You can honestly get by just fine on their Free tier, which supports as many screens as the computer recognizes. HDMI dummy plugs fill that niche just fine, which has the added benefit of shifting the memory and processing overhead for those fake displays to the GPU, which helps with overall system performance.

There are alternatives to Immersed as well, and the SumulaVR project is worth keeping an eye on.

Prescription hasn't changed over that time, so things seem steady to me. The focal plane is further than most desktop monitors, but I also make sure to get good eye exercise outside of VR, just like any full-time computer user should. Walking the dog several times a day helps.

The effective focal distance is somewhere between 1.3m and 2m, so it doesn't do anything to aggravate myopia - in fact, it's much better in that regard than traditional monitors, whose fixed focal distance tends to be less than 1m.

You're correct though that a range of focal distances is required for good eye health. Glasses wearers such as myself already struggle with this challenge. The same principles and recommendations apply whether it's a virtual monitor or a physical one - exercise your eyes! Walking the puppy several times a day is particularly helpful in this regard.

See, I think they kinda missed an important detail about that in the article - I have a fair amount of experience with VR, hence the write-up, but my profession is everyday programming (old school programming, even - I work at a Perl shop these days).

I just happen to do it in VR.

Oculus Quest v2 ($400 version, went with the higher storage capacity), augmented with a facial interface foam upgrade ($30), halo mount ($50), and prescription lenses ($70). So yeah, I'm $550 into my VR gear, which puts it on par with some PC VR solutions.

The rig is capable, but not *amazing* on its own - it takes babysitting to make it work well, just like any early technology pushed to its limits. It's perfectly usable for a very narrow subset of the population - and that's a good start for "what's next" as it continues to develop.

About five months ago I started an experiment: I ditched all my monitors and moved to working almost exclusively in VR.

I was using 4 wide-screen monitors across 3 machines (with a Synergy mouse/keyboard share), consuming much of my visual field and most of my desk. Those are gone now, repurposed to other projects and largely replaced by my cat, who likes the additional room.

Using first an Oculus Go, and now an Oculus Quest, Iâ(TM)m doing a WiFi based virtual screen setup. I have a vertical central monitor for terminal, code, or documents, and âoewingâ landscape screens for reference, output, communications, etc. I still use virtual desktops heavily, and I remote into other machines and give them a display as needed. The screens Iâ(TM)m using end up being perceptually about 144â on the diagonal, at distances of 8-10â(TM) depending what Iâ(TM)m working on.

It is not a solution for everyone, and there are some compromises and quirks. Iâ(TM)ve optimized for this solution though and did it both comfortable and effective for me - especially the ability to create or redefine new workspaces as needed.

Anyone interested in checking it out, look up ImmersedVR - they have an active discord with lots of good info. Or hit me up and Iâ(TM)ll share more details and pros/cons etc.

One thing is certain; after nearing six months of working in VR, I am never, ever going back.

A recent broadcast on NPR (Ancient Antarctic Bacteria Brought Back to Life) in the US shoots this down pretty sharply.

1. It is not necessary that water remain liquid for viable specimens to be transported (this one works in their favor).
2. Effects of radiation on microbial DNA are significantly deleterious, creating a predictable half-life for the loss of material and probability of survival (this one blows them away).

Actually, not true. Airlines are a "different" regionality. Just like you regionality in your DVD player. The studios create edited versions just for airlines, but won't sell them outside that market. Even if there is demand (which has been expressed in the same areas that like to use these services) they dont' want to for reasons that are a different issue altogether. The important part here is the lengths they go to to not allow people who would want to watch even *the movie companies* edited versions to see them.

They distinctly are forcing a specific type of content to different parts of the world. You'll note that in region 0 (including USA) always includes the most graphic violence/sex/etc that these customers are trying to avoid. They are technologically blocked from avoiding it, and even accessing already published content. When a company tries offering exactly that service, they are sued out of existence.