I’ll go with you on the ‘not a Star Trek Holodeck’ in the end, but I was very careful about describing the feature-set in the article and each of those is achievable in the context described.
I mentioned the Hololens NOT as a recommendation for duplication of technology, but as a duplication of feature set. In fact the Welders’ helmet referenced is probably the most appropriate starting point there, or google glasses. I was VERY specific in mentioning that the whole concept is glasses to add information to the visual field. I also thought I was clear on the fact that one of the key features we’re talking about there is the merging of images from multiple camera sources (so I’m fuzzy on why your comments on LARPing and such are a concern…again, you just add what works)
I’m trying to describe a useful approach to existing technology that is not being utilized because of precisely the sort of excessive assumption of capability that you’re mentioning.
The things you’re saying ‘they’ll be awful because they won’t work’ are things I’m saying ‘there’s no reason to try those specific things that aren’t working.’ I mentioned that in the last reply too. Emphasize what works, don’t fret over what doesn’t. The specific benefits I described still exist.
Each of the incremental steps here has VALUE, does it not? Have you read the entire article and followed the links and such? Because I’m still getting the feeling we’re not quite connecting. The Welders’ helmet bit was in there from the get-go, as was the specific value behind it…and while a couple of the end steps might be down the road we’re talking processing power and that’s not something we struggle with miniaturizing ATM.