Wireless VR Kits Coming To US Market; TPCast Opening Office In Silicon Valley

TPCast is preparing to release its wireless Vive upgrade in the U.S. market, and the company is setting up shop over here to support the demand. TPCast’s U.S. office will handle marketing, sales, and customer service for North American customers.

If you’re like us and you can’t wait to ditch the tether on your VR headset, we have good news for you: TPCast said it’s planning for a November launch. However, North Americans are late to the party. TPCast started accepting orders for the wireless kits in Europe in September, and Vive owners in China have had access to wireless VR since November 2016.

“Following the pent-up demand in the U.S. market we’re excited to bring our revolutionary wireless technology to the American users,” said Tony Ho EVP Sales and Marketing at TPCast. “With the United States team, we are planning on addressing verticals such as Medical, Education, Entertainment, Real Estate, Oil &Gas, and make VR more available to the U.S. consumers.”

TPCast’s U.S. office will also employ a customer service team, which would presumably handle warranty claims and troubleshooting, the latter of which will no doubt be necessary.

“The U.S. is the world’s #1 market for VR headsets followed by China, both of which will face expedited growth as a result of wireless capabilities enhancing the VR experience," said Udi Yuhjtman, general manager for North America, TPCast. "Having a footprint in the U.S. is important for TPCast, and we are looking forward to introducing the TPCast wireless product line to both consumers and enterprises in order to support the VR market expansion."

TPCast has not yet announced the U.S. shipping date for the wireless Vive upgrade kits, and it isn’t accepting pre-orders here yet. You can sign up to the company’s mailing list to stay up to date, though. TPCast is also developing a wireless solution for the Oculus Rift, but it hasn’t said when that would be available.

Kevin Carbotte is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware who primarily covers VR and AR hardware. He has been writing for us for more than four years.

More about virtual reality

Experience amazing VR gaming with Meta’s Quest 3S VR headset deal - now at an all-time-low price

Quest 3S Review: Most of the same thrills as the Quest 3 for $200 less

Sabrent's USB Type-C M.2 SSD Enclosure reduced to just $22 at Amazon

See more latest

8 Comments Comment from the forums

samer.forums

The antennas at the back of the head ? no way!

If you are reading this , TPcast ...

route the cables to the belt down and put the wireless device there. there is no way you know if this is safe for the brain or not when it is that close.
Reply
KirbyKirby

20315108 said:
The antennas at the back of the head ? no way!

If you are reading this , TPcast ...

route the cables to the belt down and put the wireless device there. there is no way you know if this is safe for the brain or not when it is that close.

Pretty sure that's the battery pack you're looking at. I believe the wireless antenna is in the module on the top.

Granted that doesn't address your concern, though if you believe the scientists behind the tech the wavelengths used cannot penetrate skin.
Reply
samer.forums

20315177 said:
20315108 said:
The antennas at the back of the head ? no way!

If you are reading this , TPcast ...

route the cables to the belt down and put the wireless device there. there is no way you know if this is safe for the brain or not when it is that close.

Pretty sure that's the battery pack you're looking at. I believe the wireless antenna is in the module on the top.

Granted that doesn't address your concern, though if you believe the scientists behind the tech the wavelengths used cannot penetrate skin.

I still prefer the Antenna mounted on the belt instead of the head ... I dont want a cancer after 10 years ...
Reply
caustin582

I wonder if it fits onto the deluxe headstrap
Reply
Borisblade7

Ignoring the fact that there are no facts to support your "cancer from transmission waves" idea, I find it hilarious that you think you'll get it in your brain but not anywhere else in your body from these waves. If they actually caused cancer in your brain, they would also do it to other parts of your body. Thats just how cancer works when it is caused by EM waves. (which the ones used here do not do) So its placement doesn't actually matter if your concerns were valid.
Reply
Ben Pottinger

People terrified of "invisible" things. Its why nuclear will generate such outsized amounts of fear and panic even when from a power generation standpoint its one of the safest and cleanest methods of power production the human race has ever developed. The statistics are all there, easy to find and compare to any other power generation technology and its surprising (even to me) how amazingly safe the technology is.

But that doesn't matter, the fear overrides the logic in a big segment of the population.
Reply
cryoburner

20315177 said:
...though if you believe the scientists behind the tech the wavelengths used cannot penetrate skin.

This is likely true. Lower frequencies can pass through objects much more easily. It's a bit like how low frequency sound waves readily pass through objects while higher frequencies get blocked, which is why you only tend to hear the bass from a passing car's stereo, or why you're able to place the subwoofer from your surround system in the corner of the room behind furniture, while it's best to maintain direct line of sight with the higher frequency satellite speakers. It's also why 2.4 GHz wireless devices tend to have better range through walls and other objects than 5.8Ghz ones. 60GHz radio waves, like the kind used by this device, tend to be prone to bouncing off walls (and likely your body) rather than penetrating through them. So really, the transmitter from a cell phone or Wi-fi device is probably more likely to interact with your internals than the transmitter here. Of course, the actual transmission of the video signal will be sent by the transmitter connected to your computer, not the part on your head, which should mainly be acting as a receiver. It will need to transmit data as well, but can probably rely on a lower-power signal with error correction. That does bring up the question of how well a device like this might work if it's dependent on having direct line of sight to its transmitter though. That's likely why they placed in on top of the head, though it seems like moving your hand in front of the unit, or leaning over in a certain way could still potentially disrupt the signal.
Reply
Ben Pottinger

20322827 said:
20315177 said:
...though if you believe the scientists behind the tech the wavelengths used cannot penetrate skin.

This is likely true. Lower frequencies can pass through objects much more easily. It's a bit like how low frequency sound waves readily pass through objects while higher frequencies get blocked, which is why you only tend to hear the bass from a passing car's stereo, or why you're able to place the subwoofer from your surround system in the corner of the room behind furniture, while it's best to maintain direct line of sight with the higher frequency satellite speakers. It's also why 2.4 GHz wireless devices tend to have better range through walls and other objects than 5.8Ghz ones. 60GHz radio waves, like the kind used by this device, tend to be prone to bouncing off walls (and likely your body) rather than penetrating through them. So really, the transmitter from a cell phone or Wi-fi device is probably more likely to interact with your internals than the transmitter here. Of course, the actual transmission of the video signal will be sent by the transmitter connected to your computer, not the part on your head, which should mainly be acting as a receiver. It will need to transmit data as well, but can probably rely on a lower-power signal with error correction. That does bring up the question of how well a device like this might work if it's dependent on having direct line of sight to its transmitter though. That's likely why they placed in on top of the head, though it seems like moving your hand in front of the unit, or leaning over in a certain way could still potentially disrupt the signal.

As a ham you learn all this early on because it's so important when making antenna placements and for understanding why or why not you can hear someone or get a data connection. Ham radio still uses some pretty low frequency bands (as low as 2mhz which uses some pretty large antennas!) and while frequencies that low can hardly transmit any data (it's *really* slow) it can do some amazing things when it comes to distance.

I would think for a 60ghz signal you would need multiple radios and antenna around the body or you would risk blocking the signal with your own body. On top of the head just makes good sense. 60ghz can be blocked by water vapor.

What really impresses me is the new spread spectrum and other techniques being used by DJI on their RC drones. Using a 1w 2.4 or 5.8ghz radio I've gotten clean and clear 720p video and total drone control signals from over 5000 ft away and I've seen people get well over 8000ft in areas with low noise pollution, and that's without using a directional antenna! That same tech with a little more power and directional antennas would be quite something.

I expect the 60ghz and similar radios with beamforming and other new technologies to allow for some really interesting wireless use cases.

Reply

Show more comments

Recommended reading

Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter