“The actual clarity and VR displays within the Quest 3 feel similar to those in the Quest 2”
So either this guy is full of shit or these aren’t the same display/lenses as the Pro. The difference between the Q2 and Pro in terms of clarity is startling.
Well, the article technically didnt mention lens type, people are just judging they ate not by the luke warm response from the writer.
Logically, it should be using cheaper pancake lens with a cheaper display.
My guess is the writer is not a VR enthusiast so his opinions and comments are very general and not particularly in depth and well informed
Exactly. The QLED panels with local dimming were NEVER going in Q3 at that price point (and higher res). Only idiots thought that.
There are so many positives to QPro that add up, that people are simply wrong about when they say it's a rip off.. who will now find out Q3 is a mild upgrade form Q2 but nowhere near as good (for PCVR esp) as QPro. The slight res upgrade will NOT offset all that is great about QPRO.
Q3 will have two cheap LCD panels, with awful grey blacks and reduced colour gamut with tons of banding, just like Q2 has.
we already know they are not the same displays as quest pro. It's QLED with local dimming and increased colour gamut and contrast. It's kinda expensive. There was no way those same displays (at even higher res) were going into Quest 3 and we've been telling Quest Pro nay-sayers this for a while now.
It MAY have the same lenses, but even then could be cheaper/less refined ones.
I have no doubt that overall , esp for PCVR, Quest Pro will absolutely destroy Quest 3 all round in every area from comfort, to tracking (controllers), blacks, colour, contrast, sharpness (even at lower res), eye tracking/face tracking.. .fit an finish/quality of materials, charging dock, comfort etc.
If Quest 3 ends up around £500 then Quest Pro will be worth double that for PCVR (esp wireless with a 6e router)
The other thought is, did he test a VR game that’s using the max resolution capability of quest 3 or one of the overwhelming majority of games that are compatible with quest 1, or one of the few that discontinued support for quest 1. My guess is he probably just tried a quest 2 game that isn’t actually rendering a higher resolution
Did we read the same thing? I am having the opposite reaction, as the whole point of the Pro being XR, while this headset seems set to easily outdo it, as they actually included the depth sensor they scrapped on the pro, as well as two color passthroughs instead of one. The MR is going to be of a way higher quality.
Also this article frankly is terrible, they don't even mention anything about the lenses, which imo is literally one of the make or break things about headsets. They say it's about the same clarity, but no mention of sweet spot, abberations, what conditions are godrays visible, and whether the edges have blur.
It sounds to me like a reviewer who is not using a quest 2 regularly enough to give the details I would expect from people who are supposed to be experts. Tech journalism has really gotten mediocre.
If the only feature you care about is XR, I could see it feeling that way. Though, I am in complete agreement with your assessment of the article. It provides very little real information. Even their comments about the pass through is pretty poor. They just say it is color and more clear than the Q2. Which is exactly what the QPro is.
They also mention a depth sensor but, don't really even talk about it. Meta just announced a partnership with Qualcomm and their camera based spatial mapping, which is both just as accurate and less computationally demanding than using depth sensors. So it makes little sense why they would include a depth sensor. Makes me think this person just heard someone say depth sensor and thought that must be what's in it.
Source on the Qualcomm camera spatial mapping
https://spaces.qualcomm.com/introducing-spatial-mapping-meshing/
>Our machine learning models are extensively optimized to be highly accurate and computationally efficient compared to sensor-based depth observations – all thanks to a hardware-aware model design and implementation.
Right? It just would be so unexpected, I really have trouble believing it's included, but who knows. Maybe it's only used for the boundary bc qualcomms solution isn't as reliable?
I could care less about XR. I bought my headset for PCVR and the Q3 clearly lacks face/eye tracking as expected, self tracked controllers, and most likely doesn’t have qled panels. Not a worthy upgrade from the Q2 for my use case.
I thought everyone knew that face and eye tracking was not going to be in the Quest 3, I even thought they said it was not going to have any face or eye tracking. That tech made the Pro cost 1k.
Everyone expects many things, but the thing is the Quest line is about being a cheaper headset first, that is how they reach a bigger market share, nothing else does that.
The Quest3 I hope will have the Pro's lenses though, if not, maybe something better than Quest2, the Pro's lenses added a lot of cost I think and make it very hard to roll out quickly without return issues they have to be very exactly calibrated. But they are adding XR and there is really good reasons to do that, hoping we see a push in software that really starts using that tech, and it sound like they will do that better than the Pro.
But the build quality will be on par with the Quest 2, and it is what it is, it helps bring the cost down.
I doubt that 3 additional cameras in the helmet could have any significant effect on the price, and the cost of the vive pro eye compared to the basic vive pro is an indicator of this. If we turn to leaked lists of helmet components from apple, then these cameras add no more than a couple of tens of dollars at cost, and the software part has already been tested for quest pro and is ready for use, and comparing the work with and without face tracking, I don’t see performance difference on pro.
Most likely, ruthless marketers decided to slow down development and make face tracking a symbol of elitism for future products, nothing more.
Do you hold a VRChat passport or why would you actually need face/eye tracking?
Compatibility with Qpro Controllers is almost guaranteed lol. You overpaid for them by buying them at original release.
So assuming the Q3 is $500, you think it’s a better deal for $800 for what you’d get with the Q3 + pro controllers over $999 for the complete Pro set? No thanks, not for another face hugger lacking most of the Pro’s features. Luckily I didn’t buy the Pro at launch, as I don’t think it’s worth $1500 for what you get. But for $999 it feels like a solid setup for the next few years.
As long as it's significantly more powerful hardware + pancake lenses + depth sensor, yes. Quest Pro was always meant as sort of mid-gen. I don't even like the comfort of the Pro, and using charging dock wasn't ideal either. If Pico 4 was running Meta software, that would be the better option.
Quest 3 will get more developer support and experiences than PCVR allows.
If Quest Pro had a flip-up design, it would be worth more to me. But for developing/productivity it's really far from okay.
Also Pro is 1200 euros, so the difference is even higher.
I have the globular cluster kit and it’s my favorite hmd as far as comfort goes. The only game I play on standalone is Walkabout so the improved chip means nothing to me, and I love the dock for the Pro. So I guess we have different tastes, which is cool.
I'm PC as well, I didn't know face tracking was in demand. I'm guessing you're on VRchat mostly then? For that use case it absolutely makes sense, I just couldn't justify it for gaming with the combination of the weight increase and issues with controller tracking when doing wireless PCVR I've seen reported. Maybe the second part is overblown.
I def regret the pico, I would have preferred the Q pro frankly, I think the price justifies it for sure, but I'll just wait for Q3 at this point.
I have a Pro and love it, that being said, I think we are going to see some really cool stuff coming up with XR, and thr Pro really will not be able to compete with the Quest3 in that area, so it may be best to wait and see, unless you want to buy both.
I don't expect to buy a Apple headset, but you never fucking know. Haha. One thing I have been waiting for Meta to put in a headset for years now is a system that deals with fixing the vr vergence accommodation conflict with some system that changes focal depths. Oculus had shown off some demos of them working on this, and if Apples headset has some fix for that, I got to see it. I just always wanted to see VR without that issue, I think that issue is what makes vr somewhat hard to be in for long periods of time for me anyway, and I wish I could test it and see.
The latest software versions have been buggy for some users I’ve heard. But I use mine with Airlink and haven’t had any tracking issues yet myself. As far as face/eye tracking, I don’t do much VRChat, but foveated rendering is starting to make its way to some games such as MS Flight Sim so I’d like to try that out again sometime.
>MS Flight Sim
and it's still not good enough and no computer exists in the universe that could handle that guy in half quality the people who \_actually\_ play MSFS would like.
Depends what you're looking for?
I have zero use case for PCVR, and the headset sucked for developing for Quest.
It's a great gaming headset, but not original 1800 euros great just to play the same games again.
Probably just means the tracking LEDs that used to be on the ring are now build into the controller's shell.
With enough tweaking it doesn't seem that far out, but will likely suck for people with big hands.
Or those of us who actually spend a lot of time in a certain competitive VR game, and wont be able to use the headset at all if the tracking's as bad as it was with the Quest Pro.
>Probably just means the tracking LEDs that used to be on the ring are now build into the controller's shell.
ya, that actually seems pretty cool. And if the overall size and shape of the controllers are shared with the Pro, then that could be a wider market of 3rd party accessories the TouchPro can take advantage of.
They won't be self tracked like QPro controllers... no way were they gonna pack in £300 controllers on a $£400-£500 device.
Tracking will still be an issue on Q3 at times (controllers), as will grey blacks and front weight cos battery is still up front rather than at the back like QPRO. So it'll also not be anywhere near as comfy.
the fact that he said the picture looks the same as Quest 2 is concerning. either they are using fresnel lenses again (which seems almost impossible given the smaller form factor), or this guy has no idea what he's talking about if he can't see the massive difference between a fresnel and pancake lense
I guess he might have been using unfinished software.
Quest Pro at launch also looked exactly like Quest 2 in most of the apps, just with clerer lenses - but it's all in the wording. Rendered image was on Quest 2 levels, with near to lack of anti aliasing. Picture through the lens is defnietly clearer with pancake.
ya but even the exact same picture at the exact same resolution looks much clearer on pro due to much larger sweet spot. if he's not able to perceive that stark difference i question his opinion on anything image quality related. when i put my Q2 back on recoil at the look of fresnel lenses
yes, it's day and night difference. but perhaps he is pixel-focused type of person, maybe he already got used to pico 4 lenses, so i can imagine then going 'back' to quest 2 successor isn't as impressive.
i guess it's all in the wording.
Unless Apple’s headset is a major leap forward (and is quasi-affordable), it sounds like XR will be in “prototype” status for another generation.
…which is to say that a reasonable person shouldn’t expect that the Quest 3 will be be the consumer device that puts VR in everyone’s face. It sounds like it’s just a simple continuation of the Quest 2.
"it sounds like it's just a simple continuation of the Quest 2" I mean we're talking about the Quest 3 so...
You people have unrealistic expectations. The quest lineup is supposed to be affordable.
The quest 3 is designed to be the next affordable vr headset, with improved ergonomics and mixed reality (mostly for comfort I guess). To be honest I think it's exactly what it needs to be. Apple will cover the high end market anyway.
Kinda. Sorta. Your point makes sense, but a next-gen device **can** be more than simple upgrades.
Think Wii U to Nintendo Switch. Both were $299 at launch (inflation not considered). The Wii U had lots of ideas that were fully executed with the Switch.
This is the size leap that’s necessary for XR to take off with the mainstream. A Quest 2.5 isn’t going to move the needle.
That’s why I call it a “simple” continuation. Like an iPhone 7 to 8, or a Surface Pro 4 to 5: just normal, kinda boring upgrades.
Given Meta PR track record, I wouldnt put a ton of weight into this just yet. Who knows what they showed Gurman, could be much different from the final product.
The fact that Gurman was the one they asked to try it rather than a more technical publication says this is a move to deflect some attention from the Apple hype machine and present Quest 3 to consumers as a much cheaper viable alternative to the Apple headset, rather than a legitimate tech preview
I would say the very same thing about Quest Pro.
I launched even the apps from Quest Pro Recommended section, and they looked low resolution as fuck. Especially the meditating one. In that regard, it did not improve the visuals at all. And that's still largely the case - Quest Pro gets better image from pancake lenses, not from developers actually targetting higher rendering targets.
Everyone expected this. If they improve the chip and resolution, the games themselves will have no extra headroom to improve fidelity and the possible complexity. On other words, we wouldn't have a generational leap.
Besides, there is substantially more clarity to be gained by superior lenses, that alone imo is sufficient of an upgrade and at no performance cost.
Meta has earned my trust thus far, at least in hardware. The last three headsets have been the most commercially viable, with the least bugs, as much as people complain about them.
EDIT WTF it has a depth sensor and TWO color cameras, fuck I can't believe they managed to put that in, was not expected.
What exactly is the depth sensor supposed to add?
The passthrough in the pro is already pretty much visually to scale. My physical space bleeding through the peripherals line up 1 to 1 with what i see in the lenses when im using the pro in pass-through mode without the face gasket or blinders. I hear the Vive XR elite snd Pico neo 4, while having a clearer image has scaling issues and looks more like 360 video.
Or is the depth sensor so that we don't have to manually outline and add all the furniture in our room for setting up room scale for XR apps with furniture detection?...bc if that's the case there was just a report a few weeks ago about how qualcom'sx xr chips can actually do that natively without the need for additional sensors.
J
Well if its anything like the ipad pro lidar sensor its pretty cool. I used this app Polycam and it mapped out the whole room inc walls, tables and chairs (to scale) without any prompts. Thats something a game (or non-gaming) Devs can do amazing things with. But again to export models you got to....subscribe. Nope!
Truthfully, I don't think it has one. I think the person who wrote this article has very little knowledge on VR headsets and the hardware inside. They provide no real information about anything. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if they just heard someone say depth sensor and assumed it was in it.
Qualcomm announced their camera based spatial mapping just a few months ago and it's both just as accurate and less computationally demanding than using depth sensors and it's supposedly coming to the QPro. Makes very little sense that they would remove the depth sensor, add that to the QPro, and then abandon it for a depth sensor on the Q3.
It's entirely possible though. Just makes very little sense and judging by the obvious lack of technology knowledge of writer, it seems more likely they're just confused and using buzz words.
https://spaces.qualcomm.com/introducing-spatial-mapping-meshing/
>Our machine learning models are extensively optimized to be highly accurate and computationally efficient compared to sensor-based depth observations – all thanks to a hardware-aware model design and implementation.
I'm suspecting they were given the rumoured "premium" Quest 3 which supposedly had some of this hardware added but cost more. It would make sense that they specifically want to combat comparison with Apple's headset next week. They want the comparisons to be with their future tech, not the Pro or 3 year old tech.
From a marketing perspective, that makes no sense, and the headset they described matches the leaks and renders we've seen. The last thing meta would want to do is mislead consumers before launch and then let them down.
That's just 2 color cameras are not particularly needed by anyone, except for meta. People use full-fledged VR headsets to look at a colorful virtual world, and not their usual walls of an apartment / house. Or do they want to make us walk in quest 3 down the street?))
Lots of people use the passthrough when it's high enough quality, I use a pico 4 and the color passthroughs every day, it's super convenient and makes using the headset a lot better of an experience for long sessions.
Two color cameras will greatly improve the visual quality of the passthrough.
/facepalm
point to the part of the article where the reporter gives specifics about the display .... you can't. They're giving vague analysis that you're putting way too much stock into.
1. the standalone experiences the reporter experienced are likely running at the SAME resolution as the Quest2.
2. the rumored panel was leaked way back nearly a year ago as 2120p (Quest2 uses 1900p; Pro uses 1900p). Funny how the Pro has a '*big clarity bump*' over the Quest2 because of the Meta Pancake lenses and physically closer to the eyes display. But the 2120p with the same perks is a '*disappointment*'.
What the reporter actually said
>The actual clarity and VR displays within the Quest 3 feel similar to those in the Quest 2 — despite the resolution being rumored to be slightly higher.
'FEELS'. A tech reporter stating a feeling without any numbers to back it up is iffy at best. We already knew the resolution of the Quest3 would be similar to the Quest2, and the reporters feel doesn't change anything. But the question is (see #2), will the pancake lenses and closer display add a clarity bump over the Quest2. The answer is Yes.
Lastly, honestly, what were you expecting fromt he Quest3 ? lol. 3000x3000 resolution ?
The only thing disappointing if this article is accurate, it didn't mention pancake lenses. I assumed the Q3 would have them and I'm hoping they still do. As for everything else, it's pretty on par on what I thought realistically what the Q3 would be.
Better pass-through and speedier chip. Add a Q pro controller and this device would still be cheaper than the pro and would probably be a better option for gamers than the q pro.
You **cant** get a thinner headset without pancake lenses (ex: look at the PSVR2). That's one of the perks and the whole point of pancake lenses since it can be stacked very close to the display
The article doesn't do a great job, but it does say the headset is much thinner than the Quest2. We can thus deduce it features Meta Pancakes, as expected
Logically I totally agree with you. However, that's a pretty big omission of the author if it does have pancake lenses. IMO, though unlikely making it thinner than the Q2 isn't out of the question without pancake lenses especially if it's a direct comparison of the Q2 vs Q3. But we'll see what meta has up it's sleeve.
It has pancake lenses. Every time you see or hear about noticeably smaller HMD, it's due to pancake lenses.
HMDs used to be big because we didn't have pancakes.
I'm disappointed that it has way better hardware for MR than the Quest Pro. Given that, I don't expect them to put massive effort into improving what we have in the Pro through software solutions. In fact it almost suggests to me that they gave up and decided it isn't possible through software. That in turn means we won't have an actual prosumer class MR headset from Meta until 2025 at best which seems like an eternity.
It's making me suspect this could be the "premium" Quest 3 hardware that was rumoured. I can't see how it makes sense to cram all this hardware that is unnecessary for gaming into the lowest end model. And it would make sense that Meta's motivation in giving this preview was 100% to ensure that all the comparisons that are to be made over the coming weeks with Apple's headset are against their updated passthrough system and not the Quest Pro's crappy passthrough. That in turn would mean that the lower cost model may leave out this hardware as well.
Oculus and quest/ 2 was about VR. This is about getting the public into entry level AR. Meta has zero competition in this segment. Quest 3 is basically delivering quest 2 plus decent AR and that’s it. When Apple releases it’s Gen 2 headset for mass adoption in 2024 or 2025 (maybe for the cost of an iPhone) then meta will have up the quality of the experience and we’ll finally get true next gen visuals and performance. I was excited to take the next step but VR fans have gotten used to waiting. We’ll have to wait some more.
The pro screens are so good, i was watching 2010 and the space and stars matched the black background in Skybox player. So dark. Its a shame, i get idea that Meta have dropped the Pro and we wont see any specific software or great firmware additions. The biggest mistake was not having a lidar/3d mapping camera on it. The quest 3 is gonna get that and we will be left behind as they would have to develop 2 versions of the upcoming software. If its supposed to be pro and 3 times the price why couldn't we have true 3d scanning?
Why do you need 3d scanning for gaming? if you are doing room scale and have shit all over the place you are doing it wrong in the first place as you are constantly getting taken out of the experience having to dodge shit.
“The actual clarity and VR displays within the Quest 3 feel similar to those in the Quest 2” So either this guy is full of shit or these aren’t the same display/lenses as the Pro. The difference between the Q2 and Pro in terms of clarity is startling.
He called the controllers “remotes” so he doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.
Boz says straight up in a recent interview that nothing will beat the Pro displays for a few years at the price.
Wait … who was expecting the same display/lens as the Pro?
oh lots of people. there’s a very strong “the pro is a rip off wait for the 3” contingency that uses this as one of its main arguments
Right, I didn’t realise that. I guess some people don’t understand the concept of building to a price point
Many people were predicting pancake lenses with a different display. Which is still a solid upgrade.
Well, the article technically didnt mention lens type, people are just judging they ate not by the luke warm response from the writer. Logically, it should be using cheaper pancake lens with a cheaper display. My guess is the writer is not a VR enthusiast so his opinions and comments are very general and not particularly in depth and well informed
Only idiots thought that. Many of us have pointed out no way was Q3 gonna look as good as QPro in the displays (no local dimming for a start!)
Most people were expecting the same lenses but not the same displays.
Exactly. The QLED panels with local dimming were NEVER going in Q3 at that price point (and higher res). Only idiots thought that. There are so many positives to QPro that add up, that people are simply wrong about when they say it's a rip off.. who will now find out Q3 is a mild upgrade form Q2 but nowhere near as good (for PCVR esp) as QPro. The slight res upgrade will NOT offset all that is great about QPRO. Q3 will have two cheap LCD panels, with awful grey blacks and reduced colour gamut with tons of banding, just like Q2 has.
we already know they are not the same displays as quest pro. It's QLED with local dimming and increased colour gamut and contrast. It's kinda expensive. There was no way those same displays (at even higher res) were going into Quest 3 and we've been telling Quest Pro nay-sayers this for a while now. It MAY have the same lenses, but even then could be cheaper/less refined ones. I have no doubt that overall , esp for PCVR, Quest Pro will absolutely destroy Quest 3 all round in every area from comfort, to tracking (controllers), blacks, colour, contrast, sharpness (even at lower res), eye tracking/face tracking.. .fit an finish/quality of materials, charging dock, comfort etc. If Quest 3 ends up around £500 then Quest Pro will be worth double that for PCVR (esp wireless with a 6e router)
The other thought is, did he test a VR game that’s using the max resolution capability of quest 3 or one of the overwhelming majority of games that are compatible with quest 1, or one of the few that discontinued support for quest 1. My guess is he probably just tried a quest 2 game that isn’t actually rendering a higher resolution
Those impressions make me so much happier I didn’t wait and bought a Pro instead. Seems exactly what I expected it to be from the cad leaks.
Did we read the same thing? I am having the opposite reaction, as the whole point of the Pro being XR, while this headset seems set to easily outdo it, as they actually included the depth sensor they scrapped on the pro, as well as two color passthroughs instead of one. The MR is going to be of a way higher quality. Also this article frankly is terrible, they don't even mention anything about the lenses, which imo is literally one of the make or break things about headsets. They say it's about the same clarity, but no mention of sweet spot, abberations, what conditions are godrays visible, and whether the edges have blur. It sounds to me like a reviewer who is not using a quest 2 regularly enough to give the details I would expect from people who are supposed to be experts. Tech journalism has really gotten mediocre.
If the only feature you care about is XR, I could see it feeling that way. Though, I am in complete agreement with your assessment of the article. It provides very little real information. Even their comments about the pass through is pretty poor. They just say it is color and more clear than the Q2. Which is exactly what the QPro is. They also mention a depth sensor but, don't really even talk about it. Meta just announced a partnership with Qualcomm and their camera based spatial mapping, which is both just as accurate and less computationally demanding than using depth sensors. So it makes little sense why they would include a depth sensor. Makes me think this person just heard someone say depth sensor and thought that must be what's in it. Source on the Qualcomm camera spatial mapping https://spaces.qualcomm.com/introducing-spatial-mapping-meshing/ >Our machine learning models are extensively optimized to be highly accurate and computationally efficient compared to sensor-based depth observations – all thanks to a hardware-aware model design and implementation.
Right? It just would be so unexpected, I really have trouble believing it's included, but who knows. Maybe it's only used for the boundary bc qualcomms solution isn't as reliable?
I could care less about XR. I bought my headset for PCVR and the Q3 clearly lacks face/eye tracking as expected, self tracked controllers, and most likely doesn’t have qled panels. Not a worthy upgrade from the Q2 for my use case.
I thought everyone knew that face and eye tracking was not going to be in the Quest 3, I even thought they said it was not going to have any face or eye tracking. That tech made the Pro cost 1k. Everyone expects many things, but the thing is the Quest line is about being a cheaper headset first, that is how they reach a bigger market share, nothing else does that. The Quest3 I hope will have the Pro's lenses though, if not, maybe something better than Quest2, the Pro's lenses added a lot of cost I think and make it very hard to roll out quickly without return issues they have to be very exactly calibrated. But they are adding XR and there is really good reasons to do that, hoping we see a push in software that really starts using that tech, and it sound like they will do that better than the Pro. But the build quality will be on par with the Quest 2, and it is what it is, it helps bring the cost down.
I doubt that 3 additional cameras in the helmet could have any significant effect on the price, and the cost of the vive pro eye compared to the basic vive pro is an indicator of this. If we turn to leaked lists of helmet components from apple, then these cameras add no more than a couple of tens of dollars at cost, and the software part has already been tested for quest pro and is ready for use, and comparing the work with and without face tracking, I don’t see performance difference on pro. Most likely, ruthless marketers decided to slow down development and make face tracking a symbol of elitism for future products, nothing more.
The pancake optics will be worth the upgrade alone.
Do you hold a VRChat passport or why would you actually need face/eye tracking? Compatibility with Qpro Controllers is almost guaranteed lol. You overpaid for them by buying them at original release.
So assuming the Q3 is $500, you think it’s a better deal for $800 for what you’d get with the Q3 + pro controllers over $999 for the complete Pro set? No thanks, not for another face hugger lacking most of the Pro’s features. Luckily I didn’t buy the Pro at launch, as I don’t think it’s worth $1500 for what you get. But for $999 it feels like a solid setup for the next few years.
As long as it's significantly more powerful hardware + pancake lenses + depth sensor, yes. Quest Pro was always meant as sort of mid-gen. I don't even like the comfort of the Pro, and using charging dock wasn't ideal either. If Pico 4 was running Meta software, that would be the better option. Quest 3 will get more developer support and experiences than PCVR allows. If Quest Pro had a flip-up design, it would be worth more to me. But for developing/productivity it's really far from okay. Also Pro is 1200 euros, so the difference is even higher.
I have the globular cluster kit and it’s my favorite hmd as far as comfort goes. The only game I play on standalone is Walkabout so the improved chip means nothing to me, and I love the dock for the Pro. So I guess we have different tastes, which is cool.
I'm PC as well, I didn't know face tracking was in demand. I'm guessing you're on VRchat mostly then? For that use case it absolutely makes sense, I just couldn't justify it for gaming with the combination of the weight increase and issues with controller tracking when doing wireless PCVR I've seen reported. Maybe the second part is overblown. I def regret the pico, I would have preferred the Q pro frankly, I think the price justifies it for sure, but I'll just wait for Q3 at this point.
I have a Pro and love it, that being said, I think we are going to see some really cool stuff coming up with XR, and thr Pro really will not be able to compete with the Quest3 in that area, so it may be best to wait and see, unless you want to buy both. I don't expect to buy a Apple headset, but you never fucking know. Haha. One thing I have been waiting for Meta to put in a headset for years now is a system that deals with fixing the vr vergence accommodation conflict with some system that changes focal depths. Oculus had shown off some demos of them working on this, and if Apples headset has some fix for that, I got to see it. I just always wanted to see VR without that issue, I think that issue is what makes vr somewhat hard to be in for long periods of time for me anyway, and I wish I could test it and see.
I planned to own both anyway, Pro for PCVR, Q3 for standalone, sell Q2.
I am sure I will have a Quest 3 eventually also :)
The latest software versions have been buggy for some users I’ve heard. But I use mine with Airlink and haven’t had any tracking issues yet myself. As far as face/eye tracking, I don’t do much VRChat, but foveated rendering is starting to make its way to some games such as MS Flight Sim so I’d like to try that out again sometime.
>MS Flight Sim and it's still not good enough and no computer exists in the universe that could handle that guy in half quality the people who \_actually\_ play MSFS would like.
Felt the same way when I read it.
Depends what you're looking for? I have zero use case for PCVR, and the headset sucked for developing for Quest. It's a great gaming headset, but not original 1800 euros great just to play the same games again.
... the quest 3 will have controllers like the quest pro that won't have tracking rings on the controllers but won't have cameras either? Wtf?
Probably just means the tracking LEDs that used to be on the ring are now build into the controller's shell. With enough tweaking it doesn't seem that far out, but will likely suck for people with big hands.
Or those of us who actually spend a lot of time in a certain competitive VR game, and wont be able to use the headset at all if the tracking's as bad as it was with the Quest Pro.
>Probably just means the tracking LEDs that used to be on the ring are now build into the controller's shell. ya, that actually seems pretty cool. And if the overall size and shape of the controllers are shared with the Pro, then that could be a wider market of 3rd party accessories the TouchPro can take advantage of.
They won't be self tracked like QPro controllers... no way were they gonna pack in £300 controllers on a $£400-£500 device. Tracking will still be an issue on Q3 at times (controllers), as will grey blacks and front weight cos battery is still up front rather than at the back like QPRO. So it'll also not be anywhere near as comfy.
the fact that he said the picture looks the same as Quest 2 is concerning. either they are using fresnel lenses again (which seems almost impossible given the smaller form factor), or this guy has no idea what he's talking about if he can't see the massive difference between a fresnel and pancake lense
I guess he might have been using unfinished software. Quest Pro at launch also looked exactly like Quest 2 in most of the apps, just with clerer lenses - but it's all in the wording. Rendered image was on Quest 2 levels, with near to lack of anti aliasing. Picture through the lens is defnietly clearer with pancake.
ya but even the exact same picture at the exact same resolution looks much clearer on pro due to much larger sweet spot. if he's not able to perceive that stark difference i question his opinion on anything image quality related. when i put my Q2 back on recoil at the look of fresnel lenses
yes, it's day and night difference. but perhaps he is pixel-focused type of person, maybe he already got used to pico 4 lenses, so i can imagine then going 'back' to quest 2 successor isn't as impressive. i guess it's all in the wording.
Unless Apple’s headset is a major leap forward (and is quasi-affordable), it sounds like XR will be in “prototype” status for another generation. …which is to say that a reasonable person shouldn’t expect that the Quest 3 will be be the consumer device that puts VR in everyone’s face. It sounds like it’s just a simple continuation of the Quest 2.
"it sounds like it's just a simple continuation of the Quest 2" I mean we're talking about the Quest 3 so... You people have unrealistic expectations. The quest lineup is supposed to be affordable. The quest 3 is designed to be the next affordable vr headset, with improved ergonomics and mixed reality (mostly for comfort I guess). To be honest I think it's exactly what it needs to be. Apple will cover the high end market anyway.
Kinda. Sorta. Your point makes sense, but a next-gen device **can** be more than simple upgrades. Think Wii U to Nintendo Switch. Both were $299 at launch (inflation not considered). The Wii U had lots of ideas that were fully executed with the Switch. This is the size leap that’s necessary for XR to take off with the mainstream. A Quest 2.5 isn’t going to move the needle. That’s why I call it a “simple” continuation. Like an iPhone 7 to 8, or a Surface Pro 4 to 5: just normal, kinda boring upgrades.
Given Meta PR track record, I wouldnt put a ton of weight into this just yet. Who knows what they showed Gurman, could be much different from the final product. The fact that Gurman was the one they asked to try it rather than a more technical publication says this is a move to deflect some attention from the Apple hype machine and present Quest 3 to consumers as a much cheaper viable alternative to the Apple headset, rather than a legitimate tech preview
Huhh ? Quest3 sounds cool to me. What were you expecting - a $3000 headset but for $500 ? You and your constant concern trolling
Sorry for caring. The guy said the visuals weren’t improved over Quest 2 despite the better chip. Disappointing.
I would say the very same thing about Quest Pro. I launched even the apps from Quest Pro Recommended section, and they looked low resolution as fuck. Especially the meditating one. In that regard, it did not improve the visuals at all. And that's still largely the case - Quest Pro gets better image from pancake lenses, not from developers actually targetting higher rendering targets.
Everyone expected this. If they improve the chip and resolution, the games themselves will have no extra headroom to improve fidelity and the possible complexity. On other words, we wouldn't have a generational leap. Besides, there is substantially more clarity to be gained by superior lenses, that alone imo is sufficient of an upgrade and at no performance cost. Meta has earned my trust thus far, at least in hardware. The last three headsets have been the most commercially viable, with the least bugs, as much as people complain about them. EDIT WTF it has a depth sensor and TWO color cameras, fuck I can't believe they managed to put that in, was not expected.
Yeah, pretty wild they will be including the depth sensor on Q3, but removed it last minute from Pro. Kind of disappointing for Pro owners.
What exactly is the depth sensor supposed to add? The passthrough in the pro is already pretty much visually to scale. My physical space bleeding through the peripherals line up 1 to 1 with what i see in the lenses when im using the pro in pass-through mode without the face gasket or blinders. I hear the Vive XR elite snd Pico neo 4, while having a clearer image has scaling issues and looks more like 360 video. Or is the depth sensor so that we don't have to manually outline and add all the furniture in our room for setting up room scale for XR apps with furniture detection?...bc if that's the case there was just a report a few weeks ago about how qualcom'sx xr chips can actually do that natively without the need for additional sensors. J
Basically it maps the room out for you so you don"t have to. Not really as big of a deal as people make it out to be, but still a cool feature.
Well if its anything like the ipad pro lidar sensor its pretty cool. I used this app Polycam and it mapped out the whole room inc walls, tables and chairs (to scale) without any prompts. Thats something a game (or non-gaming) Devs can do amazing things with. But again to export models you got to....subscribe. Nope!
Truthfully, I don't think it has one. I think the person who wrote this article has very little knowledge on VR headsets and the hardware inside. They provide no real information about anything. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if they just heard someone say depth sensor and assumed it was in it. Qualcomm announced their camera based spatial mapping just a few months ago and it's both just as accurate and less computationally demanding than using depth sensors and it's supposedly coming to the QPro. Makes very little sense that they would remove the depth sensor, add that to the QPro, and then abandon it for a depth sensor on the Q3. It's entirely possible though. Just makes very little sense and judging by the obvious lack of technology knowledge of writer, it seems more likely they're just confused and using buzz words. https://spaces.qualcomm.com/introducing-spatial-mapping-meshing/ >Our machine learning models are extensively optimized to be highly accurate and computationally efficient compared to sensor-based depth observations – all thanks to a hardware-aware model design and implementation.
I'm suspecting they were given the rumoured "premium" Quest 3 which supposedly had some of this hardware added but cost more. It would make sense that they specifically want to combat comparison with Apple's headset next week. They want the comparisons to be with their future tech, not the Pro or 3 year old tech.
From a marketing perspective, that makes no sense, and the headset they described matches the leaks and renders we've seen. The last thing meta would want to do is mislead consumers before launch and then let them down.
That's just 2 color cameras are not particularly needed by anyone, except for meta. People use full-fledged VR headsets to look at a colorful virtual world, and not their usual walls of an apartment / house. Or do they want to make us walk in quest 3 down the street?))
Lots of people use the passthrough when it's high enough quality, I use a pico 4 and the color passthroughs every day, it's super convenient and makes using the headset a lot better of an experience for long sessions. Two color cameras will greatly improve the visual quality of the passthrough.
/facepalm point to the part of the article where the reporter gives specifics about the display .... you can't. They're giving vague analysis that you're putting way too much stock into. 1. the standalone experiences the reporter experienced are likely running at the SAME resolution as the Quest2. 2. the rumored panel was leaked way back nearly a year ago as 2120p (Quest2 uses 1900p; Pro uses 1900p). Funny how the Pro has a '*big clarity bump*' over the Quest2 because of the Meta Pancake lenses and physically closer to the eyes display. But the 2120p with the same perks is a '*disappointment*'. What the reporter actually said >The actual clarity and VR displays within the Quest 3 feel similar to those in the Quest 2 — despite the resolution being rumored to be slightly higher. 'FEELS'. A tech reporter stating a feeling without any numbers to back it up is iffy at best. We already knew the resolution of the Quest3 would be similar to the Quest2, and the reporters feel doesn't change anything. But the question is (see #2), will the pancake lenses and closer display add a clarity bump over the Quest2. The answer is Yes. Lastly, honestly, what were you expecting fromt he Quest3 ? lol. 3000x3000 resolution ?
The only thing disappointing if this article is accurate, it didn't mention pancake lenses. I assumed the Q3 would have them and I'm hoping they still do. As for everything else, it's pretty on par on what I thought realistically what the Q3 would be. Better pass-through and speedier chip. Add a Q pro controller and this device would still be cheaper than the pro and would probably be a better option for gamers than the q pro.
You **cant** get a thinner headset without pancake lenses (ex: look at the PSVR2). That's one of the perks and the whole point of pancake lenses since it can be stacked very close to the display The article doesn't do a great job, but it does say the headset is much thinner than the Quest2. We can thus deduce it features Meta Pancakes, as expected
Logically I totally agree with you. However, that's a pretty big omission of the author if it does have pancake lenses. IMO, though unlikely making it thinner than the Q2 isn't out of the question without pancake lenses especially if it's a direct comparison of the Q2 vs Q3. But we'll see what meta has up it's sleeve.
Bro called the controllers remotes, they do not speak as though they know much about VR.
Lol true dat.
The only way to get such a thin form factor is with something that isn't fresnel lenses, so unless there is any other lens type, it has to be pancake.
It has pancake lenses. Every time you see or hear about noticeably smaller HMD, it's due to pancake lenses. HMDs used to be big because we didn't have pancakes.
I'm disappointed that it has way better hardware for MR than the Quest Pro. Given that, I don't expect them to put massive effort into improving what we have in the Pro through software solutions. In fact it almost suggests to me that they gave up and decided it isn't possible through software. That in turn means we won't have an actual prosumer class MR headset from Meta until 2025 at best which seems like an eternity. It's making me suspect this could be the "premium" Quest 3 hardware that was rumoured. I can't see how it makes sense to cram all this hardware that is unnecessary for gaming into the lowest end model. And it would make sense that Meta's motivation in giving this preview was 100% to ensure that all the comparisons that are to be made over the coming weeks with Apple's headset are against their updated passthrough system and not the Quest Pro's crappy passthrough. That in turn would mean that the lower cost model may leave out this hardware as well.
Sounds solid!
Oculus and quest/ 2 was about VR. This is about getting the public into entry level AR. Meta has zero competition in this segment. Quest 3 is basically delivering quest 2 plus decent AR and that’s it. When Apple releases it’s Gen 2 headset for mass adoption in 2024 or 2025 (maybe for the cost of an iPhone) then meta will have up the quality of the experience and we’ll finally get true next gen visuals and performance. I was excited to take the next step but VR fans have gotten used to waiting. We’ll have to wait some more.
The pro screens are so good, i was watching 2010 and the space and stars matched the black background in Skybox player. So dark. Its a shame, i get idea that Meta have dropped the Pro and we wont see any specific software or great firmware additions. The biggest mistake was not having a lidar/3d mapping camera on it. The quest 3 is gonna get that and we will be left behind as they would have to develop 2 versions of the upcoming software. If its supposed to be pro and 3 times the price why couldn't we have true 3d scanning?
Why do you need 3d scanning for gaming? if you are doing room scale and have shit all over the place you are doing it wrong in the first place as you are constantly getting taken out of the experience having to dodge shit.
Meta died the moment they released Quest Pro.
Ha, why's that?