Comparison of different VR solutions - pros and cons of different devices
- Thread starter Karamazov
- Start date
snc
Veteran
hw supprot, still works on software + will kudos support it or at least will some modder bother
In theory it doesn't require developer support as Nvidia supports it in drivers if its forward rendered and the headset is white listed. I'd be surprised if they didn't support the Crystal when it releases.
Even then though there are plenty of options to get sufficient performance. E.g. upscaling which PC2 doesn't support, or simply dropping settings to something below Ultra.
If "old and dead" PC2 can "obliterate" GT7 on the right hardware then I don't think you're going to need to max out something like AC2 to do better.
snc
Veteran
No its not that easy, devs from light brigade still works to enable foveated render without artifacts, pc2 is dead but image clarity of 8k pancake lenses surely superior than 4k fresnel
I don't understand the term "dead" in relation to PC2? Crystal is neither Pancake, nor 8K but it does produce a far more realistic racing experience in PC2 than GT7 on PSVR2, at least according to MRTV.
If it can do that with a "dead" game (whatever that means) imagine what it'ss do with a modern racing sim. PC2 though isn't exactly a graphical slouch, even today.
snc
Veteran
I invite you to simracing then you understand
Dead means no one is playing online, the servers are basically empty
GhostofWar
Regular
OpenXR toolkit can get dynamic foveated rendering working in ACC, Even if Kunos don't support it officially oxr toolkit should still work in AC2. I'm not real sure what you mean by hw support but oxr toolkit dfr uses vrs for the lower res rendering so I guess technically that could be considered hw support? I wouldn't expect AC2 on the crystal to be heavier than flight sim on an aero anyway, the resolution difference isn't massive 2880 x 2720 per eye for aero vs 2880*2880 for the crystal.
It would be nice if they would just look at what settings people are using the toolkit for (it's mainly foveated rendering in the outter 30% of the fov and sometimes supersampling the middle) and have it built into the game but even in the likely event they don't bother again we have options still.
Dynamic Foveated Variable Shader Rate with the OpenXR Toolkit and Varjo Aero (a.k.a. Foveated Rendering)
The foveated rendering extension has decoupled the required rendering resolution based on eye tracking and perceived resolution.
varjo.com
GhostofWar
Regular
This actually looks far more impressive than I originally expected, I figured that video where mrtv was gushing was being hammed up a bit because he had people from pimax there but this through the lens video has me looking at my finances lol.
He did say it's something Pimax were working on to improve though and expected to have a better implementation at Shanghai. And then he did also note he saw no blooming in the PC2 night level in the Shanghai demo so that sounds promising.
snc
Veteran
Thx for info, I only know its more complicated then i thought as on psvr without parole during stream said that devs told him enabling foveated rendering on psvr2 is not as trivial as switiching toggle, some things can be broken by it, and devs have to adjust etc. thats why some games still dont use itOpenXR toolkit can get dynamic foveated rendering working in ACC, Even if Kunos don't support it officially oxr toolkit should still work in AC2. I'm not real sure what you mean by hw support but oxr toolkit dfr uses vrs for the lower res rendering so I guess technically that could be considered hw support? I wouldn't expect AC2 on the crystal to be heavier than flight sim on an aero anyway, the resolution difference isn't massive 2880 x 2720 per eye for aero vs 2880*2880 for the crystal.
It would be nice if they would just look at what settings people are using the toolkit for (it's mainly foveated rendering in the outter 30% of the fov and sometimes supersampling the middle) and have it built into the game but even in the likely event they don't bother again we have options still.
Dynamic Foveated Variable Shader Rate with the OpenXR Toolkit and Varjo Aero (a.k.a. Foveated Rendering)
The foveated rendering extension has decoupled the required rendering resolution based on eye tracking and perceived resolution.
Last edited:
Through the lens with Microsoft Flight Simulator on the Crystal. Looks absolutely insane...
And also, just to balance out the Crystal love in a bit, here's an impression of Big Screen Beyond that makes me think it'll be a worthy competitor. Interesting how they both take entirely different approaches to VR, each doing what they do incredibly well, but leaving obvious areas for improvement that the other picks up. A future headset that merges the advantages of both, particularly at more mainstream price levels will be the real breakthrough moment for VR IMO.
And also, just to balance out the Crystal love in a bit, here's an impression of Big Screen Beyond that makes me think it'll be a worthy competitor. Interesting how they both take entirely different approaches to VR, each doing what they do incredibly well, but leaving obvious areas for improvement that the other picks up. A future headset that merges the advantages of both, particularly at more mainstream price levels will be the real breakthrough moment for VR IMO.
I look forward to seeing how well they sell. Neither have the FOV that the sim guys really want. Both are too expensive to do anything for PCVR in general.
The Apple gear is coming. As is Pimax 12K and that is what the sim guys really want.
And Quest 3 will be what the masses buy. Its standalone capabilities will probably be a big step forward and that won't help PC either.
The Apple gear is coming. As is Pimax 12K and that is what the sim guys really want.
And Quest 3 will be what the masses buy. Its standalone capabilities will probably be a big step forward and that won't help PC either.
Last edited:
The Crystal does have the wider FoV lenses though that haven't been tested yet so it may yet pass that test for the simmers (I've no idea what they're looking for).
Honestly compared to my CV1 the FoV already sounds amazing!
GhostofWar
Regular
I'm not buying anything until the quest 3 is out, if meta don't try anything stupid like making it not work linked to a pc/steamvr (i don't expect that but well it's meta lol) it could be a no brainer for the price. The crystal is expensive, I could maybe swing it but if the quest 3 is half the price and their optics and panels get close to that crystal I would prefer to spend less and get the lighter hmd. It would probably also be easier to sell the quest 3 with less of a loss if the next valve vr device got announced a month or 2 later aswell.
It is testament to pimax that they have me contemplating the crystal though, it looks damn impressive but so is the price.
I'm not sure there are wider lenses. I think they might be confusing narrower lenses actually, with a higher PPD. I am looking forward to some elaboration on that.
Yeah this is an awesome upgrade from CV1!
I think you should grab a beverage and watch some 5K Super and 8KX reviews.
Those are essentially made for racing and flight. I would love to try one. Minimum horizontal FOV of 120 degrees, maximum of 160!
Last edited:
GhostofWar
Regular
Pimax listening to you guys? lol speaking of the fov and then they drop this.
It'll be interesting to see howbit effects clarity. There's got to be a compromise somewhere. Hopefully it's minimal.
GhostofWar
Regular
In that through the lens video you can see some blur and CA at the very edges, maybe one of the comprises is those distortions start a bit further into the fov? That's a guess i've got no idea but I agree it has to have a downside or they just would have went with those lenses by default.
Similar threads
