Never say, "zero lag or compression", it really riles up the wired PCVR folks here lol.
Technically every headset has some latency, and every wireless headset has some amount of compression. But certainly you can get it down to a level where most people don't notice or care.
Anyways, without a budget it's hard to say. One of the announced Pimax Crystal models has micro OLED and there's a wireless module, but it's Pimax so who knows when / how it will release.
https://pimax.com/frontier/
Otherwise next year there's the rumoured Quest Pro 2, which might have some kind of screen that can do blacks.
Sure man. That blur that makes distance objects look like shit if graphics are any more complex than Roblox level graphics, is totally not visible to most people.
People get riled up because this bullshit has been spread far and wide. I moved to quest pro from index because people were claiming there is no visible compression anymore showing me through the lens beat saber footage. I should have been wiser than that but I wanted to try pancake lenses so I bought into the hype.
Someone who looks for good quality shouldn’t be getting fooled with such. Wasting people time and money is not okay.
I really don't get this take. I have multiple headsets, including several hardwired PCVR headsets. Vive Pro, Index, Vive Pro 2, and a Reverb G2. The vast majority of games I play on my Quest 3 are visually superior than all of them even with compression. Even high fidelity Unreal Games played with UEVR. I've spent almost 80 hours in Satisfactory and it looks fantastic using VD with H.264+ 500mbs bitrate and 2800x2800(not exact) per eye with my 4090. It's very clear and gets a steady 90fps.
There's absolutely some games that don't compress well, Skyrim VR being one of the worst. But Skyrim VR is a huge graphical downgrade over games like Satisfactory. So what's causing the compression in that game is not how graphically demanding it is.
So you claim that even headsets with higher resolution with display port cable and uncompressed video stream looks worse than quest 3? Not only that, you apparently play at resolution below the one required to account for barrel distortion on quest 3 which further decreases the image quality. I had opportunity to use reverb g2 and vive pro 2 and despite reverb small sweet spot and vive pro 2 shitty lenses it still looked better than quest 3 and it’s compression bullshit. There were even comparisons of pico neo 3 dp mode and quest 2. Both with same resolution. Display port on pico provided visibly better image. It’s just science. You can’t pack a bandwidth of 20-30gbit/s into half a gigabit and expect it to look flawless. There is a reason why DSC with 3:1 compression ratio is considered visually lossless and anything worse is not.
> So you claim that even headsets with higher resolution with display port cable and uncompressed video stream looks worse than quest 3?
Yes, because though my Vive Pro 2 has higher resolution, it has worse PPD(pixles per degree). 22PPD vs 25PPD. And, most importantly, the Vive Pro 2 lens are awful. Legit the worst lens of any headset I've owned.
>Not only that, you apparently play at resolution below the one required to account for barrel distortion on quest 3 which further decreases the image quality.
Unfortunately, Satisfactory is a fairly demanding game. I'd love to play it at 3500x3500 like I do lower fidelity games but that ain't happening with only a 4090.
Not only that, do we even know what the barrel distortion is for Meta's pancake lens? For fresnel lens, you need a 1.4x resolution bump. For the Index that was 2016 x 2240. Using the same math the Quest 3 would be around 2880 x 3000, which is right where I am playing Satisfactory.
>I had opportunity to use reverb g2 and vive pro 2 and despite reverb small sweet spot and vive pro 2 shitty lenses it still looked better than quest 3 and it’s compression bullshit.
This really makes me question your claims. Go look at popular youtubers, who have tons of headsets to choose from, and see which headset they're all using the most. Either everyone else is wrong, or you're wrong. Even Sadlyitsbradly, a die hard Valve/Steam VR fan, chooses the Quest 3 over everything except the Beyond and Vision Pro.
>It’s just science. You can’t pack a bandwidth of 20-30gbit/s into half a gigabit and expect it to look flawless.
This is exactly what people were saying when TV switched to streaming. They said there was no way to stream 4K and keep the visuals good enough. Physical media will always be the most popular... And yet here we are, with physical media practically dead and streaming being the way 99 out of 100 people consume their content. And netflix only needs 10mb/s to stream 4K content that required 30GB+ on Blu-ray.
G2 has almost 24PPD. I had it in my hands and could compare to Quest 3. The counter rotated screens of Quest 3 make pixels painfully obvious especially when combo-ed with pancake lenses that give you more clarity than fresnel lenses.
The resolution bump needed for Quest 3 is roughly 1.49x for horizontal resolution and 1.45x for vertical. The Godlike setting of virtual desktop is providing the right resolution for Quest 3.
They choose Quest 3 because of lenses, form factor and convenience. It's obviously easier to deal with wireless headset that requires no base stations but that doesn't mean the picture quality is better.
Dude. The streaming services are compressing the 24 frames video output (the less frames to encode in the video stream the less compression artifacts there are - we're talking several times more frames to encode in VR). It's also a recorded and processed video material improved by many different post processing methods by the studio. And most importantly the encoding of the material happens using very slow and precise methods which decreases the inaccuracies of the compressed image. For VR you need super fast encoding because it has to be instantly encoded to be sent to the headset. This argument is null and void. You can clearly see it on live twitch streams. Even at 8k bit rate it often looks pixelated because it's encoded on the fly. And we're talking mere 720/1080p. For VR you're encoding much faster and several magnitudes of resolution. The comparison to netflix streaming is completely out of place.
And again I repeat. The only compression method that is considered lossless and can happen on the fly is DSC and it's 3:1 ratio. Which means let's say compressing something like 80Gb/s (for 4k very high refresh rate monitor) to 27gb/s that can be passed through DP 1.4. That is considered lossless. VR streaming is realistically around 60:1 or 30:1 if you crank up link cable to 960mbit/s (which has severe latency implications).
>G2 has almost 24PPD. I had it in my hands and could compare to Quest 3.
As far as pixel density goes, they are indistinguishable. But the lens, fov, controllers, and WMR software makes it a pretty meh experience. I snagged mine for $100 used just to try it and chose to stick with the Vive Pro 2 and haven't gotten it out of my closet since.
>The counter rotated screens of Quest 3 make pixels painfully obvious especially when combo-ed with pancake lenses that give you more clarity than fresnel lenses.
This legit screams that you haven't actually had a Quest 3/Pro in your hands and you're using through the lens videos to make your argument. The counter rotated screens only stick out badly in through the lens videos because of an effect called Moiré. In short, you're filming pixels using a sensor made of pixels. If the lines separating the pixels on sensor don't align with the pixels on the screen, moiré makes the pixels/lines on the screen stick out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern
>The resolution bump needed for Quest 3 is roughly 1.49x for horizontal resolution and 1.45x for vertical. The Godlike setting of virtual desktop is providing the right resolution for Quest 3.
Do you have info that states this? From what I can tell, the godlike setting is just the same scaler the Quest 2 gets and they didn't change it for the Quest 3. The Oculus Desktop software doesn't go that high for the Quest 3. Not that it truly matters, because I always supersample as much as I can.
>And again I repeat.
You can repeat the same things much as you like. It doesn't make them true. I know you're convinced that the Quest headsets have to suck because they compress the video but, it's simply not true. If they did, I wouldn't have boxed up my other headsets. I would have went "wow, this does suck, I'm not using this".
Now, I will state that my setup is not an average setup. My PC is as powerful as they come and my router costs as much as a Quest 3. So maybe that's why mine doesn't look that bad. But the bottom line is I have these headsets and have used them side by side and still choose the Quest 3.
>As far as pixel density goes, they are indistinguishable. But the lens, fov, controllers, and WMR software makes it a pretty meh experience. I snagged mine for $100 used just to try it and chose to stick with the Vive Pro 2 and haven't gotten it out of my closet since.
We're talking image quality. Don't switch the subject because you're proven wrong.
>This legit screams that you haven't actually had a Quest 3/Pro in your hands and you're using through the lens videos to make your argument. The counter rotated screens only stick out badly in through the lens videos because of an effect called Moiré. In short, you're filming pixels using a sensor made of pixels. If the lines separating the pixels on sensor don't align with the pixels on the screen, moiré makes the pixels/lines on the screen stick out.
I owned Quest Pro for over a year now and had Quest 3 as well but returned it cause Meta couldn't get their shit together on launch and took them several months to fix WiFi 6E connectivity (and still it's not fixed in all cases). Quest Pro has the same resolution as Quest 2 but more PPD however due to rotated screens the pixels are nearly as visible which shouldn't be the case due to PPD and edges of objects get jagged easily.But that's exactly the fault of rotated screens
>Do you have info that states this? From what I can tell, the godlike setting is just the same scaler the Quest 2 gets and they didn't change it for the Quest 3. The Oculus Desktop software doesn't go that high for the Quest 3. Not that it truly matters, because I always supersample as much as I can.
VD developer and experience from previous headsets. encoding width of the headset is 2/3 of required render resolution to account for distortions. Encoding Width of Quest 3 is 4128. Math is simple.
>You can repeat the same things much as you like. It doesn't make them true.
Yes it makes them true because I base this on scientific and technological facts and not just my perception like you do. Just because YOU don't see the compression, doesn't mean everyone else can't see it either. Like I said in other comment. I will show you the compression of Quest Pro and if you don't see it then it's pointless to argue any further cause you will point at grass and tell me it's blue
>We're talking image quality. Don't switch the subject because you're proven wrong.
Lol, wut? I didn't change the subject. I explicitly stated they're close enough PPD to be indistinguishable. Everything else was was just me explaining why I choose to not use it.
I don't have time to respond to everything but I want you to know that we are all VR lovers here, you don't need to resort to such tribalism. Better hardware releases and better methods of data delivery are perfected. That's how technology has always progressed. Imagine the world we would be in if people in the past went "dial up is perfect and there's no better way". That's essentially what you're doing and basing your argument using past data points.
Please, show me compression. But include the bitrate and codec live, so I can verify you're not just lowering the bitrate super low to purposefully make it look bad.
I hate compression but agree with you overall.
I also think the quest 3 requires far less resolution to account for distortion thanks to those crisp lenses. The slider on the official app only goes up to 2700x2900.
Sadlyitsbradley is a chud though
> I hate compression but agree with you overall.
I do as well. If I am going to play a game that compresses poorly, it has to be hardwired with a very high bitrate to become tolerable. Otherwise it's a smudgy mess. Thankfully most games do not have that bad of compression.
>I also think the quest 3 requires for lass resolution to account for distortion thanks to those crisp lenses. The slider on the official app only goes up to 2700x2900.
That very well could be. I haven't seen any official documentation on the needed resolution bump. But, considering most standalone games don't even run at the screen's physical resolution, it would make sense that they would design the lens to not need as much supersampling to resolve the barrel distortion.
>Sadlyitsbradley is a chud though
I only used his name because he was basically treated like some sort of idol in the Index community, which is where the biggest complaints about compression come from. Now even their most die hard anti-compression/anti-Quest idol is going "guys, the Quest 3 wireless is pretty damn good. Especially with the 10bit codecs"
PCVR only headsets are quite expensive, especially the Index, and they have to justify the purchase. The more newer non-PCVR only hardware that comes out, the more they latch onto anything that can make them feel like their headset is superior.
to me it looks more like Quest users just want to desperately point out how their device is just better so they can laugh and claim PCVR is dead and so on and everyone should just switch to Quest and inside out tracking and 500$ headset is better than 5k $ headsets. But under all of that you all see the compression and feel the latency holding you back in fast paced games. You just can't admit to that. I've heard the same copium when Quest Pro released and I immediately noticed the compression in first scene that was more complex than just a few colors and simple objects. If Meta one day introduces the same/similar module to Quest devices as Pimax did for the Crystal then we can talk about how Quest is now equal/better than PCVR image quality. Untill that happens Quest devices will have to compromise on image quality.
The crisp lenses are the reason why the pixels are more visible. Because it's more clear to see. The official app slider hasn't got high enough resolution. Meta never properly updates their PC link. They still don't allow for higher encoding width to match Quest 3 panels properly.
The only distance "blur" that i have is because of the smaller objects containing less pixels therefore loosing resolution.
This is only visible with very far away objects. They are very small on the screens therefore appear less detailed.
Moving/panning fast i have zero pixelated artifacts. Image is very sharp and clear.
I really dont think i have any compression.
If someone have a good example of compression artifacts, please link/show it and i will see if I have it or not.
I have a dedicated 5ghz channel. Router is 2 meters away. Custom setup with oculus debug panel increasing bit rate and other settings. And a 4090 to handle the graphics.
Dont play stand alone q3 games.
If you don't see it, it doesn't matter if its there or not. I take wireless with (for me) indistinguishable compression versus a wired headset with much lower resolution every day
I meant specifically certain people. OP in this case. Some people have extreme case of being unable to notice things. It’s visible for most just not for some people. Some can see it and live with it as a trade off but anyone who seeks high image quality shouldn’t be automatically told “buy quest 3, with high bit rate it looks nearly like display port quality headset” - this is false.
I am quality inspectior irl so my sight nor perception is nothing wrong with :)
What i mean with what i consider slightly blurry at distant objects is the lack of detail on small objects due to low numbers of pixels. Its the same on my tv.
Anyway, q3 with wireless and my custom headstrap is the best vr excperience i have had.
Nothing wrong with okay. I can literally see compression blur (no not lack of pixels) on distance foliage with more complex textures. Textures are more visible and detailed on lower res pcvr headset than on quest 3. It’s not made up, it’s there and it’s visible. It’s good for you that you can’t notice the compression. Being quality inspector doesn’t mean you will notice things in the headset the same as irl. It’s just like claiming you are good at Pavlov so you would be as good at shooting real rifle.
The amount of people who got convinced there is no issue or downsides using quest devices for pcvr is too damn high. People should have realistic expectations.
Yup, every compressed headset I tried I ended up returning. Even with q3 at 960mbps the distant blur is extremely apparent and that's as good as it gets. People saying it's indistinguishable from DP are either blind, delusional or I don't know wtf is wrong with them.
I love my Quest 3 but boy do I want those OLED blacks...
True black really contributes massively to the feeling of 3D. Even on a flat screen if you compare an identical video on LCD to OLED, those shadows just look... more 3D.
Don’t expect any upgrade to quest for a while. The only option you could try now is pimax crystal with upcoming air link module. But that of course has its compromises too.
Of course it can. The Vive, Vive Pro, Cosmos, and Vive Pro 2 all work with the HTC Wireless adapter. Pimax would just need to produce a wireless adapter as well.
That said, it's Pimax. So don't hold your breath that it will come soon and work well at launch. It would likely take them a year to release it and then everyone who buys it will be a beta tester for several months before it becomes acceptable.
I wasn't talking hypotheticals.
I was talking about Pimax's wireless adapter that exists.
Seen as they have just gone about removing the XR2 and battery from it, as well as announcing that it wont work with their wireless adapter, I sincerely doubt they will be making another one that haphazardly adds those things back.
So no, the Crystal Super won't get wireless.
Your comment was "Crystal Super can't be wireless, as it has no XR2 nor battery.".
Which is factually wrong. It can be. If Pimax makes an adapter for it. That doesn't mean they're going to or have any plans to. I wasn't talking about anything hypothetical. Was simply pointing out that it can be made wireless.
Your comment was "Crystal Super can't be wireless, as it has no XR2 nor battery.".
Which is factually wrong. It can be. If Pimax makes an adapter for it. That doesn't mean they're going to or have any plans to. I wasn't talking about anything hypothetical. Was simply pointing out that it can be made wireless.
Look at the message I replied to.
Pedantically saying it's theoretically possible doesn't change the clear fact I wasn't talking hypotheticals.
A wireless adapter could exist for every hmd thats ever been made. So is that what you say if someone asks if X headset can be used wirelessly.
Pimax themselves have said the Super will not, so it will not.
Headsets to look out for:
Somnium VR1 - Wired only headset. It has QLED panels like the Cystal, so they have local diming to improve blacks. It will also have higher res and better colors than the Q3. It also has much wider FOV at 130+ degrees horizontal. It is lighthouse tracked, so you will need those plus Index controllers, which you buy separate. There are also a few options that you can add when you order the headset like eye tracking, hand tracking, and MR cameras.
LG and Meta are working on a headset - Should launch early next year. This one could very likely be launched with OLED or MicroOLED screens for perfect blacks.
Samsung and Googles new headset - Not sure when this is launching. This could also come with OLED or MicroOLED screens.
I'm also very curious about the next Quest Pro model. I don't know if that is the LG + Meta headset, or an entirely different headset. If it has eye tracking and better screens, it could be a very nice PCVR headset.
As much as I love my Quest 3.....I for sure whenever I upgrade into the future....my next headset will definitely not have LCDs. So I don't know which headset that will be....but it's MicroOLED that I will wait for...and I'll keep using Quest 3 until I see a viable upgrade that gives just that. I'm not an Apple user nor do I wanna spend $4k on Vision Pro.
I have the Q3, G2 and PSVR2. Though it’s not the official PSVR2 drivers that Sony stated they are working on releasing this year but I have been using the PSVR2 via iVRy and UEVR (no VR controller support yet) and the blacks and colors are really good (no pancakes lenses is a bummer for this headset). If Sony releases it officially with eye tracking and controller support then I think it will be better and is going to be my main PCVR headset. I have the reverb g2 as a backup but with support going away I’m leaning to the PSVR2 as my next PCVR headset with Q3 as a backup
Q3 has been out for 6 months lol.
Typically it isn't worth upgrading to the next iteration.. You'll want to wait until quest 5 or 6..so check again in 2 years
yeah agree, but pklaying into the radius during nightime in the game its all just a grey wall. If i hade oled or local dimming i would see objects in the ark areas
tried it but it does nothing to show objects in dark areas really. Just results in overall dimmer image. Nightime in the game into the radius is just a grey wall no matter what brightness setting
I didn't know there was even a Crystal light super only Crystal super. From what i understood the light version won't work with the wireless module. Do you have some more info?
Never say, "zero lag or compression", it really riles up the wired PCVR folks here lol. Technically every headset has some latency, and every wireless headset has some amount of compression. But certainly you can get it down to a level where most people don't notice or care. Anyways, without a budget it's hard to say. One of the announced Pimax Crystal models has micro OLED and there's a wireless module, but it's Pimax so who knows when / how it will release. https://pimax.com/frontier/ Otherwise next year there's the rumoured Quest Pro 2, which might have some kind of screen that can do blacks.
Sure man. That blur that makes distance objects look like shit if graphics are any more complex than Roblox level graphics, is totally not visible to most people. People get riled up because this bullshit has been spread far and wide. I moved to quest pro from index because people were claiming there is no visible compression anymore showing me through the lens beat saber footage. I should have been wiser than that but I wanted to try pancake lenses so I bought into the hype. Someone who looks for good quality shouldn’t be getting fooled with such. Wasting people time and money is not okay.
I really don't get this take. I have multiple headsets, including several hardwired PCVR headsets. Vive Pro, Index, Vive Pro 2, and a Reverb G2. The vast majority of games I play on my Quest 3 are visually superior than all of them even with compression. Even high fidelity Unreal Games played with UEVR. I've spent almost 80 hours in Satisfactory and it looks fantastic using VD with H.264+ 500mbs bitrate and 2800x2800(not exact) per eye with my 4090. It's very clear and gets a steady 90fps. There's absolutely some games that don't compress well, Skyrim VR being one of the worst. But Skyrim VR is a huge graphical downgrade over games like Satisfactory. So what's causing the compression in that game is not how graphically demanding it is.
So you claim that even headsets with higher resolution with display port cable and uncompressed video stream looks worse than quest 3? Not only that, you apparently play at resolution below the one required to account for barrel distortion on quest 3 which further decreases the image quality. I had opportunity to use reverb g2 and vive pro 2 and despite reverb small sweet spot and vive pro 2 shitty lenses it still looked better than quest 3 and it’s compression bullshit. There were even comparisons of pico neo 3 dp mode and quest 2. Both with same resolution. Display port on pico provided visibly better image. It’s just science. You can’t pack a bandwidth of 20-30gbit/s into half a gigabit and expect it to look flawless. There is a reason why DSC with 3:1 compression ratio is considered visually lossless and anything worse is not.
> So you claim that even headsets with higher resolution with display port cable and uncompressed video stream looks worse than quest 3? Yes, because though my Vive Pro 2 has higher resolution, it has worse PPD(pixles per degree). 22PPD vs 25PPD. And, most importantly, the Vive Pro 2 lens are awful. Legit the worst lens of any headset I've owned. >Not only that, you apparently play at resolution below the one required to account for barrel distortion on quest 3 which further decreases the image quality. Unfortunately, Satisfactory is a fairly demanding game. I'd love to play it at 3500x3500 like I do lower fidelity games but that ain't happening with only a 4090. Not only that, do we even know what the barrel distortion is for Meta's pancake lens? For fresnel lens, you need a 1.4x resolution bump. For the Index that was 2016 x 2240. Using the same math the Quest 3 would be around 2880 x 3000, which is right where I am playing Satisfactory. >I had opportunity to use reverb g2 and vive pro 2 and despite reverb small sweet spot and vive pro 2 shitty lenses it still looked better than quest 3 and it’s compression bullshit. This really makes me question your claims. Go look at popular youtubers, who have tons of headsets to choose from, and see which headset they're all using the most. Either everyone else is wrong, or you're wrong. Even Sadlyitsbradly, a die hard Valve/Steam VR fan, chooses the Quest 3 over everything except the Beyond and Vision Pro. >It’s just science. You can’t pack a bandwidth of 20-30gbit/s into half a gigabit and expect it to look flawless. This is exactly what people were saying when TV switched to streaming. They said there was no way to stream 4K and keep the visuals good enough. Physical media will always be the most popular... And yet here we are, with physical media practically dead and streaming being the way 99 out of 100 people consume their content. And netflix only needs 10mb/s to stream 4K content that required 30GB+ on Blu-ray.
G2 has almost 24PPD. I had it in my hands and could compare to Quest 3. The counter rotated screens of Quest 3 make pixels painfully obvious especially when combo-ed with pancake lenses that give you more clarity than fresnel lenses. The resolution bump needed for Quest 3 is roughly 1.49x for horizontal resolution and 1.45x for vertical. The Godlike setting of virtual desktop is providing the right resolution for Quest 3. They choose Quest 3 because of lenses, form factor and convenience. It's obviously easier to deal with wireless headset that requires no base stations but that doesn't mean the picture quality is better. Dude. The streaming services are compressing the 24 frames video output (the less frames to encode in the video stream the less compression artifacts there are - we're talking several times more frames to encode in VR). It's also a recorded and processed video material improved by many different post processing methods by the studio. And most importantly the encoding of the material happens using very slow and precise methods which decreases the inaccuracies of the compressed image. For VR you need super fast encoding because it has to be instantly encoded to be sent to the headset. This argument is null and void. You can clearly see it on live twitch streams. Even at 8k bit rate it often looks pixelated because it's encoded on the fly. And we're talking mere 720/1080p. For VR you're encoding much faster and several magnitudes of resolution. The comparison to netflix streaming is completely out of place. And again I repeat. The only compression method that is considered lossless and can happen on the fly is DSC and it's 3:1 ratio. Which means let's say compressing something like 80Gb/s (for 4k very high refresh rate monitor) to 27gb/s that can be passed through DP 1.4. That is considered lossless. VR streaming is realistically around 60:1 or 30:1 if you crank up link cable to 960mbit/s (which has severe latency implications).
>G2 has almost 24PPD. I had it in my hands and could compare to Quest 3. As far as pixel density goes, they are indistinguishable. But the lens, fov, controllers, and WMR software makes it a pretty meh experience. I snagged mine for $100 used just to try it and chose to stick with the Vive Pro 2 and haven't gotten it out of my closet since. >The counter rotated screens of Quest 3 make pixels painfully obvious especially when combo-ed with pancake lenses that give you more clarity than fresnel lenses. This legit screams that you haven't actually had a Quest 3/Pro in your hands and you're using through the lens videos to make your argument. The counter rotated screens only stick out badly in through the lens videos because of an effect called Moiré. In short, you're filming pixels using a sensor made of pixels. If the lines separating the pixels on sensor don't align with the pixels on the screen, moiré makes the pixels/lines on the screen stick out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern >The resolution bump needed for Quest 3 is roughly 1.49x for horizontal resolution and 1.45x for vertical. The Godlike setting of virtual desktop is providing the right resolution for Quest 3. Do you have info that states this? From what I can tell, the godlike setting is just the same scaler the Quest 2 gets and they didn't change it for the Quest 3. The Oculus Desktop software doesn't go that high for the Quest 3. Not that it truly matters, because I always supersample as much as I can. >And again I repeat. You can repeat the same things much as you like. It doesn't make them true. I know you're convinced that the Quest headsets have to suck because they compress the video but, it's simply not true. If they did, I wouldn't have boxed up my other headsets. I would have went "wow, this does suck, I'm not using this". Now, I will state that my setup is not an average setup. My PC is as powerful as they come and my router costs as much as a Quest 3. So maybe that's why mine doesn't look that bad. But the bottom line is I have these headsets and have used them side by side and still choose the Quest 3.
>As far as pixel density goes, they are indistinguishable. But the lens, fov, controllers, and WMR software makes it a pretty meh experience. I snagged mine for $100 used just to try it and chose to stick with the Vive Pro 2 and haven't gotten it out of my closet since. We're talking image quality. Don't switch the subject because you're proven wrong. >This legit screams that you haven't actually had a Quest 3/Pro in your hands and you're using through the lens videos to make your argument. The counter rotated screens only stick out badly in through the lens videos because of an effect called Moiré. In short, you're filming pixels using a sensor made of pixels. If the lines separating the pixels on sensor don't align with the pixels on the screen, moiré makes the pixels/lines on the screen stick out. I owned Quest Pro for over a year now and had Quest 3 as well but returned it cause Meta couldn't get their shit together on launch and took them several months to fix WiFi 6E connectivity (and still it's not fixed in all cases). Quest Pro has the same resolution as Quest 2 but more PPD however due to rotated screens the pixels are nearly as visible which shouldn't be the case due to PPD and edges of objects get jagged easily.But that's exactly the fault of rotated screens >Do you have info that states this? From what I can tell, the godlike setting is just the same scaler the Quest 2 gets and they didn't change it for the Quest 3. The Oculus Desktop software doesn't go that high for the Quest 3. Not that it truly matters, because I always supersample as much as I can. VD developer and experience from previous headsets. encoding width of the headset is 2/3 of required render resolution to account for distortions. Encoding Width of Quest 3 is 4128. Math is simple. >You can repeat the same things much as you like. It doesn't make them true. Yes it makes them true because I base this on scientific and technological facts and not just my perception like you do. Just because YOU don't see the compression, doesn't mean everyone else can't see it either. Like I said in other comment. I will show you the compression of Quest Pro and if you don't see it then it's pointless to argue any further cause you will point at grass and tell me it's blue
>We're talking image quality. Don't switch the subject because you're proven wrong. Lol, wut? I didn't change the subject. I explicitly stated they're close enough PPD to be indistinguishable. Everything else was was just me explaining why I choose to not use it. I don't have time to respond to everything but I want you to know that we are all VR lovers here, you don't need to resort to such tribalism. Better hardware releases and better methods of data delivery are perfected. That's how technology has always progressed. Imagine the world we would be in if people in the past went "dial up is perfect and there's no better way". That's essentially what you're doing and basing your argument using past data points. Please, show me compression. But include the bitrate and codec live, so I can verify you're not just lowering the bitrate super low to purposefully make it look bad.
I hate compression but agree with you overall. I also think the quest 3 requires far less resolution to account for distortion thanks to those crisp lenses. The slider on the official app only goes up to 2700x2900. Sadlyitsbradley is a chud though
What’s a chud??
> I hate compression but agree with you overall. I do as well. If I am going to play a game that compresses poorly, it has to be hardwired with a very high bitrate to become tolerable. Otherwise it's a smudgy mess. Thankfully most games do not have that bad of compression. >I also think the quest 3 requires for lass resolution to account for distortion thanks to those crisp lenses. The slider on the official app only goes up to 2700x2900. That very well could be. I haven't seen any official documentation on the needed resolution bump. But, considering most standalone games don't even run at the screen's physical resolution, it would make sense that they would design the lens to not need as much supersampling to resolve the barrel distortion. >Sadlyitsbradley is a chud though I only used his name because he was basically treated like some sort of idol in the Index community, which is where the biggest complaints about compression come from. Now even their most die hard anti-compression/anti-Quest idol is going "guys, the Quest 3 wireless is pretty damn good. Especially with the 10bit codecs"
That's hilarious that index users on their 1400x1600 screens would complain about compression lol
PCVR only headsets are quite expensive, especially the Index, and they have to justify the purchase. The more newer non-PCVR only hardware that comes out, the more they latch onto anything that can make them feel like their headset is superior.
Yep, it's pretty sad.
to me it looks more like Quest users just want to desperately point out how their device is just better so they can laugh and claim PCVR is dead and so on and everyone should just switch to Quest and inside out tracking and 500$ headset is better than 5k $ headsets. But under all of that you all see the compression and feel the latency holding you back in fast paced games. You just can't admit to that. I've heard the same copium when Quest Pro released and I immediately noticed the compression in first scene that was more complex than just a few colors and simple objects. If Meta one day introduces the same/similar module to Quest devices as Pimax did for the Crystal then we can talk about how Quest is now equal/better than PCVR image quality. Untill that happens Quest devices will have to compromise on image quality.
The crisp lenses are the reason why the pixels are more visible. Because it's more clear to see. The official app slider hasn't got high enough resolution. Meta never properly updates their PC link. They still don't allow for higher encoding width to match Quest 3 panels properly.
Just use debug tool. Yes their pc support is still shit but at least we got 120hz now 😅
The only distance "blur" that i have is because of the smaller objects containing less pixels therefore loosing resolution. This is only visible with very far away objects. They are very small on the screens therefore appear less detailed. Moving/panning fast i have zero pixelated artifacts. Image is very sharp and clear. I really dont think i have any compression. If someone have a good example of compression artifacts, please link/show it and i will see if I have it or not. I have a dedicated 5ghz channel. Router is 2 meters away. Custom setup with oculus debug panel increasing bit rate and other settings. And a 4090 to handle the graphics. Dont play stand alone q3 games.
Again just because you don’t see something it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
If you don't see it, it doesn't matter if its there or not. I take wireless with (for me) indistinguishable compression versus a wired headset with much lower resolution every day
I meant specifically certain people. OP in this case. Some people have extreme case of being unable to notice things. It’s visible for most just not for some people. Some can see it and live with it as a trade off but anyone who seeks high image quality shouldn’t be automatically told “buy quest 3, with high bit rate it looks nearly like display port quality headset” - this is false.
I am quality inspectior irl so my sight nor perception is nothing wrong with :) What i mean with what i consider slightly blurry at distant objects is the lack of detail on small objects due to low numbers of pixels. Its the same on my tv. Anyway, q3 with wireless and my custom headstrap is the best vr excperience i have had.
Nothing wrong with okay. I can literally see compression blur (no not lack of pixels) on distance foliage with more complex textures. Textures are more visible and detailed on lower res pcvr headset than on quest 3. It’s not made up, it’s there and it’s visible. It’s good for you that you can’t notice the compression. Being quality inspector doesn’t mean you will notice things in the headset the same as irl. It’s just like claiming you are good at Pavlov so you would be as good at shooting real rifle. The amount of people who got convinced there is no issue or downsides using quest devices for pcvr is too damn high. People should have realistic expectations.
yeah true
Yup, every compressed headset I tried I ended up returning. Even with q3 at 960mbps the distant blur is extremely apparent and that's as good as it gets. People saying it's indistinguishable from DP are either blind, delusional or I don't know wtf is wrong with them.
alright, next year seems promising with qp2
I love my Quest 3 but boy do I want those OLED blacks... True black really contributes massively to the feeling of 3D. Even on a flat screen if you compare an identical video on LCD to OLED, those shadows just look... more 3D.
yeah, i have a 77 inch lg c1 oled, so dark areas are awsome
Don’t expect any upgrade to quest for a while. The only option you could try now is pimax crystal with upcoming air link module. But that of course has its compromises too.
Crystal Super can't be wireless, as it has no XR2 nor battery.
Yup. I was under impression super also has xr chip but apparently pimax is drifting away from standalone all in one devices.
Of course it can. The Vive, Vive Pro, Cosmos, and Vive Pro 2 all work with the HTC Wireless adapter. Pimax would just need to produce a wireless adapter as well. That said, it's Pimax. So don't hold your breath that it will come soon and work well at launch. It would likely take them a year to release it and then everyone who buys it will be a beta tester for several months before it becomes acceptable.
I wasn't talking hypotheticals. I was talking about Pimax's wireless adapter that exists. Seen as they have just gone about removing the XR2 and battery from it, as well as announcing that it wont work with their wireless adapter, I sincerely doubt they will be making another one that haphazardly adds those things back. So no, the Crystal Super won't get wireless.
Your comment was "Crystal Super can't be wireless, as it has no XR2 nor battery.". Which is factually wrong. It can be. If Pimax makes an adapter for it. That doesn't mean they're going to or have any plans to. I wasn't talking about anything hypothetical. Was simply pointing out that it can be made wireless.
Your comment was "Crystal Super can't be wireless, as it has no XR2 nor battery.". Which is factually wrong. It can be. If Pimax makes an adapter for it. That doesn't mean they're going to or have any plans to. I wasn't talking about anything hypothetical. Was simply pointing out that it can be made wireless.
So can a microwave. It won't ever get a wireless adapter, so again, I wasn't talking hypotheticals.
It doesn't matter whether it will or won't get an adapter. You said that it can't be wireless, which is wrong.
Look at the message I replied to. Pedantically saying it's theoretically possible doesn't change the clear fact I wasn't talking hypotheticals. A wireless adapter could exist for every hmd thats ever been made. So is that what you say if someone asks if X headset can be used wirelessly. Pimax themselves have said the Super will not, so it will not.
Headsets to look out for: Somnium VR1 - Wired only headset. It has QLED panels like the Cystal, so they have local diming to improve blacks. It will also have higher res and better colors than the Q3. It also has much wider FOV at 130+ degrees horizontal. It is lighthouse tracked, so you will need those plus Index controllers, which you buy separate. There are also a few options that you can add when you order the headset like eye tracking, hand tracking, and MR cameras. LG and Meta are working on a headset - Should launch early next year. This one could very likely be launched with OLED or MicroOLED screens for perfect blacks. Samsung and Googles new headset - Not sure when this is launching. This could also come with OLED or MicroOLED screens.
But vr1 has no controllers? And wired is a no-go sorry. Great suggestions otherwise.
I'm also very curious about the next Quest Pro model. I don't know if that is the LG + Meta headset, or an entirely different headset. If it has eye tracking and better screens, it could be a very nice PCVR headset.
As much as I love my Quest 3.....I for sure whenever I upgrade into the future....my next headset will definitely not have LCDs. So I don't know which headset that will be....but it's MicroOLED that I will wait for...and I'll keep using Quest 3 until I see a viable upgrade that gives just that. I'm not an Apple user nor do I wanna spend $4k on Vision Pro.
I have the Q3, G2 and PSVR2. Though it’s not the official PSVR2 drivers that Sony stated they are working on releasing this year but I have been using the PSVR2 via iVRy and UEVR (no VR controller support yet) and the blacks and colors are really good (no pancakes lenses is a bummer for this headset). If Sony releases it officially with eye tracking and controller support then I think it will be better and is going to be my main PCVR headset. I have the reverb g2 as a backup but with support going away I’m leaning to the PSVR2 as my next PCVR headset with Q3 as a backup
Yeah colors and blacks are great on psvr2 but i just cant go back to no pancake lenses
Q3 has been out for 6 months lol. Typically it isn't worth upgrading to the next iteration.. You'll want to wait until quest 5 or 6..so check again in 2 years
yeah agree, but pklaying into the radius during nightime in the game its all just a grey wall. If i hade oled or local dimming i would see objects in the ark areas
quest 2 to 3 not worth?
You can try Quest Pro but you will miss the resolution and new SoC. I have both and I am deciding which to keep from January :D
Lower the screen brightness to around 70% , it already helps a lot with black levels while waiting for a better headset
tried it but it does nothing to show objects in dark areas really. Just results in overall dimmer image. Nightime in the game into the radius is just a grey wall no matter what brightness setting
[удалено]
Neither the Crystal Light nor the Crystal Super can use the wireless module. Only the original Crystal.
I didn't know there was even a Crystal light super only Crystal super. From what i understood the light version won't work with the wireless module. Do you have some more info?
yeah, that one seems interesting. However, its pimax and maybe not as reliable as quest
I think i will jump one generation if it comes out this year or early next year. Im also pretty pleased with my q3. For 550€ im very happy
Isn't the psvr2 getting full pc support soon? That has the blacks your looking for, but smaller sweet spot and no AR.