the lift hill. You move your head to aim and tap on the right side of the goggles to shoot. After that, you're there for the ride. 

I think it will be a fun addition and being an upcharge should regulate demand and not make the queue a nightmare like the free-for-all at Six Flags (we got lucky and stumbled into a season passholder ERT and didn't have to wait). 

[Jamberoo Fan]

If VR (maybe with the head strapping too) becomes a mainstream consumer product, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future you could just go to a theme park with your VR headset and purchase a temporary download of the VR experience at a ride's retail outlet (one that expires each day at closing time & only works upon entry at the ride though scanning of a code etc.).

8 hours ago, Levithian said:

 I don't know how they do it, but it would have to require some sort of mapping or something of the track to model your video off.

Lasers.

5 hours ago, Levithian said:

It'll occur if you feel you are traveling faster than what you perceive in your vision too.

There would be no problem with speed. If the ride has a sudden stop in block brakes etc. due to malfunction, the VR 'world' would stop in the same spot too. The opposite also applies - if you are waiting in the station, the VR 'world' wouldn't travel. This is, of course, assuming the VR is working.

[webslave]

7 hours ago, Levithian said:

what source are you viewing on your tv at 60fps? 4k? you cant compare increases in frame rates AND increases in resolution. people are always going to fancy the more detailed image. Im talking about the point where the eye/brain actually notices the juddering. I guess its more optimisation? refresh rates play a massive part in this too, because you can have a 1000fps video that's crippled by a 50hz capable pal display.

It's a combination of a few things, and is subject to a number of factors.  Humans will certainly notice the difference between 25/50 and 30/60 on many items of content even without training (which is a small part of why we have things like 25p delivered as 50i - humans certainly notice the difference).  As you've very rightly identified though there's a lot of other variables to be considered, including shutter speed, monitor refresh rate, overall scene motion, etc.

[iwerks]

^Those Hobbit films presented on 60 fps used to really annoy me. The sets would all look fake, like it was shot on cheap video. Deinterlacing is something that makes a difference too. I remember seeing those early films shot on video and feeling ripped off, whilst other people couldn't spot the difference.

[Gazza]

It's just because people are conditioned to associate a slower framerate with cinema, and higher frame rates with home video cameras, because the home video cameras have always had a higher fps.

Which annoys me because id rather the highest fps possible, since for really fast action sequences normal cinema frame rates arent high enough.

[AllegroCrab]

The problem with high frame rates in cinema, especially for movies like the hobbit, is how much of the movie magic they give away because of it. As @iwerks said. The sets suddenly looked fake and the cgi was twice as obvious. I'm not sure of the exact reason why, but I reckon you're just able to see a lot more information per second, and it'll reveal the ugly details of what is usually hidden behind the safety net of 24fps.

60fps works well for, say, a nature documentary, but for a fictional movie, especially cgi intensive movies, it feels so wrong.

Edit: I should clarify that the hobbit was shot at 48fps, not 60, the difference was still very noticeable.

Edited September 29, 2016 by AllegroCrab

[themagician]

There was just a story on 9 news saying that AAs VR took a year to develop and cost a million dollars.

[joz]

Here's a question, if a 3rd of the train is paying $5 for VR, would a second train now pay for itself?

[Reanimated35]

Managed to do the VR today. Wow. That's pretty much all that needs to be said. Wow. You wouldn't even know you were on a coaster. 

Also had no issues with the headset coming loose. 

[Jamberoo Fan]

VR Coaster definitely did do the VR on AA as they added AA to the listing in their showreel:

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jamberoo Fan

[themagician]

I know this hanging guard has been there since the original makeover to AA, but I've never seen this 'animatronic' element to it.

 

[Theme Park Girl]

Yeah, he's been doing that for a good couple of months now. It was part of the VR upgrade to the theming. 

[Santa07]

Yeah it's a really nice touch that makes it seem like an actual person instead of a hanging dummy

[pushbutton]

I tried this for the first time yesterday. It's $5 which while I'd rather it was free isn't unreasonable and I hope they will make it free once they've recovered their initial cost a bit.

I was very impressed at how well it's been done. Really makes Arkham Asylum into a proper themed experience. Flying over Metropolis and the interaction with The Joker and Batman were just brilliant.

Going up the lift hill actually felt like being in a lift with no doors and you see interesting things as the lift passes each level.

Overall a seamless and frankly awesome experience. The only thing that could make it even better would be sound.

Edited February 26, 2017 by pushbutton

[Santa07]

3 minutes ago, pushbutton said:

Flying over Metropolis

You just made many DC fans cry

[mission]

I was there yesterday, didn't do VR though but I have in the past.

 

I dunno if it was just me, but AA seems really, really rough at the moment, I couldn't wait to get off it.  

 

It's actually a good layout but so uncomfortable....