Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hi guys. Haven't been here, in a while.
Can anyone fill me in on the state of their 3D prototype that we all invested in over 10 years?
Thanks
Exactly.
Cant find volumetric display anywhere on that site?
Does anybody who claimed their volumetric solution would be a game changer for the last ten years want to address how its not even a line item now?
Its quite frustrating, as thats the specific reason I first invested in this company I long time ago.
More irrelevant now, then 10 to 15 years ago, when other 2-beam volumetric display patents were being explored + patented unfortunately.
However, 3DIcon is no longer in the 3D volumetric business, but now in solar panels and computer memory if I got that right?
10 years of waiting down the drain.
I look forward to 10 years of pumped up forum posts talking about how it will revolutionize the solar panel industry, before they quietly shift gears again and call themselves an automobile winter floor mat company.
So, after years and years of all of us arguing whether or not TDCP's magic cube display would be profitable,
its now, for all intents and purposes a battery and solar energy company?
Are they no longer even pretending Cspace is still a thing?
Confused.
Yes.
Looking for a job ;)
or employees?
Anything that could happen at this meeting that wouldn't be great for us shareholders Walrus?
i dunno.
I feel there is a group out there that can capitalize on this setup that hasn't been explored.
It really does (attempt) to turn all the technical negatives into positives for them, if it works.
Trust me, Ive been following this tech for years.
It just occurred to me a few weeks ago, they could enhance VR head mounted displays, instead of trying to naively replace it.
I tried sending this to a couple people in VR research, but no reply yet.
It's a long shot, but if anyone is so inclined, could they bring it the attention of TDCP staff?
Thanks,
Rob.
tl;dr: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
--
Given that HMD (headset visors) have gained immense growth over the last few years, it is clear they hold tremendous advantage over large scale 'walk around' volumetric displays as pursued by TDCP and others.
The advantages of HMD format are:
- images of arbitrary sizes and depths can be displayed
- occlusion / solid surfaces are easily rendered
- observer can be in any position relative to the image, including inside.
Similarly, 3DIcon's main disadvantages are:
- inability to physically scale
- transparent imagery
In layman terms, an HMD can place you inside a virtual ocean, where one can reach out and touch a fish, as opposed to a static volumetric display, where one is limited to viewing a small box of transparent fish from the outside.
The one optical advantage volumetric displays have over HMD's are that they provide the natural depth cue of accommodation, whereas all HMDs currently on the market merely provide head-tracked stereoscopic displays. This can lead to vergence-accommodation conflicts, leading to eye fatigue, nausea etc.
The exceptions to this are holographic displays, and light fields displays, as pursued by Magic Leap, Nvidia, and perhaps others, though the technology is complex and/or limited in resolution.
Proposal:
3DIcon's solid state volumetric display (SSVD) should be the integral component of an HMD optical system.
More specifically, consider an arrangement, where virtual slices drawn by the SSVD are projected to virtual depths, either by a conventional lens arrangement, or even by projecting slices *within* a lens of appropriate shape and material.
This would provide tremendous advantage over existing challenges:
1) The SSVD would no longer need to be scaled up to arbitrary physical sizes. Its upper limit would be constrained to physical anatomy (ie: An few inches in front of an observer's eyes)
2) Occlusion could be implemented by rendering a scene at various depth slices, rendering scenes from a *single* perspective (the eye).
3) Accommodation and vergence would no longer be in conflict, leading to more natural viewing, including depth of field, etc.
4) Unlike other systems which implement (3), (light fields, etc) computational resources for rendering a single scene would be trivial. A scene would only need to be rendered at most once per eye direction. It need only be rendered one slice per depth level. Each rendered pixel will be viewed at its intended depth.
Conclusion:
By implementing SSVD in a HMD, all the shortcomings of both are circumvented, providing a superior image at a reduced computational cost.
What makes you think Schott Defense has any ongoing activity with TDCP?
Perhaps a good nap might help with those random jitters.
The two rules when deciding if TDCP is a sound investment:
Rule #1: It's worth one fiftieth of one penny.
Rule #2: See rule #1
great summary (and seems relatively up to date!)
I don't know.
It would be cool if they could, but you'd have to continuously keep pumping it into whichever room you're in, assuming there's zero health or environmental issues, especially since you're breathing it in.
Add to the fact, that it can only be activated by the intersection of light beams, you couldn't really block the path (especially with your eyes).
The only open-air display system I've found that is close to what you're describing is:
thats too bad.
didnt know they explored that avenue.
On re-reading your post, I sense you're inferring the tech is somehow for non-professionals because this particular company includes a game?
Microsoft Kinect also came out as a game accessory, but has since exploded into all sorts of unpredictable uses as a depth camera.
I just saw an ad on the subway calling for participants with specific motor control problems, for a clinical study using kinect.
Yah it's great isn't it?
Reason VR was reborn was increase in computing capability + sensor tech to make the experience seamless enough.
For cspace to be reborn, it would have to be born into an entirely different body. (ie, not a physical cube).
"Show me where these technologies are competing today? You can't, because CSpace is not a marketable technology and may never be. "
So these things are not competition to cspace, because cspace may never even get to market?
Okay, sure. That'll work.
More self-defeating then my position though.
"If AR/VR technology is so superior to CSpace, why in the heck did you even
invest in 3DIcon?"
It was around 2008.
VR was 'reborn' in 2012 with the release of the Oculus prototype on kickstarter.
What do you mean 'fake' imagery?
VR and AR (augment reality) is used to display data, wherever it comes from.
This includes medical and security information as well.
Zooming in and out? That's possible with VR headsets as well obviously,
except you're not constrained to a tiny box when zooming out.
I keep comparing these technologies because *THEY ARE COMPETITORS*
What do you think would be more useful to a doctor?
Leaning over to examine a transparent heart in a cube shaped box.
Or seeing it five feet long hovering over his/her desk? (transparent *or* full solid colors)
There is no application for this display format, in which VR/AR isn't serious competition.
Name one.
I'm trying to remain consistent and truthful.
If I see this problem, potential investors who look at this tech will see this also.
It's not personal for them.
The point others keep ignoring, is that Cspace *is not scalable* in any meaningful sense of the word.
You're not going to build a room sized cube of glass to display a bus,
much less a ship sized cube to display a ship.
You're not going to be able to overlay data over existing physical objects either.
You're not going to be able to put your hand in/through anything either.
You get this now by slipping on vr goggles.
Even if they produce a 2 foot cubic display so what?
I couldn't give away my 27" CRT a few years ago, once flat LCD panels came on the market.
And whether or not, CSpace will be able to introduce full color, the images will always be translucent, given the fact that they are producing light at the intersection of two beams in a transparent material.
All this talk of 'True volumetric display' is 1) inaccurate 2) irrelevant at the end of the day, in terms of practicality and benefits.
So no net advantage to the technology that you care to share?
And yet you think its a great buy?
In specific terms, what do you think is advantageous about CSpace that makes up for the fact it cannot do color, will never do solid textures, and severely constricts the display object to whatever can fit in the box it must physically build?
ie: why is a transparent six inch mono color boat in a box, better than a full color, solid, life size, view of the boat ?
Im not totally familiar with the history. But it wasn't Hakki.
it was originally Tom Keating (sp) idea to perfect such a display cube no?
Back when they started, sounded interesting, but with the explosion of high-powered 3d headsets in the last 2 years, is now outdated, for reasons I've mentioned several times, yet die-hards refuse to accept.
Ive lost a chunk of change. Nothing that would break me, but still sad to see it all go to zero.
But given that, maybe I'm just being naive but I don't sense any malice on the part of management.
If I had to guess, I feel they just got caught up in their own hype, downplaying its own limitations and underestimating the competitions ability to innovate.
He will see it as a clear sign that management's too busy doing big time important stuff that will soon make us all millionaires. So we better load up even more ;)
They don't even have the resources to answer the phones anymore.
How are they moving forward?
At some point, optimism can be construed as denial.
case in point.
Anything short of bankruptcy and an embezzlement scandal will leave some investors perennially optimistic I suppose, and even then I'm not so sure that would dampen their spirits.
As someone personally involved in the exploding VR scene, I find it harder and harder to justify interest in this display approach, and its inherent physical limitations.
Besides VR headsets, which are literally receiving billions in funding, there are other technologies emerging, which are flat, glasses free, and fully 3D such as: https://www.leia3d.com/the-technology/
Though the resolution is small (200 x 200) its only going to increase.
And its full color and flat (magic window vs magic cube).
I liked 3DIcon, but they took years too long to put something (anything) out there, in the hands of the public.
My two cents,
Rob
do you have any links? cant find any info
How would cspace help with terrorist attacks?
For an encore!
Yah, Ive worked with a few of these products now.
They range from very neat (Google cardboard) to amazing (HTC Vive).
And these are consumer version 1.
For what its worth, here's a canadian startup that created something people *mistakenly believe* is tabletop 3D, but is not:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1314339634/holus-the-interactive-tabletop-holographic-display/description
Its sad though, as many people will be very disappointed once they realize its just a flat reflection on a pyramid.
However, it hints at the huge tech splash such a product (ie: 3DIcon) could make, if they did offer something similar.
Sure.
In laymens terms:
3D Icon is building a box.
What can be displayed inside the box must:
-itself be transparent (eg: transparent miniature airplane)
-fit inside the volume of the box (miniature)
-single color (for now)
-can be viewed by many people simultaneously, but each person
is forced to a specific view of the same scene
Goggle/headset based solutions:
-can display solid surfaces as well as transparent
-can fill any volume (ie, your entire room, auditorium etc)
-lets you put your hand right into it for interaction
-can be displayed over your current surroundings.
Latter has many advantages over former, but the former may still
carve out some niche applications where you have a group of people
in the same room, viewing the same scene.
You could still do this with goggles, but each person would need
to don a pair individually. That being said, they wouldn't have
to be in the same room anymore, or even viewing the same details.
Right, except good trades don't require perfect timing,
otherwise a roulette wheel would provide a good trade every spin :)
In that case, I think the number of good trades would be less than 3, maybe none?
You shouldn't hang onto a stock just because you would incur a loss selling. (unless for tax purposes)
The value has already left.
You should start each morning pretending its your first day, and asking
"Would I buy this stock today?"
If not, sell it out of your portfolio.
If yes, hold or buy more.
The stock itself has no 'history' or 'loyalty' attached to it.
The profit won't change.
The only reason avoid selling a stock is if the commission ($9 dollars) is a big chunk of the value, which may be the case for most of us now! :(
good luck!
Rob.
Are you serious?
4 cents, down from what originally? 35 cents, post reverse-split??
And if people believed the hype at 4 cents, they'd have lost 99.9% of their investment, just like the people who believed the hype a couple years before that blip.
Landing on one random upward blip in an avalanche of downward movement is not responsible investement, its 100.0% luck.
It's akin to entering a casino and yelling at the guy for not putting his money on 34 red ..six spins after the fact.
Gut feeling tells me every prediction of news around the corner was wrong.
Gut feeling tells me every prediction of increased share price was wrong.
Gut feeling tells me every time that was a good time to invest was a horrible time to invest.
Wait.. thats not my gut feeling, that's just the facts from the last few years.