New To The Forum? Click Here To Read The How To Guide. -- Developers Click Here.

Job Simulator- Perception neuron

Nicolo.ZagoNicolo.Zago Posts: 16
Good morning developers staff.

I've some questions I would like
to ask you.

I've both Oculus Cv1 and Job Simulator software. I still have to buy Oculus touch:
-I don't consider it a reliable hardware for
Jacob Nielsen checklists-.

I'm wondering if perception neuron
would be better for hands tracking in Vr Job simulator.

I've in fact saw that Job Simulator has been developed with Unity, compatible thing with Perception neuron, which has compatibility for Unity.

Does someone knows if Perception should works with Job Simulator?

I'm asking this cause Job Simulator staff said me, they don't supply support for -any- peripheral -at all-. They also said me
that they provide support only for Official commercial technologies -Oculus Cv1, Oculus touch and Htc-Vive-.

Does anyone could help me
to understand if Job simulator and Perception would works together?
what should be the reason of these

In case they should works,
could someone tell me the procedure
steps to make them works together?

Thank you again
for the attention.

Best regards.
Nicolo' Zago


  • js2kjs2k Posts: 39
    Brain Burst
    Best you can do with the Perception Neuron is to emulate Touch or Vive wand by finding or making your own openvr driver and play it with SteamVR. You wont ever get 1:1 finger tracking since the games codebase does not support it.
  • Nicolo.ZagoNicolo.Zago Posts: 16
    edited April 19
    Thank you Js2k.

    That seems -decisevely- discouraging (..).

    Pratically there is -nothing- you can do with Oculus Cv1, only thing available is a passive watching
    that creates an incredible cyber-sickness with related nausea.

    In this moment, I really can't find a reason to stay with Oculus.

    Thank you again
    for your answer.

  • js2kjs2k Posts: 39
    Brain Burst
    I don't know how nausea is related to touch controllers or even job simulator since the game has zero artificial movement and it's been one of the best demo games to show people because of that.

    Good luck.

  • Nicolo.ZagoNicolo.Zago Posts: 16
    edited April 20
    I'm mot talking about touch controllers related nausea.

    I'm referring to all Oculus Hardware and related softwares environment

    From mission Apollo to The assembly, from demo Gourmet Quest to many others,
    if you try to move you will immediately experience Cyber-sickness
    from neural data inconsistency.

    There is no Oculus developed software which has -at least-, the
    -minimal required- respect to Jacob Nielsen items checklists.
    Every single software has unbelievable problems of commands inconsistency,
    errorless prevention, naturalness of commands, accesibility and many other
    problems which I won't express here.

    Even the playstation controllers are used without using
    arrows but with other unitelligible commands set in the left front part
    of the controller.

    Even the Oculus touch are an evident example of
    non User-experience naturalness of  movements consideration,
    or do I have to think that the Touch has accuracy of finger tracing?

    Technically is evident that there has been nor a early cognitive ergonomy, neurophysiological neither neuropsychological or neurobiological explorative
    research while at the beginning of Oculus development.
    Every single user experience reveal -very basic- neurophysiological problems, which would have been
    immediately observed at a early -very basic- explorative research steps.

    It is evident developers has -never- took in consideration EEG layout baseline, of subjects and the same layout after Oculus usage -or even while using-.

    Is even clear that Oculus developers just did Ergonomy of design but the User Experience is simply -not- considered.

    Pratically current Oculus Cv1 is not considerable as a -Consumer version- with all these problems
    is simply considerable as -First Development Kit Prototype-.

    If I would have to cosider it's price -599,00 Euro- and the fact that Oculus has been acquired by Facebook for more than 3 billion $, facts that Oculus company has the best researchers on the field, money, tecnhological support and appropriate environment to do the research -with these results-, I would have to say that they are -Very far- to be considerated as -reliable Vr company-.

    A professional figure would say:
    1- They still are at the -First Development kit stage- selling it as -Consumer version-,
        not -at all- a good pubblicity for reliability.
    2- After 3 development kit stages (Dk1, Dk2, Crescent bay), with
        thousands of developers around the globe,
        they still have human body position and motion tracing problems
        but they don't supply support, to resolve the -Big Problem- with
        Perception neuron and with other peripherals.
    3- Just few months after have being on the market Oculus company has
        been involved in the ZeniMax affair (..).
    4- Personal subjective impression should be that they have
        all these unresolved problems cause they're -from the beginning-
        incapable of doing their job.

    Technically what do you think about what a professional figure would think
    at these regards?

    Thank you again
    for your attention.

    Best regards.

    Nicolo' Zago

  • Nicolo.ZagoNicolo.Zago Posts: 16

    I didn't said that Touch controllers are related to Nausea: -since I have neither purchased it-.

    I said that nausea is related to all Oculus hardware and softwares.

    From The assembly to Mission Apollo, from Demo Gourmet Quest to many others
    every single software has unbelievable problems of Accessibility, Naturalness movements,
    Inconsistency, User control freedom and many other User Experience issues I won't express here.

    For example The assembly has direction commands of one type in a game section but
    then it changes them into another section.
    Even -basic- consistency direction commands with arrows is not respected.
    If you use playstation controllers you are asked to move the character of the game
    with unitelligible front left commands -in one section- when in another direction commands changes again.

    What cause Nausea -Cybersickness- is neural data inconsistency.

    I neither consider the -Touch- cause is evident that they can't supply
    -minimal- finger accuracy required for naturalness of commands.

    Is evident that all Oculus development has -never-
    taken in consideration Jacob Nielsen User Experience guide lines.

    If they would had it they would had immediately seen their hardware
    has not -the minimal- respect to those guidelines, probably cause
    Cognitive ergonomy of the head-set has been taken in consideration
    just for external design.

    In fact all softwares has the described problems.

    They can have won all possible Awards of this planet:
    -putting users to play Job Simulator in (non realistic) situations
    (like is the non required body movements tasks)- but the reality
    of daily living User Experience is different.

    If Oculus staff would have really basically considered User Experience
    from the beginning of its early development stages they would have
    immediately seen the described lack of respect to related Nielsen guidelines.

    The fact that they don't supply -neither the minimal- support for
    external peripherals demonstrate which is their professional level.

    If then I would have to consider some basic facts:
    1- Costs 599,00 Euro for a total passive experience with unbelievable
        -very basic- cognitive ergonomy problems.
    2- Facts as they have been acquired from Facebook for more than 3 billion $,
        they have the best available researchers in the field, adapt environments to do research,
        money, thousands of developers around the globe.
    3- Three  development kits (Dk1, Dk2, Crescent bay) worked on
        for years
    I would say: -and they're still at this level-?

    Technically for all these issues, current Oculus headset is not considerable as
    -Consumer Version 1- but just as -Basic Development Kit Prototype-.

    If then I consider the related Neuro-ergonomics of the headset I would
    say that even with a basic EEG analysis they would have seen the layout
    changing -if compared to the same user baseline- after Oculus usage cause
    of cyber-sickness.

    And I'm just talking about the -basic- of Cognitive Ergonomy (...).

    Remaning in -the basic- other things are clear.

    Researchers has never considered nor neurophysiology neither neuropsychology
    related to Oculus User Exeperience, if they would had it
    they would immediately seen nausea consequences related to
    neural data incosistency.

    And they anyway don't supply external peripherals support
    to resolve related neurophysiological issues?

    What a professional of Cognitive ergonomy, neuro-psychology and neurophysiology
    would say in this situation?
    probably would say:

    1- After all described problems they still continue to sell Oculus head set
        as -Consumer version 1- when it would be responsible to
        call it -Oculus First Development Kit Prototype-.
    2- They declare to have the best available researchers on the field
        but is evident they neither did -a basic- cognitive ergonomy explorative research
        during the early development steps.
        Is also clear they don't neither far consider the related neurophysiology
        to Oculus head-set usage.
    3- They had three development kits (Dk1, Dk2, Crescent Bay)
         with thousands of developers around the globe -for years-
         and they're still at this level.
    4- After few months in the market Oculus company and its owner -Zuckerberg-
        has been involved in ZeniMax affair (...), decisevely -Not- a good
        pubblicity for the -Company reliability-.
    5- If you see in the net, the next undertaken step from Oculus and
        Facebook is the Human Body tracing by infra-red rays, thing
        that alone demonstrate that they still haven't understood the
        issues related to the -lack of knowledge- of
        infra-red technology using cameras.

        Which is the problem? none problem, the only issue is that they
        will -always- have problems of hands tracing. In fact there will always be some positions
        where hand's fingers cover other hands's fingers.


    Reassuming current data, their behavior and managing decisions are considerable
    as -Not- professional.

    We're all professionists and we have to be guided by and Ethics and being honest.

    A correct ethics in owr job should be the interest of the user and (for us neuropsychologists and
    neuro-scientists) the patient's interest. So as neuro-ergonomist the research and technology
    development's target should be the -User's Centered Design-.

    If instead all your decisions are guided by -doing money ethics-, -Yes- you will achieve the target of being
    rich but, as soon as you get rich as soon you will return into poverty.
    In fact for the Cognitive Ergonomy principle of -Trust- once you've lost the trust of your User,
    it's -Very, Very- difficult to reconquer it.

    For all these reasons a professionist who get in contact with Oculus technology and its technology,
    would say also that after all these years of development and described
    data, Oculus researchers staff has not solved the discussed issues cause
    they're simply unable to do it.


    Best regards and good luck also to you.

    Nicolò Zago

  • js2kjs2k Posts: 39
    Brain Burst
    edited April 20
    I think you have way too academic or scientific approach to this matter instead of practicality. Every VR developer knows the nausea issue and what can cause it or how to avoid it. Oculus also knows it and outlines it in the developer document which I assume you have not read since you said things like "Is evident that all Oculus development has -never-...". Oculus also guides the users very clearly about different experiences:

    I've demoed VR for over hundred people past 3-4 years. Oculus Rift CV1 one and HTC Vive both deserve the consumer version and first generation tag. There is little to none nausea for majority of people when the experience is roomscale or teleportation with motion controllers. I think earlier versions and maybe PSVR fails because its too controller (artificial locomotion) and seated experience oriented.

    In the end it's up to the game developers to decide what type game they wanna do and how to expand or limit their audience by providing multiple locomotion methods (like Arizona Sunshine vs Onward for example). Some people are immune to the nausea and some grow resistance over time to it. Job simulator is a very good example of game that works for almost any first timer without problems. However there will always people who cant ever do VR like there are people that cant be in a boat or sit next to a window in a bus.

    edit: One of their articles that is linked in various places:

  • Nicolo.ZagoNicolo.Zago Posts: 16
    edited April 20

  • Nicolo.ZagoNicolo.Zago Posts: 16
    edited April 20

  • Nicolo.ZagoNicolo.Zago Posts: 16
    edited April 24

    Good evening Js2k.

    I apologize for the delay in my answer and

    for the two repetitive answers posts -there was

    an error in the Operative System of the machine which I use to post


    Certainly I agree with you in the fact I’m

    -too scientific and academic (it’s my job and I have to act

    In this way)-.


    I’ve analyzed the papers wrote in the link

    you gave me -obviously considerating just

    those most updated -.


    1-     In Cognitive ergonomy of interfaces developing

    (as in every single scientific materia), the Rule is

    -Never- consider papers, books older than 4 years of pubblishing.

    2-     You can see by your own that the most updated papers in

    that bibliography are of 2003, 2002.

    3-     There is only one Review -even pubblished in a not important

    Pubblication for the materia- and anyway authors clearly states:

    -As expected, as lenght of the exposure increased, the total sickness

    reported also increased-.

    So exactly the contrary about what you previously said.

    4-     In any case, -never- and I repeat -never- consider papers older than 4 years.

    In this area of Interface Technology development according to scientific data

    Pubblications older than 4 years are considerable as -Stone age-.

    5-     There’s neither one updated paper Review and neither one updated paper

    of meta-analysis.

    So to be objective I would have to say that there are no data to support

    nor your hypothesis neither the Oculus Company one.

    6-     A professional would say: -I hope that Oculus technology has not been built

    on that bibliography, cause if that would be truth would mean that

    (now) is clear why they are not going further in their technical progress

    In Oculus technology-.


    With the observed data I can only confirm what told you.

    Technically Oculus Company Staff can’t be considerated as Professional.

    The fact that all pubblished papers are updated to 2003 with no believable Reviews,

    the only “updated” review contradicts the same assumptions on which Oculus Company

    base its technology, none meta-analysis, none pubblished paper on important pubblications makes Oculus Company technology exposed to multiple cross-fire.


    You can’t say that - There is little to none nausea for majority of people when the experience is roomscale or teleportation with motion controllers- if you don’t have significant data to say this.
    I mean indeed the company -if the bibliography you sent me is that

    Oculus based its technology- should be hitted from every front, if

    also a developer comes out with a phrase like yours is like pubblish a statement saying -we’re not reliable-.


    Even if would be true the fact -anyway contradicted by the scientific litterature- that an user of Oculus would not experience nausea or should grow resistance, the biological reality is that these users grow up resistance cause they came resistant to the discomfort

    (as in down-regulation process).

    In fact you’re not administering a drug, a medicine. But you’re administering a continuos incosistency of neural data which -differently from a medicine- doesn’t reduce itself, doesn’t change in time progression. As neural data incosistency persists the user will have a neural modification -cold neural plasticity- associated to cyber-sickness with nausea.


    This fact is also demonstrated by other papers -published for Elsevier in 2017-, which describe what you should do with Oculus is just a -desensitizing- to that neural data inconsistency;

    but in the reality subjects continue to experience nausea related symptomps and feelings.In fact -as you can read by your own- subjects then refuse to continue to use Oculus for

    Highly aversive sensation of nausea (…..).

    Yes they had used an – Oculus Dk1- but we all know that the related nausea symptoms are caused by the described inconsistency of neural data -which currently continue to exists-.

     -It is quite likely that a larger number of VR sessions would cause further desensitizing effects; the small number of sessions was the limitation of our study. It was caused by the lack of enthusiasm in our participants to repetitively experience the highly aversive sensation of nausea.The fact that desensitization developsin response toboth vestibular- and visually-induced provocations raises an intriguing question about the location of neural structures whose plasticity is responsible for the reduced sensitivity. There are at least two possibilities here: first, it may be that habituation occurs separately in afferent vestibular or visual pathways.

    An alternative explanation is that changes are in the central

    neural network responsible for the genesis of nausea; this network is

    currently actively studied (Farmer et al., 2015; Napadow et al., 2013;

    Sclocco et al., 2016). An indirect argument in favour of the latter sugges-tion is that sensitivity to motion predicts sensitivity to visual provoca-tion (current study and (Nalivaiko et al., 2015)). Furthermore, there is a limited evidence of cross-desensitization, where repetitive sessions of optokinetic drum provocation resulted in prolonged reduction of sus-ceptibility to seasickness (Gavgani, 2017).

    The described paper is: Profiling subjective symptoms and autonomic changes associated with cybersickness.

    So using the same Oculus method of publishing -just interested papers supporting their hypothesis- you can see there are much more updated and in -better pubblications- which falsify their hypothesis.


    To be honest you neither can say that Oculus deserve the -First generation Tag- when their pubblished bibliography -from them own- that contradicts what they publicly states and when for 599,00 Euro they supply just a total passive experience. Even knowing that adding other 100,00 Euro the movements are decisevely -Not- accurate

    nor natural, neither gives freedom of user control.


    Certainly I agree with you when you say that PSVR fails cause its too controller -artificial locomotion- and           

    seated experience.

    In fact I’ve expressed the idea that Oculus can’t be considered as -Consumer Version 1- until they don’t supply support for a -plug and play- (Oculus+ Perception neuron+ infra-red technology).

    This technologies have to be expected as co-related -Default configuration- from the beggining of first Oculus experience.



    Gavgani, A. M., Nesbitt, K. V., Blackmore, K. L., & Nalivaiko, E. (2017). Profiling subjective symptoms and autonomic changes associated with cybersickness. Autonomic Neuroscience, 203, 41-50.

  • js2kjs2k Posts: 39
    Brain Burst
    The links were the ones I found quickly, i. one of them was a sticky thread in the forum section. I did not try to search for an extensive example.

    The comments about the little to none nausea with roomscale and teleportation is based on my real life observations from our game/experience beta tests and VR demo parties. +100 people with age group from 7 to 84. Artificial locomotion (no teleporting but flying or sliding) caused nausea for majority of people.

    Perception neuron will not solve anything (I have one). It cant fake or trick inner ear senses any more than anything else on the market.
  • Nicolo.ZagoNicolo.Zago Posts: 16

    Good morning Js2k.


    100 subjects is a big sample size but

    I would have to see the related paper cause

    without data, without knowing materials,

    methods and so on is like to say nothing.


    Certainly Perception neuron won’t resolve all cyber-sickness issues.

    In fact I thought to wait, leaving the conversation going further

    before reveal what current State of art would expect from Oculus company.


    As you can see by the papers and educational attached articles

    -to trick- vestibular system, would be requested to design also a Virtual

    Reality nose -that also have to be traced-.

    In fact vestibular system related neurons have to receive input of neural data

    also related to those parts of face we see when we’re looking around us.


    To have and idea -just to understand the type of image both eyes would have

    to see you can look at attached wired article-.

    Clearly when the user close one eye the visible nose’s portion have to be reduced.

    Is obvious that the nose has to be -real time- traced to adapt to each person.


    To give you an idea of how the vestibular systems is and how it works

    I’ve attached you some photos taken by the book:

    Biological psychology: An introduction to behavioural, Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience (7th edition).


    One of the attached papers seems also to indicate that

    Motion cybersickness should be related to otolith organs and vestibular


    James R. Lackner writes that: -vestibular loss subjects are immune to motion sickness as 

    mentioned above and, of course, lack velocity storage-.


    Thank you again

    for the attention.


    Best regards.


    Nicolò Zago

  • js2kjs2k Posts: 39
    Brain Burst

    There is no documentation because we are developers and not scientists making a publication :)

    For user testing we used 4 games/experiences, two of our own, The Lab from Steam and Job simulator. People played them in 2 sessions that lasted 30-45 min sessions. One session was  with Oculus Rift +Touch and other HTC Vive. Most would have wanted to continue playing. Then later people answered in a survey which included sections for things like nausea, fun factor, easy of use etc. which we then used to make minor changes to ours.

    Oculus was not the only one doing VR research for the first generation consumer versions and there were others too like Valve and HTC that made the Vive.
  • Nicolo.ZagoNicolo.Zago Posts: 16
    edited April 25
    Hi Js2K.
    Thank you for your answer.

    Yes that's true, you're not scientists making pubblications.
    But without having none data, I can't tell you nothing about nothing
    of your experiments.

    In any case, the biggest respect fot your experimental developer

    Only thing I can tell you here is that:
    -using too many experimental conditions, makes you (very, very) difficult to control all the involved -or that might be involved- variables in your experiments.
    This may invalidate all the detected data, pratically making your
    effort useless, forcing you to do -not always- correct software
    or hadware changes.

    In fact with 4 games experiences you can't perfectly control all the involved variables.

    In this case, it should be better to design just 2 experimental conditions, within the same (game + peripheral) experimented both with Oculus and Htc-Vive.

    For example a modified (by you) game, experimented in
    a simple session:
    1- with  (Oculus + a specific peripheral)
    2- with (Htc + the same specific peripheral)
    3- survey subministration + (structured video analysis)
    4- succesive modification of software + hardware

    When I've bought Oculus there was no Htc-Vive in the market
    nor was possible to know if they would ever put it in the market.

    In any case, if you would you like to share here knowledge related to Oculus development or Htc-Vive, I would be more than happy to participate
    with my knowledge.

    Thank you
    for you attention.

    Best regards
  • js2kjs2k Posts: 39
    Brain Burst
    Yes we were only focused to have good experience in our type gameplay and only in our experiences so the testing was limited to exactly the features and devices we will support. Every tester played with both devices but the sessions were split and reversed.

    - In session 1, group 1 used Rift to play section 1 of the game and group 2 used Vive to play section 1 of the experiences. Then survey was filled.
    - In session 2, group 1 used Vive to play section 2 and group 2 used Rift. Then survey was filled.
  • Nicolo.ZagoNicolo.Zago Posts: 16
    Good morning Js2k.

    Focusing just on your gameplay plus interaction with devices and interested features is good.

    Don't forget that your hypothesis on the related human computer interaction has always to be very minimal and clear-cut.

    The software and hardware study of human-computer interaction always have to discover the specific flaws of both hardware and software.
    If your research is focused on confirm or validate your initial thoughts, or developings you will -Never- understand if your thoughts, hypothesis, developed hardwares and softwares brings to naturalness of brain- computer interaction.

    When you did the experiment design you've splitted groups and sessions, here you did well. Avoiding the learning effect is a Very, Very important way to prevent bias and invalidating of data.

    But then you did bad when you did the session 2.
    In fact you correctly sent group 1 to use Vive -very well- but the group 1 should have had to do always section - 1 - to understand which flaws might afflict hardware, software and the interaction between the two.

    The same should have had being done for the group two:
    correctly you sent group 2  to experience the Rift.
    But the group 2 in this case -to be compared with the group 1- in the same experience, should have had experience
    the Oculus with the same session - 1 -.

    As said you always have to hold in mind the concept of clear-cut and minimal hypothesis.

    If you don't do minimal, clear-cut hypothesis and experiment design there's a high probability for you, to invalidate your data.
    The consequence is that you then can't clearly understand if your software has -or not- some flaws.
    You neither can understand if you did or not some progress, neither is understandable if your progress has positively hitted the software or if continues to have flaws. Another issue should be the possibility that you confound your software's flaws, with the hardware's flaws or vice versa.

    So as said always keep in mind minimal, clear-cut hypothesis and experiment's design concept.

    If you have some questions, -don't worry- you can ask me without problems.

    Best regards.

Sign In or Register to comment.