I don't know.... iSomething? Something Air? Something Touch? None of those are quite Apply enough...

It's not a lens problem. The lenses are trying to correct for the fact that current games display 3D images meant for display on flat surfaces. The lense is there to distort to image and make it wrap around your eyes, but the portion of the image you're wrapping is distorted and lacking detail, even before the lens smears it across your peripheral vision. This is a method for making the initial image much better and full of data so that less aggressive smearing is necessary, and the per-smear image has more data in it to begin with.

Oculus Rift is one of the greatest products ever, and Ima let you finish, but this is even better for multi-monitor gaming.

At least Oculus Rift had identified and addressed the problem of distortion, even though their solution loses image quality. Multi-monitor gaming has been garbage for a decade because everyone seems content with horrific distortion at large FOVs.

I know, it's all a matter of screen placement and eye positioning. That's dumb. I want a wrap-around image. I want to aim a projector at each of three walls and have the result make sense.

If you've tried Fisheye Quake, you know it's hell on your system, and still doesn't look great. If this technique is at all performance, everyone needs to start shipping with support, and they need to start yesterday.

I agree with the general thrust of the article, but comparing Kodak to Instagram is straight-up retarded. Instagram is not replacing Kodak. It does not do what Kodak used to do with only 13 people. It does almost nothing, and does nothing worthwhile.

That's a thing, right? Am I making that up?

I think he's building a railroad...?

Maybe instead of shutting down commentary, they should have implemented the kind of half-decent moderation system that the only usable comment sites have adopted.

The only people I've ever met who liked table tennis were terrible people. I'm not sure if terrible people are drawn to table tennis, or if table tennis is a black scourge that seeps into men's souls and consumes the heart of them while it still beats, but there is an absolute correlation.

So, flip the switch when you cross into enemy territory. Don't switch it over North Carolina.

The cobalt thorium g doomsday device from Dr. Strangelove?

Should I be calling it "Butterface"? Because I am calling it "Butterface."

I'm not just looking for an advantage (and not talking about competitive games, importantly. I know how important FOV equality is at that level), I'm just looking for immersion. Skyrim with an ultra-wide FOV let's me see approaching enemies a little sooner, but it looks absolutely atrocious. Beyond that, human vision can cover a 270-degree field if you allow eye movement (but not head movement). That's 90 more degrees than any shooter will give you.

Exactly! But it's easily (haha) solved by rendering a separate view for each monitor.

And that's why they'll also never port their first-party library to Linux. Except that they are doing that, and there are probably more multi-monitor (or potential multi-monitor) gamers than there are Linux gamers.

The biggest problem with multi-monitor gaming is that it's just plain garbage in any kind of "surround" configuration. Apart from Fisheye-Quake and some fancy pants flight sims and racing games, arcing three or more monitors does nothing but waste power and processing capability to render a smeared-out mess on every monitor but the one in the center. Most games aren't even mathematically capable of producing a 180-degree FOV. I've never been quite sure who should get the ball rolling in that department, but I've just decided it should be Valve. I don't have a good reason. Get on it, guys! Ubiquitous support for rendering games to multiple-viewports.