How big an issue is the nausea problem for VR products?
The problem with this response is that it's mostly right, but misses enough that it ends up being misguided but for a reason that is unstated.<p>Similar to the author I worked with HMD systems while in the air force, specifically the integrated HUD avionics F35 helmet system. He is correct about the current lack of accommodation (depth perception) and the vestibular mismatch for movement. Other posters discuss vestibular stimulation, without realizing that such stimulation actually induces physical motion. The biological systems are too tightly connected to just simulate physical movement in the brain without a physical reaction.<p>What he misses, which is critical is that certain virtual retinal displays can solve the accommodation and multiple depth object focal lengths. This is the major thing that magic leap has going for it, but while it's hard it's not impossible to do in multiple ways. We have our own multi-depth accommodation vrd patent filing.<p>There is no real solution to the movement problem though... Except to actually work with virtual objects in the real world, AKA augmented reality.<p>So the actual solution to his problem doesn't lie in VR solutions, it's in AR.<p>Until we have sufficient BCI that works around vestibular and ocular pathways we aren't going to see the matrix levels of presence in non AR displays.