That's a really interesting idea. There would be costs - We'd potentially be less discoverable for people forking the original. I'd have another place to check for interest potential forks (and therefore contributors).

I'll give it some thought.

You make some interesting points.

Personally I was always assuming that any potential contributor was already fully aware of Tilt Brush. I find it hard to imagine that someone would be far enough removed from our scene that they would need to be informed about what Tilt Brush is about, but engaged enough to want to contribute. Am I wrong in this? Tilt Brush has pretty decent mindshare for anyone interested in VR content creation.

Another problem is that I just don't really want to spend my time making videos. Plenty of other people make videos about Open Brush / Tilt Brush. It just doesn't turn into "increased engagement from potential volunteers".

I really just want to code new features. Everything else is a distraction that I do out of neccesity.

Seconded on all of this.

I'm aware of tilt brush and would use it but I've still yet to have prioritized setting aside the money to even buy a VR headset, I don't much care for the companies doing it right now, and I'm not interested in just having a phone do it either. I keep hoping for the tech to improve and branch out beyond what it is right now.

Thanks. This comment prompted a discussion on how to improve the initial developer experience. The readme definitely needs a tidy up. We tend to assume that anyone interested in building it will be a moderately experienced Unity developer - but I think it's worth reexamining this assumption.

(It's a brave soul who tackles a codebase of this complexity as their first Unity project! But it was my first big Unity codebase and it was a great way to get myself out of the training pool)

I agree to a large extent. Although not all interactions have been cracked for VR and there are things I'd still prefer to do in pancake mode with a keyboard and mouse.

But anything spatial - most definitely. On the whole trying to arrange things fluidly in 3D space via a 2D monitor is like typing with gloves on.

We ran fine on Linux until recently. We still do under Valve's emulation layer but there's no working native OpenXR runtime I seem to recall.

C# isn't the problem. Unity takes care of that.

They are closed source and don't participate in the community any more. We're working on our own multiplayer functionality that will hopefully be less buggy and more flexible.

How is that relevant to anything?

This is an art program for (mainly) individual users and predates the metaverse hype by multiple years.

I dislike the metaverse hype as much as you but I love content creation tools. There's no need to use any mention of VR to rag on that.

I also mentioned our usage numbers are very good so your point doesn't even really make sense.

> laggy, and make you dizzy.

This is largely a function of both frame rate and IPD.

The latter is one of the reasons why I feel Meta has done an absolutely huge disservice to VR adoption by making the Oculus series fixed IPD. They claim to be able to software compensate, but my experience is that IPD on a headset being even just a millimeter or two physically off makes the difference between a comfortable VR experience and one that leaves me with a headache after the fact.

The fact that they reduced screen refresh rates on the Oculus S and the original Quest didn't help at all either.

I've had an Index since shortly after they became available and can use it hours at a time without any sort of discomfort provided my GPU is able to serve up enough frame rate for a particular title. Available GPU power is holding back VR currently more than anything, IMO.