Normally I put these futurist type threads in IMHO, but as this one touches on gaming I figured here would be a better spot. Basically, you’ve seen movies and probably read books about VR so immersive that the person in them thinks they are there, basically. Think of something like the Oasis in Ready Player One (book or movie) or The Matrix. On top of that, with AI so good that it really gives an immersive experience, again, just like you are really there. Think that will happen in the next 10 years? In your lifetime? Within a generation or two of your lifetime? Never? What do you think is the time frame for this experience?
So good that it’s indistinguishable from real life? I’m sure well beyond my lifetime or anyone else alive.
Unless they do one thing… Rather than being a regular game, just done as VR with hyper-realistic graphics and sensory input, have it somehow tap right into the part of the brain that handles dreams and/or hallucinations. In that case you’re not making the experience realistic, you’re just doing it in such a way that no matter how unrealistic it is you’re incapable of telling reality from simulation.
The downside is that it’s probably not going to be enjoyable (even if done safely) and you probably won’t even remember it afterward. In which case your time would be better spent just taking a nap.
This one actually seems to be closer than some of the others I’ve asked. Really, I think the graphics aspect is something that will happen in the next 10 or so years, regardless (though I honestly think it will be augmented reality rather than VR that is the next big thing). What I’m not sure about is actually the AI or the sheer computing power for a real, virtual world. The AI I think is the real question there, again, as I think the computing power will also be there in that time frame. But real, general strong AI? Not sure about that. It MIGHT happen in my lifetime, but it might be just beyond that, depending on how long before I shuffle off this mortal coil.
The upcoming new VR headsets are running 1600 X 1440 resolution to each eye. The new Valve headset has a 144 hz refresh rate (said to make a surprising difference in immersion), and controllers that can sense finger position so that you can pinch, grab, twist, whatever using more natural hand positions.
I think It will be a long, long time (if ever) before virtually reality is indistinguishable from the real world. But what is more important is ‘presense’, or the illusion that you are in a real space and not just looking at a screen. VR does that now. When playing ‘selfie tennis’, once I am absorbed in the game it just feels natural and my brain thinks it’s just in another world.
The next revolution in headsets will be eye tracking (already available on the Vive Pro), which will enable foveated rendering, The big bottleneck to greater realism is graphics rendering power - a wide field of view requires extremely high resolution - even 1600 x 1440 isn’t enough when those pixels have to cover a huge field of view. We simply don’t have the hardware to render an entire scene at ‘retina’ resolution, while maintaining at least 90hz refresh rates.
Foveated rendering fixes this because it takes advantage of the fact that our vision is actually only sharp looking straight ahead. Our peripheral vision is not very detailed. So if the application knows what you are looking at, it can resolve it at max resolution, then use lower quality rendering for everything else - and you’ll never know the difference.
Headsets will take advantage of foveated rendering within the next few years, and that will be another jump in quality.
So immersive you think you are there? Never.
So immersive you forget where you are … well that doesn’t even take VR.
No, we already have immersion so good that you ‘think you are there’. It’s just that the place you are in is obviously computer generated. The whole notion of ‘presense’ is the feeling that ‘you are there’, and the best available systems deliver that presense in spades.
If you were dropped into a cartoon (or the ‘Tron’ world for example), you would have no problem understanding that it’s not the ‘real’ world. But you could still feel like you’re actually inside the cartoon and not just watching it on a screen. That’s what presense gives you, and it’s here today.
I didn’t bother going into “Of course defining ‘Think you are there’ is a challenge in and of itself”, but your definition does not seem to jive with the OPs. Not that the OPs is really all that consistent, but note that in the RPO movie (and possibly in the book, I don’t remember the details there), the chief antagonist is tricked into thinking he has logged out, when he actually hasn’t.
And as for the “best available systems” it’s not just that “where you are” is obviously computer generated, it’s that you interact through very noticeable gear, and that lots of aspects of reality isn’t replicated, leading some people to suffer VR sickness, and preventing the “mistake VR for reality” possibly implied in the OP.
yeah, they’ed have to figure out that whole motion sickness thing…I’ve read stories of the Borderlands 2 vr game making people sick and passing out because of all the turning around and motion …
Heck, I’ve only done VR once–I think it was an Occulus or similar demonstration at a mall at least six years ago. I see it was released in 2012, so probably around that time. The demo was some city scene where you start at ground level, and then get “levitated up” into the sky. It didn’t even look that realistic, but holy shit it was immersive. Even with the nascent technology back then, it was such a disconcerting experience that after I took my glasses off, it took me about five minutes or so to “readjust” to the real world. I really felt like I was “there,” even though it was clearly a facsimile of the real world visually.
I was blown away back then, and I can’t imagine what the state of the technology is now.
Having played some VR games, I’d say the main problem isn’t one of graphics per se - there are already non-VR games that might as well be photorealistic. However, I have yet to see any game (VR or otherwise) that solved the problem of clipping. Clothes clipping into each other, hair clipping into clothes, or in the case of Bethesda games, chairs clipping into tables and tables floating an inch above the floor :). We can make pictures, be we can’t make physics.
As well I recently mused to a friend that there is a huge thing missing from VR, which is the sense of touch and weight. You can lift things and “touch” things with your simulated VR hands, but you the player can’t feel it. You can’t push against something and have it mechanically resist your push. You can punch and get punched, but it’s all air boxing. And that makes a huge difference, and reminds you you’re playing a game at all times.
That being said, since a sense of touch would probably be a big draw where VR porn is concerned ; and porn has always driven media innovation ; maybe there’s some hope for the future there 
That’s how VHS became the standard for VCRs, and not Betamax.
That’s included on this list of 8 tech innovations driven by porn:
I’d say in 6 or 7 years, tops.
For starters, I’ll bolster my argument by noting that ray-tracing is here NOW, in 2019. It’s just the start of it in video games, but it’s here and it’ll only get better. Life-like Gaming is Now Possible (Thanks to A.I.) (11:21) explains what it is and shows many, many examples of how this technique far surpasses all earlier attempts at re-creating realistic lighting and how that, in turn, gives us much more amazing graphics overall.
Combine this with VR and something so you can move semi-freely (or think that you are) and we’re there.
You’re only addressing graphics. There’s still tactile issues, no smell or taste, complexity of AI… Remember the OP wasn’t just about something that looks real. It asked, “VR so immersive that the person in them thinks they are there, basically.” The Matrix was an example, where people thought that the simulation was real life and didn’t know they were in VR. Do you really think ray tracing will accomplish that?
I am aware. That was a fact-based joke 
Yes, I think it is a big part of what drives perceptions. Yes, I think computers having the ability to generate realistic looking environments and populations on the fly at the consumer level is a huge advance. The things you mention, especially smell and taste, not so much. There is no need for things to be so advanced that people cannot realize they are in a simulation; that’s not what the OP is talking about IMO.
What are we talking about here? Accuracy so good that you think you are there, or accuracy so good it’s impossible to tell you aren’t there? Because the former is already here, while a timeline for the latter is approximately never.
I literally quoted what the OP said. “They think they are there.” Getting to something like The Matrix (an example given by the OP as to what they are talking about) is a high bar to cross.
Graphics are the easiest thing for computers to do. Computers started out as visual displays of machines. Sound wasn’t even something considered for years. Getting graphics to be realistic is not far off, but that’s only one of many senses to fool.