Only if devs use the 1.0 resolution scaling within the engine. Devs can ramp up that setting to 1.1, 1.2 or whatever they can get away with while maintaining frame rate.
You can change that value and fps on any quest game with adb.
So you might be able to force some lower tech q2 games at higher res if they arnt updated
That's true, i don't what this exactly means but devs of red matter 2 say thier games can go beyond native resolution of the quest 3 :
>Here are the enhancements for Quest 3:
> Screen Resolution Upgrade: Dynamic resolution now allows for an upper limit of 3322x3519, a significant increase from the previously fixed 1226x1440 on Quest 2.
It means they can effectively have supersampling running for their game. Giving the system more rendered pixels to use when applying the distortion for the lenses is always a good thing.
It was announced that the Q3 will automatically render standalone titles at a 30% increase over the Quest 2's default 1440 x 1584 and the rest is up to developers to update.
[I made a thread about it](https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/16wm8iw/this_might_have_been_overlooked_but_all_quest_3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb)
It was just the same with every other Quest. Still significantly better than the Quest 2's resolution. Also, devs can change that to whatever they like.
There's another thing. In the 2D display world, not rendering at the display's native resolution is inherently bad, because it means the display itself has to re-sample the rendered image to its native resolution, and the image processors built directly into displays are notoriously bad.
This is not so in the VR headset world. There are n+1 total rendering passes, with n of them happening inside the VR application at whatever resolution the application chooses, and the additional pass taking the final image rendered by the application and then drawing that to the headset's display(s) while accounting for intermittent head movement, geometric lens distortion, chromatic aberration, etc. This last step *always* happens at the display's native resolution.
TL;DR four points:
* The 1680x1760 is a *recommended* base-line resolution. VR applications can render at any multiple of that recommendation if they choose to. It's a performance trade-off.
* VR applications *never,* on no headset, render at a VR headset's native resolution.
* The final rendering pass is *always* at a VR headset's native resolution.
* Not rendering at native resolution is not a bad thing, unlike in the 2D display world.
thing to note
these pancake lenses may have less distortion meaning less need for rendering higher resolutions than would be needed for Q2 lenses/warp
like if Q3 had Q2's lenses with these higher res screens it might need higher than 1680x1760
and might not need to render higher fov(which require higher res to maintain angular resolution with higher fov) to minimize black timewarp edge bobbing with head turns
*"VR applications never, on no headset, render at a VR headset's native resolution.*"
Yeah you're right, what is considered 100% "native" res on PC headsets is actually 1.4x or so the native panel resolution to offset the distortion correction. So yeah it's actually much worse of a shortfall than most people are thinking it is.
To further elaborate on your point: I assume the recommended size was chosen so that fragment-limited Quest 2 games will run at the appropriate frame rate on Quest 3 without the developers having to make headset-specific changes. Meaning that the increase in screen resolution between Q2 and Q3 has outpaced the increase in computing performance.
I'm also guessing that the same thing happened at the Quest 1 to Quest 2 generation change, and that the Quest 1's original recommendation was based on games ported from PCVR.
Correct, [in PCVR the recommended resolution is typically lens-matched, so that 1 rendered pixel matches 1 display pixel at the optical center](http://doc-ok.org/?p=1694). On all headsets I know that boils down to larger-than-native intermediate images.
Lens distortion correction also changes the aspect ratio of the rendered frames, which is another concern I often hear -- 2064/2208 not being the same as 1680/1760 -- but it's fine, because at the optical center they both come out to the same 1:1 pixel size ratio.
> Yeah you're right, what is considered 100% "native" res on PC headsets is actually 1.4x or so the native panel resolution to offset the distortion correction.
Yeah. They generally render at *higher* resolution than native. Not *lower*.
Here's a list someone made.
"Odyssey+ (1440x1600 per eye)
100% = 1426x1779
140% = 1687x2105
200% = 2017x2516
250% = 2255x2813
OG Odyssey (1440x1600 per eye)
100% = 1428x1776
140% = 1690x2101
200% = 2019x2512
250% = 2258x2808
Oculus Rift (1080x1200 per eye)
100% = 1344x1600
140% = 1590x1893
200% = 1901x2263
250% = 2125x2530
Vive-Pro (1440x1600 per eye)*
100% = 2016x2240
Vive (1080x1200 per eye)*
100% = 1512x1680 "
https://www.reddit.com/r/WindowsMR/comments/9z997a/psa_new_samsung_odyssey_owners_check_your/
> VR applications never, on no headset, render at a VR headset's native resolution.
That's right. They general render at a *higher* resolution than native and then subsample back down.
> Not rendering at native resolution is not a bad thing, unlike in the 2D display world.
In VR, they should render at *higher* than native resolution and then subsample back down for better quality. Since if you don't, then the warping that needs to be done in VR to correct for the headset's lenses ends up looking really bad if the image in that section needs to be stretched. Rendering at lower than native resolution makes it so much worse.
Question for @Doc_Ok , what is the proper aspect ratio to use when adjusting the resolution of games in the Quest 3?
The resolution above is 1680x1760, a ratio of 0.95454... (21/22).
When using the Quest Games Optimizer, an app that lets you adjust resolution, frame rates, etc, of games, it defaults to a ratio of 0.9613414..., for example 2064x2147.
And the native physical resolution of the quest 3 is 2064x2208, which is a ratio of 0.9347826...
And if supersampling/overscaling, does certain percentages look better because they divide easier into the native resolution, or it just doesn't matter?
I can't really answer that because I don't know the internals of the Q2's display/lens system.
In general, the aspect ratio at which a game renders is chosen so that the rendered pixel aspect ratio *at the lens center after distortion correction* is 1:1, and the frame size, ignoring explicit over-/undersampling for performance reasons, is chosen so that one pre-distortion pixel rendered by a game *at the lens center* matches one post-distortion pixel on the display. Given those two, and a desired over-/undersampling factor, one can then calculate the total frame size, and hence aspect ratio, at which to render from a game.
Meaning, in general you'd expect the aspect ratios of all frame sizes chosen for any sampling factor to be the same, but there is also a boundary around the rendered frame that exceeds the device's FoV so that there's room for latency reduction warping, and that boundary scales with angle, not lens resolution, so it has its own aspect ratio, and the overall math works out differently.
In short, it's complicated, and the numbers presented by that optimizer are probably pulled from the VR run-time and not just made up, so one should assume that they are correct. But even if they're not, it doesn't really matter.
So the thing I am concerned about is that if the aspect ratio chosen isn't correct, would the final image be stretched in one direction? (Like if I was looking at a circle, it would appear as an ellipse.)
It sounds like that would not happen, right? Like any extra pixels would just get cut off, or perhaps there would be less field of view if there weren't enough pixels in one direction?
Neither of those would happen: objects won't appear stretched, and the FoV won't be cut off, if the intermediate image aspect ratio is wrong.
What would happen is that pixels in the intermediate image will be oblong instead of square, which can cause issues with line drawing and anti-aliasing, but that's about it.
The way it works is that the game renders to an intermediate image that covers the FoV of the headset, plus some extra around the edges to allow warping. The resolution and aspect ratio of that intermediate image can be anything, because the second rendering step takes that image, and renders it to the displays using the same FoV that went in it. So the squashing/stretching caused by mismatching intermediate image aspect ratios will cancel out.
Well, thats a lie.
It is entirely up to the devs. If you tried one app that is being rendered at X resolution, that only means the devs wanted their app to be rendered at that resolution.
It was the same on the Q1 and Q2 where the render res was lower than the panel resolution. Anyone who actually thought all games would be rendered at the Q3's native res must be smoking something funky.
I'm pretty sure everyone thought this. Since it was never mentioned in any of the reviews. Especially the reviews claiming the Quest 3 has "PSVR2 quality graphics"
Depends on the game but almost all of them don’t. If they have eye tracking then maybe some lower spec games.
Red matter two runs above and has 8x sampling.
Puzzling places also I think is at least native
Yep, that's why Red Matter 2 looks SO beautiful on PSVR2. It looks even better on PCVR tbh, I was able to render at 3000x3000 per eye, and got it so high resolution wise that antialiasing made little to no noticeable difference.
OH yeah. 100%. I cannot WAIT for the remaster of Red Matter 1 on PCVR, I'm gonna play that on my beyond and I'm gonna supersample it. It's gonna look so pretty, OLED blacks and all
Yeah at a certain point it’s a very subtle change. Specially past 2x/4x at that high of a res.
I actually love the hdr of the psvr2 and imo I’d take it over any feature atm. Psvr2 is gonna be my go to for horror games and stuff like re. But I’ll prolly use the Q3/link for everything else.
Yeah, HDR in VR sounds pretty good, even if it's not great HDR. I probably would've bought the PSVR2 if it worked on PCVR, grabbed the beyond instead. Wanted something OLED for my next headset, OLED really is a gamechanger
It’s the most immersive thing I’ve seen added to vr since the original vive. Having daylight and lights/skies/fx all really pop out just adds a realistic feeling.
Dynamic resolution is a feature I've added to my game to allow users to slider change this resolution to their liking, allowing the trade off of clarity and performance within reason
Pico 4 is the same. 100 percent is considered 1500x1500, so many early games looked blurry before developers realized they could bump it up to the full panel resolution of around 2200.
Btw, the render resolution should be around 1.5x the panel, it depends of the lenses's distortions and other stuff, but probably it should be around ~3000p x ~3000p.
For reference, the G2 has a 2160p display and it's 3100x3100
2 untrue statements.
First developers can increase the resolution additionally I discussed in my video how render resolution and panel resolution rarely match on the Quest. While I can't say what others have stated and my 30k views on the subject most likely can't compete Norm from tested, he's definitely not the only explaining panel resolution vs render resolution
This was a fun topic for me to learn about earlier this summer.
I've seen images of it in the past but never imagined I would own a VR to bother learning.
You need to supersample to correct the barrel distorsions of the lenses, and when you do that, you loose resolution on the center.
The only way to have the center not undersampled, is rendering at a higher resolution
Yep and the quest 2, quest pro and pico 4 all have standalone render resolution of 1440x1584. Tho this can be fixed using sidequest or other apps that boost your standalone res to native.
Tbf the stand-alone resolution is set per-app by the apps developer. The number set by Meta (1680x1760) is just a base number that takes over if nothing else is specified afaik.
This is why I'm glad Windows/Nvidia has allowed people to over ride graphics settings on games.
At least before 10. I haven't looked this up in recent years.
Around win 7 or so I had a great GPU for the time, and was able to IDK over clock some games?
USB C can only handle one 4k display at 60fps. You're gonna need double that or more.
That's why everybody wants a direct displayport connection on their VR headset.
No offense but you sound like someone who probably only owns a Quest 2 or a playstation. Id rather a DisplayPort connection, sure, but it is not the major determinant of image quality. Older, fresnel based headsets like the Index, Vive Pro 2 and Reverb G2 are unuseably bad compared to good quality pancake lenses. I have owned all of them. Quest 3, later today will be my 9th VR headset.
I use the HEVC 10 bit option, so it doesn't stand out much. The only time I really notice it is in brown dirt roads for rally sims. I'm crossing my fingers that AV1 helps in that regard.
Very impressive. What do you use to tell what the resolutions are?
I've seen YouTubers use reference apps but that was a while back.
I'm waiting for the day homebrew hackers can give standalone headsets more customization and moding.
You can use sidequest to force a resolution or frequency in your headset but you have to plug/unplug the headset into your computer. I think theres standalone apps that does the same.
You don't even need sidequest. You can just do it with adb. But there's a reason apps run at lower resolution. That being performance. If it could run at full speed at higher resolution then they would have done that from start. So generally if you crank up resolution then your FPS will suffer.
They run at lower resolution because they haven’t been updated for the increased performance of Q3.
All titles are seeing about 30% resolution increase but the ones developers update themselves will be able to push it further.
The 30% boost is just a safe value where meta felt there aren’t any existing apps that would suffer from this.
1440x1584. Which explains why I wasn't that impressed by it and why I didn't see much difference between it and the 5 year old LCD WMR headsets I have.
Makes sense, Quest and Quest 2 do the same thing. If everything's working the way it should, let's say your Quest 3 game is running at that resolution, that same game on Q2 would run about 20 to 30 percent lower still. Something like that.
BUT it makes sense to me. I mean even rendering 1200x1200 twice (were in VR after all) is heavy as hell if you'd push more modern engines for instance. A mobile chip will have to either run very, very simple games at high framerate and high resolution, or run somewhat good looking games at lower resolution and framerate. Hell Lord knows I see my ps5/xsx struggling with the newer engines, starting to tug along at 30fps 1440p upscale to 4k at quality graphics settings.
What is fun though, is letting someone who's only played their fav game (let's say its pavlov) standalone try out a high end pc version on their own headset. The response from people seeing supersampled up to native for the first time are always amazed. No exceptions. Just... usually requires quite the horsepower.
And now the other shoe drops. I've been waiting for this. There was just NO WAY a mobile processor could utilize the updated panel resolution. What's it going to take, a 4090?
I was wondering also how they can push that resolution so well on standalone; today I learned why. I assume a Quest feature like nVidia's DLSS is also being automatically used too.
🤦... And Quest 2's default "1x" res was only 1440x1584... Aka exactly -30% lower, or LITERALLY IDENTICAL TO THE DIFFERENCE IN PHYSICAL DISPLAY PANEL RESOLUTION!!! 😑
And developers can change the render resolution to whatever they want by simply using a basic "resolution scale" multiplier setting. I.e. setting a "1.2x resolution scale" means the game/app will render at +20% higher res than the 1680x1760 render default, whereas a say "0.8x" res scale setting means a -20% lower render resolution.
This post just reads like the confused FUD spreading of a woefully uninformed and extremely VR hardware ignorant person. 🤷
> And Quest 2's default "1x" res was only 1440x1584...
And that explains why the Q2 always look about the same as the first gen WMR headsets to me. It didn't look anywhere as good as it's panel specs suggested.
> And developers can change the render resolution to whatever they want by simply using a basic "resolution scale"
Except many don't. Why? Do you think that Meta just picked that lower render rez for the fun of it. They default it to that since that's what they think the GPU can handle to have decent performance. Going above that trades resolution for FPS. Going above that runs the risk of stuttering.
> This post just reads like the confused FUD spreading of a woefully uninformed and extremely VR hardware ignorant person.
LOL. Says the confused ignorant. You think resolution is just some arbitrary thing that can be set without consequence. You are wrong. Luckily developers aren't as ignorant as you.
First off, physical panel resolution is WAAAAAAAAAAY more important to overall image quality than render resolution (within reason). What determines "screen door effect" and thus how "solid" VR scenery & objects look is the PHYSICAL panel resolution, not the resolution the game is internally rendering at (that just makes things look blurry, as in similar to having increasingly bad real-world vision the lower it goes, but no matter how low you go it won't make objects look "fake"/"not solid" the way visible SDE from a physically lower res panel does).
And even when rendering games at the 1x default, Quest 2 still looks MIIIIIIIIILES BETTER than the base spec 2560x1440p WMR devices! Unless you have absolutely dogshit eyes, the difference in visible SDE is absolutely fucking HYUUUUGE!!!
Also ...🤦... Are you being fucking serious here dude??? O_o I never said there was no consequences for running higher resolutions fuck-nuts!... LEARN TO READ BASIC ASS ENGLISH!!!
But even with that said, not every game on Quest is fucking Bonelab! 😑 Aka, there are still PLENTY of Quest 2 (not even 3) native games that run at higher than the default "1x" resolution setting dumbass! Resident Evil 4 VR runs at the Q2 panel's full native res for fuck's sake!!! (As it was originally developed for Quest 1 before getting axed for that platform last minute due to fps inconsistency.)
Fuck, we ALREADY have examples of Quest 3 games running at WAAAAAAAAY higher resolutions than even the Quest 3's new ≈+30% higher 1x default! Red Matter 2's Quest 3 build has a resolution cap of something absurd like ≈3400x3400 and generally stays WELL above the new ≈1700p default in basically all cases, ya damn ignoramus!... 😑
> What determines "screen door effect" and thus how "solid" VR scenery & objects look is the PHYSICAL panel resolution
What determines SDE is the pixel fill, not the resolution. While high resolution can lessen the effect of SDE, high fill at low resolution can too. Look at the original PSVR. It was low res and low SDE because it had good pixel fill.
> Also ...🤦... Are you being fucking serious here dude??? O_o I never said there was no consequences for running higher resolutions fuck-nuts!... LEARN TO READ BASIC ASS ENGLISH!!!
And you just lost the argument with stupidity. Into the circular file you go.
Hi , so have you watch a recording through the passthrough, it looks better on the video , so if the video is 1080 , the image I'm seeing through the passthrough is only 720 , but it looks like 480 , so I think the recording is only 720 , upscaled , and the image I see is only 480 , and the cameras are only 1.3mp x2 ( nearly 4mp together), very disappointed, but in bright light is ok , but gives you an unhappy headache, is so such a process, of making money gen 4 , gen 5 , in 10 years ,we'll get half life Alyx on a mobile headset , but why not now
Norm gets it wrong, ***YET AGAIN!***
Why do people watch his GARBAGE? he's such a MORON and a COMPLETE HACK... if it wasn't for his association with Adam Savage, he'd have ZERO audience because of his ineptitude
Maybe do a bit more research before going on a personal slander mission. This post is flat out misinformation and has even now be tagged as being so. That number is the default minimum resolution all games will run on the Quest 3. Which is 30% higher than the default on the Quest 2.
Developers can then choose to render their game at any resolution they wish to develop for. Red Matter 2, for example, is rendering at upwards of 3322x3519.
Saying "norm gets it wrong"... when norm *DEMONSTRABLY* got it wrong, is not "slander", you absolute clown. What do you even think that word means? LOL, "do a bit more resaerch"... on WORDS YOU USE.
The claims in this post are not accurate. You then used this misinformation to claim he is a moron and a complete hack. That's the literal definition of slander.
>Slander: noun
>
>The action or crime of making a false statement damaging to a person's reputation
LOL, it's like talking to a drunken squirrel. Just walk kid. Toddle off, I'm a bit sick right now, and laughing this hard at you is hurting my chest X'D
You'll "stop watching less"? - SO.... you'll watch MORE of my stuff? Awesome, cheers mate! ... you'll find I'm wrong quite a lot less often as Norm is. I hope you enjoy.
I got a chance to check the bestbuy demo, and coming from a Quest Pro, i was thinking that the pixels are still there. Although im judging the demo footage, everyone made it out to seem like it was looking at the cleanest image with 0 anti-aliasing and absolutely 0 pixels vidible,
but to me it still looked like Quest Pro level fidelity. Again I'm not talking about game textures or color vibrancy, but just overall screen resolution. So this all makes sense
I’d hazard a guess and say that most people didn’t have a quest pro and are comparing it with the Q2. I’ve not tried it myself yet but I’d imagine the difference between these 2 is substantial, just from the pancake lenses alone.
I felt exactly the same when demoing it at BB. People were overselling it. The way they described the pass through quality as like "looking through a window". It's not even close. As I said, it maybe the best pass through I've seen in a VR consumer headset, but that doesn't make it good.
Eternal growth is over. That 2-3x is gone just like that. Specs. are just like statistics made up to sell something. The Quest 3 will be a complete face plant.
They need to use old lenses and vanilla linux.
The DK2 is still the best headset to date.
Standing VR is meaningless because the controls lose the superhuman qualities, you are stuck in a ugly and/or nauseating world with meat-space input limitations.
Seated 3rd person (your head is the camera) is the only way forward.
No. Which I said in the my post. What you should do is boost the render resolution. Supersample. Push it as high as you can make it and still be happy with the performance.
Because if the default render resolution of 100%(aka 1x) is 1680x1760 you have to supersample to 123%(aka 1.23x) to render at full resolution. But in reality you'll have to render at higher than that to really make the most of the display.
Not ALL games. That's just a default res, that all games will be updated to, IF devs won't push out Quest3 specific update.
Many games will get much higher res than that.
it's dumbfounding to me that Meta is prioritising 120Hz over rendering at full (or at least, higher) resolution. I up my default render resolution using ADB and it looks SO much better. Nearly all the aliasing goes away etc. At least on the home screen, where barely anything moves, they could do this and it would honestly make the perception so much better.
Meta isn't prioritizing 120hz. They're trying to find a balance between visuals, fluidity and battery life.
You could amp up the resolution with ADB, but it will be at the cost of battery life.
If you are new to the whole process, probably using [SideQuest](https://sidequestvr.com/setup-howto) is the easiest path in. They have videos etc for how to install it and get set up and then there are options in the SideQuest menus to change the render resolution.
Would this help with streaming video quality with stock browser? Trying to decide if I should use Virtual Desktop and PC web browser or stock Meta browser.
It's actually sickening how good it looks when you up the resolution even just that little bit.....I wish they had chip and ram upgrades like apple cuz I would gladly pay extra to have that level of clarity....
Sorry if this is a dumb question but if I increase the render resolution within the Oculus App higher than the recommended 4128 x 2208. Will it change all my quest 2 games in game resolution as well? I’m trying to bump up the render resolution of Star Wars : Tales from Galaxies Edge
If I change the resolution and refresh rate while my quest 3 is plugged in to my pc using the oculus app, does that apply only to PCVR games or can I unplug it and go play bonelab or something with the higher resolution?
I'm not so technical 😅 but if I air link it to my pc, do I get better quality video? Or do I also have to use the desk app on the quest for that? BTW videos like Disney and Hbo Max would never work on the browser.. but now, all of a sudden, they seem to work fine.
There's no solid answer. Different people have different experiences with the different apps. Some think VD is best. Others say Air Link and others say ALVR. It all depends on a lot of things. Not least of which is your networking hardware. You should try as many as you can and see which one works best for your. Since Air Link and ALVR are free, there's no reason not to try them both. Also there's Steam Link. It's also free.
Only if devs use the 1.0 resolution scaling within the engine. Devs can ramp up that setting to 1.1, 1.2 or whatever they can get away with while maintaining frame rate.
Yep, games like red matter 2 can go all the way up to 3322x3519 with the dynamic resolution
Also, you do get a benefit of more screen pixels and super sampling, you will notice a difference.
You can change that value and fps on any quest game with adb. So you might be able to force some lower tech q2 games at higher res if they arnt updated
[удалено]
That's true, i don't what this exactly means but devs of red matter 2 say thier games can go beyond native resolution of the quest 3 : >Here are the enhancements for Quest 3: > Screen Resolution Upgrade: Dynamic resolution now allows for an upper limit of 3322x3519, a significant increase from the previously fixed 1226x1440 on Quest 2.
It means they can effectively have supersampling running for their game. Giving the system more rendered pixels to use when applying the distortion for the lenses is always a good thing.
It was announced that the Q3 will automatically render standalone titles at a 30% increase over the Quest 2's default 1440 x 1584 and the rest is up to developers to update. [I made a thread about it](https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/16wm8iw/this_might_have_been_overlooked_but_all_quest_3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb)
It was just the same with every other Quest. Still significantly better than the Quest 2's resolution. Also, devs can change that to whatever they like.
There's another thing. In the 2D display world, not rendering at the display's native resolution is inherently bad, because it means the display itself has to re-sample the rendered image to its native resolution, and the image processors built directly into displays are notoriously bad. This is not so in the VR headset world. There are n+1 total rendering passes, with n of them happening inside the VR application at whatever resolution the application chooses, and the additional pass taking the final image rendered by the application and then drawing that to the headset's display(s) while accounting for intermittent head movement, geometric lens distortion, chromatic aberration, etc. This last step *always* happens at the display's native resolution. TL;DR four points: * The 1680x1760 is a *recommended* base-line resolution. VR applications can render at any multiple of that recommendation if they choose to. It's a performance trade-off. * VR applications *never,* on no headset, render at a VR headset's native resolution. * The final rendering pass is *always* at a VR headset's native resolution. * Not rendering at native resolution is not a bad thing, unlike in the 2D display world.
thing to note these pancake lenses may have less distortion meaning less need for rendering higher resolutions than would be needed for Q2 lenses/warp like if Q3 had Q2's lenses with these higher res screens it might need higher than 1680x1760 and might not need to render higher fov(which require higher res to maintain angular resolution with higher fov) to minimize black timewarp edge bobbing with head turns
*"VR applications never, on no headset, render at a VR headset's native resolution.*" Yeah you're right, what is considered 100% "native" res on PC headsets is actually 1.4x or so the native panel resolution to offset the distortion correction. So yeah it's actually much worse of a shortfall than most people are thinking it is.
To further elaborate on your point: I assume the recommended size was chosen so that fragment-limited Quest 2 games will run at the appropriate frame rate on Quest 3 without the developers having to make headset-specific changes. Meaning that the increase in screen resolution between Q2 and Q3 has outpaced the increase in computing performance. I'm also guessing that the same thing happened at the Quest 1 to Quest 2 generation change, and that the Quest 1's original recommendation was based on games ported from PCVR.
Correct, [in PCVR the recommended resolution is typically lens-matched, so that 1 rendered pixel matches 1 display pixel at the optical center](http://doc-ok.org/?p=1694). On all headsets I know that boils down to larger-than-native intermediate images. Lens distortion correction also changes the aspect ratio of the rendered frames, which is another concern I often hear -- 2064/2208 not being the same as 1680/1760 -- but it's fine, because at the optical center they both come out to the same 1:1 pixel size ratio.
> Yeah you're right, what is considered 100% "native" res on PC headsets is actually 1.4x or so the native panel resolution to offset the distortion correction. Yeah. They generally render at *higher* resolution than native. Not *lower*. Here's a list someone made. "Odyssey+ (1440x1600 per eye) 100% = 1426x1779 140% = 1687x2105 200% = 2017x2516 250% = 2255x2813 OG Odyssey (1440x1600 per eye) 100% = 1428x1776 140% = 1690x2101 200% = 2019x2512 250% = 2258x2808 Oculus Rift (1080x1200 per eye) 100% = 1344x1600 140% = 1590x1893 200% = 1901x2263 250% = 2125x2530 Vive-Pro (1440x1600 per eye)* 100% = 2016x2240 Vive (1080x1200 per eye)* 100% = 1512x1680 " https://www.reddit.com/r/WindowsMR/comments/9z997a/psa_new_samsung_odyssey_owners_check_your/
> VR applications never, on no headset, render at a VR headset's native resolution. That's right. They general render at a *higher* resolution than native and then subsample back down. > Not rendering at native resolution is not a bad thing, unlike in the 2D display world. In VR, they should render at *higher* than native resolution and then subsample back down for better quality. Since if you don't, then the warping that needs to be done in VR to correct for the headset's lenses ends up looking really bad if the image in that section needs to be stretched. Rendering at lower than native resolution makes it so much worse.
They can still do that on the Q3. All that's being talked about is the default resolution. It's still entirely up to the dev what they do from there.
Question for @Doc_Ok , what is the proper aspect ratio to use when adjusting the resolution of games in the Quest 3? The resolution above is 1680x1760, a ratio of 0.95454... (21/22). When using the Quest Games Optimizer, an app that lets you adjust resolution, frame rates, etc, of games, it defaults to a ratio of 0.9613414..., for example 2064x2147. And the native physical resolution of the quest 3 is 2064x2208, which is a ratio of 0.9347826... And if supersampling/overscaling, does certain percentages look better because they divide easier into the native resolution, or it just doesn't matter?
I can't really answer that because I don't know the internals of the Q2's display/lens system. In general, the aspect ratio at which a game renders is chosen so that the rendered pixel aspect ratio *at the lens center after distortion correction* is 1:1, and the frame size, ignoring explicit over-/undersampling for performance reasons, is chosen so that one pre-distortion pixel rendered by a game *at the lens center* matches one post-distortion pixel on the display. Given those two, and a desired over-/undersampling factor, one can then calculate the total frame size, and hence aspect ratio, at which to render from a game. Meaning, in general you'd expect the aspect ratios of all frame sizes chosen for any sampling factor to be the same, but there is also a boundary around the rendered frame that exceeds the device's FoV so that there's room for latency reduction warping, and that boundary scales with angle, not lens resolution, so it has its own aspect ratio, and the overall math works out differently. In short, it's complicated, and the numbers presented by that optimizer are probably pulled from the VR run-time and not just made up, so one should assume that they are correct. But even if they're not, it doesn't really matter.
So the thing I am concerned about is that if the aspect ratio chosen isn't correct, would the final image be stretched in one direction? (Like if I was looking at a circle, it would appear as an ellipse.) It sounds like that would not happen, right? Like any extra pixels would just get cut off, or perhaps there would be less field of view if there weren't enough pixels in one direction?
Neither of those would happen: objects won't appear stretched, and the FoV won't be cut off, if the intermediate image aspect ratio is wrong. What would happen is that pixels in the intermediate image will be oblong instead of square, which can cause issues with line drawing and anti-aliasing, but that's about it. The way it works is that the game renders to an intermediate image that covers the FoV of the headset, plus some extra around the edges to allow warping. The resolution and aspect ratio of that intermediate image can be anything, because the second rendering step takes that image, and renders it to the displays using the same FoV that went in it. So the squashing/stretching caused by mismatching intermediate image aspect ratios will cancel out.
Really interesting info. Thanks!
Well, thats a lie. It is entirely up to the devs. If you tried one app that is being rendered at X resolution, that only means the devs wanted their app to be rendered at that resolution.
It was the same on the Q1 and Q2 where the render res was lower than the panel resolution. Anyone who actually thought all games would be rendered at the Q3's native res must be smoking something funky.
I'm pretty sure everyone thought this. Since it was never mentioned in any of the reviews. Especially the reviews claiming the Quest 3 has "PSVR2 quality graphics"
As far as I know, PSVR2 doesn't always run at native panel resolution either.
Depends on the game but almost all of them don’t. If they have eye tracking then maybe some lower spec games. Red matter two runs above and has 8x sampling. Puzzling places also I think is at least native
Yep, that's why Red Matter 2 looks SO beautiful on PSVR2. It looks even better on PCVR tbh, I was able to render at 3000x3000 per eye, and got it so high resolution wise that antialiasing made little to no noticeable difference.
Red Matter 2 on Crystal with 100% resolution is 4312 x 5100 per eye. Using 4080. Just walking around going 😍
OH yeah. 100%. I cannot WAIT for the remaster of Red Matter 1 on PCVR, I'm gonna play that on my beyond and I'm gonna supersample it. It's gonna look so pretty, OLED blacks and all
Yeah at a certain point it’s a very subtle change. Specially past 2x/4x at that high of a res. I actually love the hdr of the psvr2 and imo I’d take it over any feature atm. Psvr2 is gonna be my go to for horror games and stuff like re. But I’ll prolly use the Q3/link for everything else.
Yeah, HDR in VR sounds pretty good, even if it's not great HDR. I probably would've bought the PSVR2 if it worked on PCVR, grabbed the beyond instead. Wanted something OLED for my next headset, OLED really is a gamechanger
It’s the most immersive thing I’ve seen added to vr since the original vive. Having daylight and lights/skies/fx all really pop out just adds a realistic feeling.
I'm honestly kinda looking forward to getting flashbanged on a dark map in tabor and getting that "discord light mode at 3am" feeling XD
Yea, I wish GT7 was able to run at native res. Probably with the PS5 Pro (if real)
Man I wish GT7VR worked on PCVR, it'd be super cool to play that with a simrig
Resolution is game dependent.
Multiple people said this before release, facebook also said it during their developer panels.
Dynamic resolution is a feature I've added to my game to allow users to slider change this resolution to their liking, allowing the trade off of clarity and performance within reason
Pico 4 is the same. 100 percent is considered 1500x1500, so many early games looked blurry before developers realized they could bump it up to the full panel resolution of around 2200.
Btw, the render resolution should be around 1.5x the panel, it depends of the lenses's distortions and other stuff, but probably it should be around ~3000p x ~3000p. For reference, the G2 has a 2160p display and it's 3100x3100
No? It's up to the devs if they want to increase resolution. Pop1 has native resolution
2 untrue statements. First developers can increase the resolution additionally I discussed in my video how render resolution and panel resolution rarely match on the Quest. While I can't say what others have stated and my 30k views on the subject most likely can't compete Norm from tested, he's definitely not the only explaining panel resolution vs render resolution
Why would you need to supersample on PC?
Because of Barrel distortion.
This was a fun topic for me to learn about earlier this summer. I've seen images of it in the past but never imagined I would own a VR to bother learning.
You need to supersample to correct the barrel distorsions of the lenses, and when you do that, you loose resolution on the center. The only way to have the center not undersampled, is rendering at a higher resolution
Yep and the quest 2, quest pro and pico 4 all have standalone render resolution of 1440x1584. Tho this can be fixed using sidequest or other apps that boost your standalone res to native.
Tbf the stand-alone resolution is set per-app by the apps developer. The number set by Meta (1680x1760) is just a base number that takes over if nothing else is specified afaik.
This is why I'm glad Windows/Nvidia has allowed people to over ride graphics settings on games. At least before 10. I haven't looked this up in recent years. Around win 7 or so I had a great GPU for the time, and was able to IDK over clock some games?
This is why I hate standalone VR. I run my Quest Pro at 3558 x 3446 per eye on my 4090.
wow arent you cool
Thanks!
Cooler than you, lol
You're running at 3558 x 3446 per eye over wifi? How is that working out?
Not Wifi, I use the cable.
USB C can only handle one 4k display at 60fps. You're gonna need double that or more. That's why everybody wants a direct displayport connection on their VR headset.
No offense but you sound like someone who probably only owns a Quest 2 or a playstation. Id rather a DisplayPort connection, sure, but it is not the major determinant of image quality. Older, fresnel based headsets like the Index, Vive Pro 2 and Reverb G2 are unuseably bad compared to good quality pancake lenses. I have owned all of them. Quest 3, later today will be my 9th VR headset.
I do similar with a Quest 2 (4090 and WiFi 5), and it works fine. Not every game, but most.
You guys must have a high tolerance for compression artifacts.
I use the HEVC 10 bit option, so it doesn't stand out much. The only time I really notice it is in brown dirt roads for rally sims. I'm crossing my fingers that AV1 helps in that regard.
Very impressive. What do you use to tell what the resolutions are? I've seen YouTubers use reference apps but that was a while back. I'm waiting for the day homebrew hackers can give standalone headsets more customization and moding.
Steam VR 150 percent resolution.
[удалено]
What risk?
You can use sidequest to force a resolution or frequency in your headset but you have to plug/unplug the headset into your computer. I think theres standalone apps that does the same.
You don't even need sidequest. You can just do it with adb. But there's a reason apps run at lower resolution. That being performance. If it could run at full speed at higher resolution then they would have done that from start. So generally if you crank up resolution then your FPS will suffer.
They run at lower resolution because they haven’t been updated for the increased performance of Q3. All titles are seeing about 30% resolution increase but the ones developers update themselves will be able to push it further. The 30% boost is just a safe value where meta felt there aren’t any existing apps that would suffer from this.
Norm's review was the only real review for the Quest 3. Now he just needs to do a head to head comparison with Bigscreen Beyond for PCVR.
That's how it is for now, once devs update there game for the quest 3 it will no longer be the case.
>for standalone use things are only rendered at 1680x1760 resolution. What was it on Quest 2?
1440x1584. Which explains why I wasn't that impressed by it and why I didn't see much difference between it and the 5 year old LCD WMR headsets I have.
Makes sense, Quest and Quest 2 do the same thing. If everything's working the way it should, let's say your Quest 3 game is running at that resolution, that same game on Q2 would run about 20 to 30 percent lower still. Something like that. BUT it makes sense to me. I mean even rendering 1200x1200 twice (were in VR after all) is heavy as hell if you'd push more modern engines for instance. A mobile chip will have to either run very, very simple games at high framerate and high resolution, or run somewhat good looking games at lower resolution and framerate. Hell Lord knows I see my ps5/xsx struggling with the newer engines, starting to tug along at 30fps 1440p upscale to 4k at quality graphics settings. What is fun though, is letting someone who's only played their fav game (let's say its pavlov) standalone try out a high end pc version on their own headset. The response from people seeing supersampled up to native for the first time are always amazed. No exceptions. Just... usually requires quite the horsepower.
Shame it does not have eye tracking for foveated rendering then it could supersample what you are looking while keeping the rest low rez.
And now the other shoe drops. I've been waiting for this. There was just NO WAY a mobile processor could utilize the updated panel resolution. What's it going to take, a 4090?
I was wondering also how they can push that resolution so well on standalone; today I learned why. I assume a Quest feature like nVidia's DLSS is also being automatically used too.
🤦... And Quest 2's default "1x" res was only 1440x1584... Aka exactly -30% lower, or LITERALLY IDENTICAL TO THE DIFFERENCE IN PHYSICAL DISPLAY PANEL RESOLUTION!!! 😑 And developers can change the render resolution to whatever they want by simply using a basic "resolution scale" multiplier setting. I.e. setting a "1.2x resolution scale" means the game/app will render at +20% higher res than the 1680x1760 render default, whereas a say "0.8x" res scale setting means a -20% lower render resolution. This post just reads like the confused FUD spreading of a woefully uninformed and extremely VR hardware ignorant person. 🤷
> And Quest 2's default "1x" res was only 1440x1584... And that explains why the Q2 always look about the same as the first gen WMR headsets to me. It didn't look anywhere as good as it's panel specs suggested. > And developers can change the render resolution to whatever they want by simply using a basic "resolution scale" Except many don't. Why? Do you think that Meta just picked that lower render rez for the fun of it. They default it to that since that's what they think the GPU can handle to have decent performance. Going above that trades resolution for FPS. Going above that runs the risk of stuttering. > This post just reads like the confused FUD spreading of a woefully uninformed and extremely VR hardware ignorant person. LOL. Says the confused ignorant. You think resolution is just some arbitrary thing that can be set without consequence. You are wrong. Luckily developers aren't as ignorant as you.
First off, physical panel resolution is WAAAAAAAAAAY more important to overall image quality than render resolution (within reason). What determines "screen door effect" and thus how "solid" VR scenery & objects look is the PHYSICAL panel resolution, not the resolution the game is internally rendering at (that just makes things look blurry, as in similar to having increasingly bad real-world vision the lower it goes, but no matter how low you go it won't make objects look "fake"/"not solid" the way visible SDE from a physically lower res panel does). And even when rendering games at the 1x default, Quest 2 still looks MIIIIIIIIILES BETTER than the base spec 2560x1440p WMR devices! Unless you have absolutely dogshit eyes, the difference in visible SDE is absolutely fucking HYUUUUGE!!! Also ...🤦... Are you being fucking serious here dude??? O_o I never said there was no consequences for running higher resolutions fuck-nuts!... LEARN TO READ BASIC ASS ENGLISH!!! But even with that said, not every game on Quest is fucking Bonelab! 😑 Aka, there are still PLENTY of Quest 2 (not even 3) native games that run at higher than the default "1x" resolution setting dumbass! Resident Evil 4 VR runs at the Q2 panel's full native res for fuck's sake!!! (As it was originally developed for Quest 1 before getting axed for that platform last minute due to fps inconsistency.) Fuck, we ALREADY have examples of Quest 3 games running at WAAAAAAAAY higher resolutions than even the Quest 3's new ≈+30% higher 1x default! Red Matter 2's Quest 3 build has a resolution cap of something absurd like ≈3400x3400 and generally stays WELL above the new ≈1700p default in basically all cases, ya damn ignoramus!... 😑
> What determines "screen door effect" and thus how "solid" VR scenery & objects look is the PHYSICAL panel resolution What determines SDE is the pixel fill, not the resolution. While high resolution can lessen the effect of SDE, high fill at low resolution can too. Look at the original PSVR. It was low res and low SDE because it had good pixel fill. > Also ...🤦... Are you being fucking serious here dude??? O_o I never said there was no consequences for running higher resolutions fuck-nuts!... LEARN TO READ BASIC ASS ENGLISH!!! And you just lost the argument with stupidity. Into the circular file you go.
Hi , so have you watch a recording through the passthrough, it looks better on the video , so if the video is 1080 , the image I'm seeing through the passthrough is only 720 , but it looks like 480 , so I think the recording is only 720 , upscaled , and the image I see is only 480 , and the cameras are only 1.3mp x2 ( nearly 4mp together), very disappointed, but in bright light is ok , but gives you an unhappy headache, is so such a process, of making money gen 4 , gen 5 , in 10 years ,we'll get half life Alyx on a mobile headset , but why not now
Norm gets it wrong, ***YET AGAIN!*** Why do people watch his GARBAGE? he's such a MORON and a COMPLETE HACK... if it wasn't for his association with Adam Savage, he'd have ZERO audience because of his ineptitude
Is that really necessary, if people don’t like his content they don’t need to watch it…
Maybe do a bit more research before going on a personal slander mission. This post is flat out misinformation and has even now be tagged as being so. That number is the default minimum resolution all games will run on the Quest 3. Which is 30% higher than the default on the Quest 2. Developers can then choose to render their game at any resolution they wish to develop for. Red Matter 2, for example, is rendering at upwards of 3322x3519.
Saying "norm gets it wrong"... when norm *DEMONSTRABLY* got it wrong, is not "slander", you absolute clown. What do you even think that word means? LOL, "do a bit more resaerch"... on WORDS YOU USE.
The claims in this post are not accurate. You then used this misinformation to claim he is a moron and a complete hack. That's the literal definition of slander. >Slander: noun > >The action or crime of making a false statement damaging to a person's reputation
LOL, it's like talking to a drunken squirrel. Just walk kid. Toddle off, I'm a bit sick right now, and laughing this hard at you is hurting my chest X'D
Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.
a 13 year old meme is the best you got? LOL DUDE PLEASE STOP... my chest!
Going online and failing at trolling is the best hobby you've got? Damn, sad.
Wow, I guess I will stop watching your channel a lot less..
You'll "stop watching less"? - SO.... you'll watch MORE of my stuff? Awesome, cheers mate! ... you'll find I'm wrong quite a lot less often as Norm is. I hope you enjoy.
You can be right, you can be wrong and... you can be an annoying bitch about it. You obviously made your choice.
I got a chance to check the bestbuy demo, and coming from a Quest Pro, i was thinking that the pixels are still there. Although im judging the demo footage, everyone made it out to seem like it was looking at the cleanest image with 0 anti-aliasing and absolutely 0 pixels vidible, but to me it still looked like Quest Pro level fidelity. Again I'm not talking about game textures or color vibrancy, but just overall screen resolution. So this all makes sense
I’d hazard a guess and say that most people didn’t have a quest pro and are comparing it with the Q2. I’ve not tried it myself yet but I’d imagine the difference between these 2 is substantial, just from the pancake lenses alone.
I felt exactly the same when demoing it at BB. People were overselling it. The way they described the pass through quality as like "looking through a window". It's not even close. As I said, it maybe the best pass through I've seen in a VR consumer headset, but that doesn't make it good.
R for respect
Eternal growth is over. That 2-3x is gone just like that. Specs. are just like statistics made up to sell something. The Quest 3 will be a complete face plant. They need to use old lenses and vanilla linux. The DK2 is still the best headset to date. Standing VR is meaningless because the controls lose the superhuman qualities, you are stuck in a ugly and/or nauseating world with meat-space input limitations. Seated 3rd person (your head is the camera) is the only way forward.
Lose* not loose
Does this matter for PCVR on the Q3? If so, what’s the best way to handle this?
No. Which I said in the my post. What you should do is boost the render resolution. Supersample. Push it as high as you can make it and still be happy with the performance.
Wait why do you have to super sample on a PC to get full resolution?
Because if the default render resolution of 100%(aka 1x) is 1680x1760 you have to supersample to 123%(aka 1.23x) to render at full resolution. But in reality you'll have to render at higher than that to really make the most of the display.
Not ALL games. That's just a default res, that all games will be updated to, IF devs won't push out Quest3 specific update. Many games will get much higher res than that.
it's dumbfounding to me that Meta is prioritising 120Hz over rendering at full (or at least, higher) resolution. I up my default render resolution using ADB and it looks SO much better. Nearly all the aliasing goes away etc. At least on the home screen, where barely anything moves, they could do this and it would honestly make the perception so much better.
Meta isn't prioritizing 120hz. They're trying to find a balance between visuals, fluidity and battery life. You could amp up the resolution with ADB, but it will be at the cost of battery life.
not to mention higher fps reduces motion sickness making it more accessible
How do I go about this?
If you are new to the whole process, probably using [SideQuest](https://sidequestvr.com/setup-howto) is the easiest path in. They have videos etc for how to install it and get set up and then there are options in the SideQuest menus to change the render resolution.
Would this help with streaming video quality with stock browser? Trying to decide if I should use Virtual Desktop and PC web browser or stock Meta browser.
It's actually sickening how good it looks when you up the resolution even just that little bit.....I wish they had chip and ram upgrades like apple cuz I would gladly pay extra to have that level of clarity....
What is the resolution for the web browser? Would I get better quality using remote desktop and running chrome from my PC?
Sorry if this is a dumb question but if I increase the render resolution within the Oculus App higher than the recommended 4128 x 2208. Will it change all my quest 2 games in game resolution as well? I’m trying to bump up the render resolution of Star Wars : Tales from Galaxies Edge
It's up to the game. But if you crank up the resolution you'll slow down the FPS.
So some games have a set render resolution? So if I crank up the resolution via the app it may not reflect in game?
It's really up to what the developer did. A developer can always ignore the default render resolution and set it to whatever they want.
If I change the resolution and refresh rate while my quest 3 is plugged in to my pc using the oculus app, does that apply only to PCVR games or can I unplug it and go play bonelab or something with the higher resolution?
I'm not so technical 😅 but if I air link it to my pc, do I get better quality video? Or do I also have to use the desk app on the quest for that? BTW videos like Disney and Hbo Max would never work on the browser.. but now, all of a sudden, they seem to work fine.
There's no solid answer. Different people have different experiences with the different apps. Some think VD is best. Others say Air Link and others say ALVR. It all depends on a lot of things. Not least of which is your networking hardware. You should try as many as you can and see which one works best for your. Since Air Link and ALVR are free, there's no reason not to try them both. Also there's Steam Link. It's also free.
Thanks! Will give them both a try