VR bottlenecked in 2024

The 2024 DFR VR bottleneck.

[@markkovalcson7243]

Since I didn't cover this in the video. The DP1.4a connection is also a bottleneck. The current DP 1.4a spec currently limits visually lossless compression to about 8Mp per eye. The 4090 only has a DP1.4a connector just like the 30, 20 and 10 series did. Hopefully the 5090 will have a DP 2.1 connector which will have a lot more bandwidth. Of course that means new headsets would need to have DP 2.1 support. In addition the XR-4 only allows 51ppd while in native mode which is only possible with quad view DFR. Besides the fact that the XR-4 only has a DP 1.4a connections which will likely limit it dramatically when the 5090 gets here. Hopefully the Supers will have a DP 2.1 connector so they will only be limited by the GPU's ability to render the pixels and not the cable to get the pixels there.

[@Omniwhatever]

This isn't quite true though, I left a comment outlining exactly why. The XR-4's full resolution actually could fit within DP1.4a's specification, but the bottleneck is elsewhere. It's kind of like how the BSB's resolution and hz can technically fit within DP1.4a without upscaling(Higher res headsets than it do so without the need), but because of bottlenecks elsewhere in their pipeline, they have to use the upscaling for 90hz mode because they can't leversge the full bandwidth. We are really getting towards the limits of DP1.4a though and is something we'll want to be looking at moving beyond soon. But things like the Crystal/Aero aren't at the limit yet. Well, at least with 8-bit color depth. If we start trying to move to true 10-bit or HDR, then yeah that's another matter.

[@vulpix9210]

Ironic that the 7900xtx has DP2.1

[@markkovalcson7243]

@@vulpix9210 It is.

[@Angeloi89]

I think we need proper standardized upscaling technology like DLSS for VR to help with this upcomming bottleneck asap. It is a win in every regard, latency, performance, even visual quality if properly implemented.

[@paoloperfini7462]

We absolutely need Quad Views also in all other simulator, FS2020, FS2024, Assetto Corsa Evo, etc

[@andreasmeow452]

love your videos man, and how you just bring the reality of it all to us :3, kinda saves people money too it seems lol

[@jrherita]

The opening part of this aligns with my thoughts on the Pimax Crystal Super. It probably is more of a RTX 6090 kind of headset. Also, I’m an Atari 2600 / Asteroids and Missile Command veteran here too :).

[@markkovalcson7243]

Can't tell you how many quarters I put into the Missile Command machine at my local bowling alley :)

[@eroige]

Same here😂

[@bobdole3251]

Subbed hope you get 1k soon! You caught me up on what is going on in the vr scene after seeing the crystal light announcement might upgrade to that from reverb g2

[@LeetuserKyle]

Thank you for discussing this helps me explain a lot to my end user friends

[@Pece73]

I love your videos, thank you Mark!

[@donmaynardo]

Hello Mark,here from Germany, thank you for your good video. For me, however, there is a little more hope. I use the old "Assetto Corsa" with my G2 with 300% supersampling, while my RTX4090 with the newer "Assetto Corsa Competitione" (unreal engine programmed) struggles a bit with native resolution and epic settings. The new title "Assetto Corsa Evo", which is due to be released this year, will again be programmed with an in-house engine. I hope the performance will improve again. And the whole thing with an RTX5090 and dynamic foveated rendering could work. I remain optimistic. I have made a pre-order for the Pimax super qled and hope that they can actually produce and deliver within the announced period. I can't say much about IRacing, I tried only the free tracks and they looked in VR very bad. I am happy with Assetto Corsa and also LFM. Even the old Assetto Corsa in 2x 3880x3880 would be amazing. A question: I use AC with the G2 and 300% supersampling in Steam VR settings. What costs more performance: 1. Supersampling: scaled up to 300%, then scaled down again and output at 100%, or 2. 300% output natively? Let's wait and see what the future brings. I'm a little over 50 years old, so I hope that the VR industry continues to accelerate.

[@RabbitConfirmed]

We need something the size between Quest 3 and Bigscreen Beyond, with IPD adjustment and interchangeable universal facial interfaces, in different sizes.

[@markkovalcson7243]

Some day! Here is the tough part. The Beyond is likely the smallest VR headset that we will ever see. It's size is completely related to the size display it has and that requires the custom interface for alignment purposes. There is no way around it. The next Beyond will likely have a larger display allowing a larger pancake lens that will have a larger area that each eyeball can be positioned and still have the lens look sharp. At that point there will likely be options that they don't have right now.

[@okkimakki]

First time viewer, amazing video! Subscribed!

[@okkimakki]

I am one of those with HP G2 and a 3080ti. Guess I need to upgrade soon, but really hard to know what headset I should go with. Seems like Crystal Light or VR1 are the only viable alternatives.

[@markkovalcson7243]

Maybe someone else can chime in. I went from a 2080Ti to my 4090 and don't have a good reference point for what a 3080Ti will drive well.

[@b6s4shelter]

Great point and I agree. as a 4090 Pico 4 user, I don't see a way to get what I want in these next gen VR HMDs. Crystal Light should have had an Eye tracking option. MSFS need quad view. For the April 30th Developer Stream I submitted 3 VR questions on FS2024 and quadview.

[@flyhalf2]

How can the end user determine what the binocular overlap is? Also, I wonder in the Pimax crystal light will spur Pico on to produce the Pico 5 with a DP connection?

[@markkovalcson7243]

There is a utility called WimFOV that measures the Field of view in degrees and what both eyes see. This incluced binocular overlap. As an example My Beyond has better binocular overlap than my Aero does. It's pretty well known that the Aero has low binocular overlap.

[@artursychov]

Thank you for great thoughts and for mentioning Somnium VR1. Wanted to thank you in Somnium Discord but did not find you there :)

[@markkovalcson7243]

I see you in other places :) Or is that a hint of some kind.

[@techinfusions]

The Sony PSVR2 has growing DFR support for its built in eye tracking, and it will soon be PCVR compatible with a tethered display port/virtual link connection, DFR really changes the way PSVR2 console games look and perform in VR, a low cost OLED VR headset with DFR abilities could be an attractive proposition for many PCVR players and may encourage PCVR developers to update their software to utilise the technology?

[@Omniwhatever]

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about VR performance and how the top end seems to be outpacing what we're capable of. We kind of seem to be in the place where 4k monitors were when they first came out. Not really much, even the absolute top end, could do much for it with more recent games of the time. This said though, I think there's a few points to add on or clarify. I'm not sure if you meant it this way or this is how it just came across, but what you're saying about DFR/Quad-Views and enabling high PPD isn't technically true. The XR4 is hard limited to lower PPD outside of Quad-Views usage because of bandwidth issues outside of supported applications, where it can use their sdk and the eye tracking features to get around those, so the resolution gets downfed into whatever the bandwidth limits are without it. However, this is a problem on Varjo's end for one reason or the other. The bandwidth of it's combined eye resolution of 7680x3744@90hz(Assuming 8-bit color depth like VR's at in general) is actually less(77.6gbps~) than the maximum bandwidth DP 1.4a can support with DSC, which goes up to 4k/240hz with 12-bit color depth+HDR( > 83.6gbps~). This isn't a performance issue, a headset with the same exact specs could come along and let you use the full PPD in all applications if they wanted and fixed up where Varjo's hitting this bottleneck. Exactly where I can't say could be something like software or hardware like a bridge chip. The Super actually fits inside 1.4a's bandwidth too if I got my numbers right, or well 90hz does. I'm not sure how they're expecting 120hz if the math's right... That said, even assuming that's true yeah it's a lot to run without Quad-Views, but I don't think it's as bleak as is being made out and disagree a bit with your take. I've done a number of videos benchmarking stuff on my Crystal, though I will freely admit not to doing much for simming. The big one I think is being overlooked a bit, though easy to make the case it kind of runs into the same issue of not utilizing the full potential, is that the higher PPD also means a lot better results from upscaling even if using a similar factor. Like on flatscreen with how DLSS performance at 4k can end up looking comparable to even better than DLSS Quality at 1440p. When we're hitting 40-50~ PPD territory we're around or even exceeding 1080-1440p monitors, assuming average viewing distance at least. Played around with upscaling on my Crystal and the results, visually, were still significantly better than HMDs with PPD in the 20s, even if I had to use some more aggressive upscaling. I think it'll be a similar case as we go even higher than the 30-35~ some of the current leaders in visual fidelity are at. And that can claw back a lot of performance. You can also downsample the resolution a little bit and it'll still look vastly better than a lower fidelity headset. Long as you're not going way, way down to where your barrel distortion correction is getting really screwed up. The other thing is that as we go higher on resolution MSAA becomes less needed, which is good because as res goes up MSAA becomes absurdly more demanding too and is the most popular form of AA for VR right now. x4 is basically unusable on the Crystal in more demanding titles because of that unless you're fine with reprojection or like 72hz mode, but even the Crystal with x2 has less shimmer than some of those 20~PPD headsets with x4 I've mentioned. Not applicable in every game though, even some games with just plain old TAA are damn demanding. But if you can truly hit 50PPD I'd bet you could probably turn off MSAA entirely, if the game doesn't tie important shader functions or something to it, and not see too significant difference in visuals but your performance would sure jump up a good bit. MSAA, even at x2 on the Crystal's res, can often eat a good 20-30% performance and is consistently one of the most expensive graphic options I've seen across games, if not the most. Are we gonna be able to run the most demanding VR games(i.e MSFS) even on a 4090 with the absurdly high res of things like the Crystal Super, at maxed out settings or even high settings? No, definitely not lmao. But there's definitely a chunk of games which you'll be able to run at full res if you turn down some settings and still get a significant benefit and have a decent frame rate, even with some higher levels of fidelity. A 5090 will obviously let you push things even further, but I think it'll be possible for people to still make fairly good use of Crystal Super like resolution on a 4090 in a chunk of games. But it'll definitely take some tweaking. But even if not running ultra graphics having a massive resolution advantage goes incredibly far in VR even with needing to turn down some settings. Now something like the 12k's resolution eeeeeeeeeeh on top of lower settings that's gonna need either some heavy upscaling + perhaps even just VRS based DFR(Which can work decently sometimes), or to rely on reprojection more heavily. Or some combination of all of the above lol.

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

There is also the case of futureproofing, higher resolution on a headset gives it a longer lifespan. A 8MP headset is going to be excellent for years, and a 14-15MP headset might really never be outdated, as its so close to the 60PPD range. Im just waiting for Crystal Super to hit used markets and pick one up in 2027 :)

[@SargonDragon]

Thank you for pointing out that higher panel resolution increases clarity even if the rendering resolution is not also increased. This is such an important concept for understanding performance correctly. People get overly concerned about the relationship between panel resolution and rendering resolution. This video talks about it almost as if it's a crisis to not be able to achieve a 1:1 ratio between them. When in reality, the ratio itself hardly matters at all. It's just an internal detail of the rendering pipeline. What actually matters at the end of the day is resolving power. Which is something you can measure in VR just like you would for an SLR camera. It can be measured with an MTF chart. Or in VR, more often a Snellen eye chart is used. Or just the user's impression of clarity. Raising either rendering resolution or panel resolution increases resolving power. The ratio between them is largely immaterial except that at some point raising rendering resolution above panel resolution produces diminishing returns and ultimately tops out at some ratio where going higher makes no effective difference anymore. That point is not at the "100%" mark. In fact, I think it's unfortunate that rendering resolution is usually expressed in the UI as a percentage because that promotes a mentality that there is something wrong if its below 100%. When the 100% mark is actually arbitrarily chosen by the manufacturer to begin with. There is not actually anything special about 100% at all. It's a concept that has been carried over from flat monitors which doesn't apply to VR. In flat monitors, rendering at exactly 100% panel resolution has special characteristics which greatly improve performance. And so in flat monitors, it is important for the GPU to be able to keep up with a 1:1 ratio between rendering resolution and panel resolution. In flat monitors, buying a monitor with too high of a panel resolution can actually be a detriment. But this whole concept does not apply to VR! In VR, the 100% mark is generally arbitrarily chosen to produce a rough equivalent to 1:1 in flat monitors. It usually includes about 40% oversampling above the panel resolution. This convention is what smuggles in this irrelevant concept from flat monitors into VR. It causes people to incorrectly think that 6K panels would actually be a detriment to a 4090 compared to 3K or 4K panels. Or at least that 6K panels would be wasted on a 4090. When this is not true. At all. Except that a lot of users will feel bad about turning that dial to less than 100% or may even refuse to do so. In the printing industry, nobody cares that printer resolutions are much higher than image resolutions. Nobody is bent on the ratio between them. They only care about what the final printed products looks like. And we need to progress to that kind of general understanding in VR land, too. The trend of panel resolutions growing larger than rendering resolutions may be a long term or even permanent trend since it passively increases clarity without impacting frame rate.

[@nBasterd]

Strong comment!

[@markkovalcson7243]

@@Nobody-Nowhere There is no such thing as future proofing because technology tends to surprise you in unexpected ways. I've seen this with everything that is computer hardware related. The issue is twofold. If you buy a lot of capacity that you can't use now, it will typically come at a premium. Then by the time it actually can be used, something much better has been released. The VR1 has significantly sharper lenses than the Crystal, that it can outresolve by a margin and it has a real wider FOV and is much brighter. This means that it has a much better contrast and can produce a better visual experience. Based on the comments by some XR-4 owners, the jump from 35ppd to 51ppd is nice, but not dramatic. Once again for flight where you are looking off into the distance and have a complex cockpit with many controls visible there is a use case for additional detail that can actually be noticed in game. For racing sims and most other games it will be a LOT less noticeable. So the question becomes what really will make a difference in the future that isn't ready today. One thing that will make a big difference is the use of uOLED's which produce better color and contrast, but the displays won't be large enough to allow for much FOV for a few more years. The Pimax Super uOLED has already been reported to likely be about 90x100 FOV which is something they didn't mention in their press release. But Sominum has already proven that very high quality lenses can create a much brighter headset with more contrast. Make no mistake, contrast makes a huge difference. It makes everything feel much more lifelike. I made comments about this playing Dirt Rally with the Beyond. I know the Beyond has less ppd than the Aero, and an additional image quality hit at 90Hz, but the feel of the Beyond was MUCH more realistic as I was driving between the shadows under trees and the color was dramatically better and everything looked cleaner because of lack of moire' and CA. Pimax has not proven that they are capable of producing lenses that will remotely capture what 3880x3880 displays are capable of. They did a botch job on the "wide" 115 hFOV lenses for the Crystal which has been out for about a year. How long will it take for them to get something passable for the Supers? As things stand, I think there is a very high probability that the visual experience in the VR1 even with less resolution will be better than the QLED Super with 3880x3880 because of Pimax lens quality.

[@diegostalder9663]

great video, and i totally agree. you are using the BSB with iracing ? i own also the Varjo Aero and the BSB, but for iracing, i absolutely prefer the Aero because of the terrible glare and the tiny sweet spot of the BSB.

[@markkovalcson7243]

This is never a one size fits all situation. Everyone has different sensitivities to different things. I notice some glare with the Beyond, but mostly with splash screens and setup pages. In game I rarely ever notice it and I greatly prefer the comfort of it. For the Aero, my biggest issues were with my motion system in Rally games where I could not get the headset to stay still on my head which is an immersion breaker for me. That is very much a head shape issue. Some people have a very different experience than I do with the Aero. The motion blur when panning is another issue with the Aero that I got used to, but still noticed at times. The last generic facial interface that fit me well was the Rift CV1. The Index was looser, but usable. With the Aero it got to be a problem. It was a serious issue in room scale games and in Rally with my motion system it was a problem. The Aero was actually fine in iRacing, but I like the Beyond just as well and the BSB is just simpler. I take the Aero out for vistors, but sometimes I go a while without using it and it takes a bit of futzing to get it working well in terms of frame rates when I don't bother with OpenXR when using my Beyond. Not a right or wrong answer for this. Use what works the best for you.

[@ybfxtv]

we need something that won't hurt your vision permanently

[@markkovalcson7243]

In what way? Varifocal lenses?

[@jamesleicher]

new to chan,there was a prototype similar to Beyond at a game expo with 4x lcd or oled screens for over 200 FOV,that pushing the boundaries

[@markkovalcson7243]

Hypervision is doing some very cool things! I look forward to seeing products based on those prototypes.

[@AdamsOlympia]

I just dipped my toes in VR for the first time this year with Meta Q3. I love the native games, but I was hoping for more than it delivered for sim racing. I ended up preferring the fidelity and response of my 4k 65" OLED w/ TrackIR head tracking. (driven by 4090) .. My new Simucube 2 Pro wheel added far more immersion than entry level VR; so maybe I need to spend that much on a headset for it to be the game changer I'm looking for. But that's a huge investment, when I don't even know if it'll be my cup of tea -- and with no way of trying it out first.

[@markkovalcson7243]

You are completely correct. My SC2 Pro was from their second production run and I'm on my 3rd headset since getting it and it will likely be here for my 4th and 5th. VR is not an investment, it is a black hole.

[@Bluth53]

Isn't DFR working in MSFS2020 as well? I remember it being advertised by multiple VR channels about 9 months ago...

[@markkovalcson7243]

There is, but it doesn't buy nearly as much as Quad View DFR.

[@Bluth53]

@@markkovalcson7243 Understood. Thank you for the reply, I'll read up on resources to understand the details / benefits of QV DFR

[@toututu2993]

Bigscreen Beyond requirements; own the latest Iphone to scan face, required base stations and base station controllers both sold separately and cannot be bought as a package or in the same website, and required vr ready pc.

[@markkovalcson7243]

That is mostly correct and there can actually be even more steps. I don't own an Apple phone so I went to an Apple store and did my face scan there. The Apple employee thought it was pretty cool and helped me through the process, it took me about 5 minutes. However, I also went to my optometrist to verify my near IPD measurement. I got a perfect fit the first time going with my optometrist's IPD number. Others have had an additional step of working with Beyond to swap their headsets to get the proper IPD.

[@dtz1000]

And you have to stomach paying the £200 extra Bigscreen tax if you live outside of the USA. I don't like being ripped off so no thanks to that. I'll get a Pimax instead as they don't rip off their customers who live outside of the USA.

[@markkovalcson7243]

@@dtz1000 They are polar opposites from a priority standpoint. You have to pick what works best for you.

[@simracingjunky9679]

Finally someone a youtuber that makes sense. People in the Pimax chat really made me laugh when they were crying for the 12k headset. We are probably about 3 VC generations away of running such a headset. Crystal light and VR1 will be the max pixels that we will be able to push smoothly in SIms with the 5090. Btw a lot of youtubers I trust are projecting a 60-70% increase for the 5090. A slightly heavier BSB with a 10-20% increase in FOV and res with eye tracking and MR paired with a 5090 would be a dream for me.

[@JJ_Khailha]

Great vid. Have a look at your lighting set-up. Maybe emulate 3-point lighting and lose those unflattering dark circular hard shadows over your eyes, as well as multiple source hard shadows on the set.

[@markkovalcson7243]

Thanks for the suggestion. It's a work in progress. I currently have color adjusting lighting with one softbox and one umbrella which are both clearly visible in the TV on the wall behind me. I either need a backdrop or to record in another room and as a few people mentioned, I was looking at my video monitor just off to the side of the camera.

[@JJ_Khailha]

@@markkovalcson7243 You’ll get there bud, have subbed. Look forward to more videos!

[@markkovalcson7243]

@@JJ_Khailha I think I'll end up with a backdrop and more lights.

[@outspoken78]

SO I'm running a RX6800 xt with an AMD Ryzen 7 5700X and 32gs ram. I'm currently using an Oculas Quest 2 through Virtual Desktop and would like to upgrade. I mostly use it for Microsoft Flight Simulator. My goal is good clear visuals. What headset would you recommend?

[@markkovalcson7243]

I'd actually suggest you look at the videos by VR Flight Sim Guy. He spends a lot of time in MSFS and he has videos showing how to get the most out of a wide number of VR headsets that I've never tried, like the Quest 3 and soon he will have a Crystal Lite.

[@outspoken78]

@@markkovalcson7243 Awesome! Thank you for the suggestion!

[@Simmymind360]

I have Crystal, and a Rog 4090.. but I'm disappointed that there is not much support for DFR..one of the reasons I got the Crystal

[@markkovalcson7243]

Good DFR is completely under utilized. It keeps people with less powerful GPU's from getting decent performance and it keeps people with powerful GPU's from getting the most out of their headsets.

[@soulofastro]

how do you feel about the Quest Pro?

[@markkovalcson7243]

I've never touched one.

[@jasonknights9640]

you have both a BSB and a varjo aero would you take the BSB OVER the aero would like to hear a comparison by soneone who has both i know there discontinued but i can get one. id like to know about the visuals and how they compare im also curious becouse of the whole 90fps renders lower on bsb so its probably not much better than my q pro

[@markkovalcson7243]

I compared the two in pretty good detail in a previous video. I think I covered all the issues some people have with the Beyond, my issue with the Aero, and how they compared visually including at 75Hz and 90Hz. kzbin.info/www/bejne/npuZaWNjjcmHqac&ab_channel=MarkKovalcson

[@quaaluddite]

Hard ask for me to update from my valve index and old PC with a 6700k and 2070 super right now. Got VR for half life alyx, now it has a permanent place in my dedicated sim racing setup. Assetto Corsa, RBR, and DR2.0 are not that demanding technically. Index resolution is good enough. Until there's a huge breakthrough I'm pretty much good

[@markkovalcson7243]

I loved my Index for 4+ years and still use the base stations and controllers which are still the best out there.

[@Crazy-Bear-Gamer-Channel]

I'm a DCS virtual pilot ONLY, I have a I7 13700 + 4090 combo.. do you think this system could handle well a Crystal Light ( around 90FPS) or the fixed DFR will confine me to a more humble framerate? THANKS! 😉

[@markkovalcson7243]

I think Pimax has a 75Hz mode that might help with your configuration. FFR ( fixed foveated rendering ) just means that you are cropping away the outer edge of your display. So it will cut into your field of view, but you can trim it down until you get a decent frame rate. Can you get 90fps? In stand alone mode by dropping the resolution rendered and cropping with FFR it should be possible. DCS is one of the few titles that having eye tracking and DFR really helps. I replied too quickly.To clarify this. FFR like DFR renders more pixels and detail to the center and then reduces the resolution used by the surrounding area. So you can still have the same peripheral vision but there is less detail around the edges. With DFR that circular area is smaller and moves with your eyes. With FFR it stays centered on the displays. With both you can trim the outer edges.

[@Crazy-Bear-Gamer-Channel]

@@markkovalcson7243 many thanks! :)

[@l8knight845]

You're going to be running it at 2200 by 2200 to get good fps. Pimax really screwed up. Sucks.

[@redcobra1246]

Fortunately for us gamers this doesn't matter yet because the only gaming headset mentioned is the BSB and it's still on par with current hardware

[@markkovalcson7243]

For roomscale, I basically agree with you, but I love my BSB for sims too.

[@SmokeyMesa]

I really don't see this as such an issue, but I'm a sim racer. The glass half full view of a headset with potential your gpu can't fully utilize, is that it's a great headset you'll "grow into" with future gpu upgrades. IMHO the long term solution should be gpu's with more performance over DFR and we're getting there.

[@roshirawr]

The dad from inside out is spitting facts

[@markkovalcson7243]

Being a younger looking Disney cartoon may have some advantages.

[@jamiesalmonsculpture8599]

This was a discussion that needed to happen. It's something most VR channels ignore or bury their headsets (see what I did there😂) in the sand. There's 2 types of high end pcvr user: the very small minority who will be able to afford every new piece of hardware no matter what, and then everyone else who will lose interest or stop buying the hardware for the next few year's. It's not a good business model......

[@jackr.749]

Excellent video. Seems to be a thing since I got into VR in 2017, new HMD comes out, PC hardware can't run it properly or barely, I'm slowly getting to the point of just throwing my arms in the air and saying screw it, I'll stick with what I have for the next few years. (Reverb G2v2 and Quest 3) running a 7800X3D and a 4090. The other thing to keep in mind, there is a LOT of badly optimized software out there so what could be a joy is a mess due to this factor. Look at Half Life Alyx, how well optimized that is, then look at something like ACC and how much of a pig it is in VR. The other thing is also, high end PC hardware is freaking expensive, too many people cannot afford these prices thus giving up on VR and going back to triple screens.

[@markkovalcson7243]

Agreed! I've seen people go to large curved screens and triples after being hard core VR enthusiasts for a while. It's not only expensive, but it has a very short half life. I don't consider VR hardware an investment like good controls for a sim rig that you can use for many years.

[@rudlzavedno7279]

I believe Samsung might surprise us with good and quite affordable AMOLED headset in Q4/2024-Q1/2025

[@markkovalcson7243]

fingers crossed.

[@SETHalpine]

Remember me...Samsung work with Google..and Google, it's Android, no? So don't hope anything if they make an headset with android and a XR2 and its poor 200mbits....which limit every kind of bandwidth USB....Android is the bottlenecked of every PC... Amoled screeN, You mean micro oled or better microled?

[@ZeroG84]

BattleBit... That is a huge hit game. I don't think majority of people mind pixels or the display clarity if the experience is the right one. THAT is the bottleneck of VR and always will be.

[@markkovalcson7243]

I just googled Battlebit. It looks extremely popular even though it has a low polygon count. Like you said if the game is fun to play, that is all that matters.

[@lancemccary371]

This guy gets it. Refreshing to hear someone understand that the DFR using VRS is marginally helpful, 5-15% is right, quad views is king and is only available on pavlov and DCS unfortunately. Do note, quad views technically can be forced on in Unity.

[@iridiumhydrogen8420]

Bro your Back Ground, Look straight ahead not to the side. LOL

[@rlam905]

In the future when when we get to the point where GPU's can run today's games at the resolution of those ultra high resolution VR headsets, you probably won't be able to run the newer and better looking games available then so those headsets will still be bottlenecked.

[@Szabby999]

Sorry, I'm not native English so maybe I misunderstood you, but you said something about the PPD that it varies according to different software environments... Did I understand this right? Just because I wonder how can it be regarding the fact that pixel density is a hardware feature of the panels that is exactly the same in every software environment. Or did I miss something?

[@markkovalcson7243]

It's like watching an HD 1920x1080p movie on a 4K 3840x2160 TV. The TV is still 3840x2160, but you are only giving it a 1920x1080 image to display.

[@Szabby999]

@@markkovalcson7243 But how does it relate to games? I mean in games you can set display resolution to 4K, so on a 4K per eye HMD you will see native 4K images... Or?

[@markkovalcson7243]

@@Szabby999 You see the rendered resolution. They are capable of a specific resolution, but if you send less resolution to them, they will still display it across your visual range. There will just be less information.

[@sparkerinvr526]

Thanks for your very interesting video. I also will be sticking with my Beyond but might buy a 5090 when they come out to help with X-Plane 12.

[@Szabby999]

And who on Earth will buy Somnium VR1 at the startng price of 1800 eur when Pimax Light offers the exact same specs for 700?

[@markkovalcson7243]

I don't think many people will buy the base VR1. Most will spend more to get eye tracking. The VR1 also requires that you buy base stations if you don't already have them, so there is even more cost involved. Remember there are specs and there is reality. The VR1 looks like it will really deliver 125-130 hFOV actual compared to 102-104 hFOV actual for the Crystal and Lite. For some that is what matters. This includes current 8KX owners who want to have a modern headset with a wider FOV. But realistically the VR1 needs to be released and in peoples hands to confirm what they deliver.

[@Szabby999]

@@markkovalcson7243 Thanks for your response. Let's count a bit: Somnium VR 1 Res: 2880x2880 per eye Number of pixels: 16,5 million PPD: 35 Diagonal FOV: 115 Motion tracking: Base stations Price with eye tracking: *$3000* (+ $ 350 for two base stations if not included) Pimax Crystal Super Res: 3840×3840 per eye (QLED and Micro-OLED versions are available) Number of pixels: 29.5 million PPD: 50-57 Diagonal FOV: 130 Motion tracking: Inside out (no base stations) Price with eye tracking: *$1800* So basically Pimax Crystal Super offers almost twice as better specs for almost half the price of Somnium VR1. Regarding these facts no way any sane person would even consider buying Somnium VR1 to pay double the price for halved specs in comparison to Pimax Crystal Super.

[@ZanyWabbit]

Who you looking at and talking to?

[@buenasondas1147]

I wasn't that impressed with the Crystal clarity over a Quest 3, though the FOV is MUCH better. I ultimately returned it. What I wanted was ultra high res paired with uOLED, and that's what the Super offers. It's too bulky still so hopefully Samsung or another alternative will be announced by the time we can actually buy the Super.

[@markkovalcson7243]

Samsung is a huge company and they do manufacture their own OLED panels. Maybe if they bring a new manufacturing line up and scale the uOLED displays large enough and then get yields up high enough so they aren't cost prohibitive...

[@KermenTheFrog]

Something i also wonder is displayport 1.4a also holding things back. With nvidia choosing to not include dp2.0 or 2.1 where as AMD does for rx7000. I would assume without FFR or DRF it wouldn't be possible to drive some of these new headsets at near 4k x 4k per eye at full resolution with out heavy use of DSC if you want high refresh rate and resolution.

[@markkovalcson7243]

I assume the 5090 will have DP 2.1. I am curious which headsets will add DP2.1 support first.

[@slopedarmor]

@@markkovalcson7243 wouldnt mind a new bigscreen headset with dp2.1 and higher refresh rate with improved lenses. never tried bigscreen but its easily 1 of the most interesting headsets.

[@rv7768]

They use the same displays

[@markkovalcson7243]

It's like saying two cars have the same HP, but one car gets a lot more power to the tires over a wider range of conditions and handles far better in real life situations. In a few years it will become easy for any manufacturer to slap a high resolution display into a headset. What will differentiate them is the quality of their lenses and it makes ALL the difference in the world. Distortion, color, brightness, FOV, and the many of artifacts you see are all because of lens technology. The display is just the raw image. The question is how well your company can get that image to your eye.

[@gorga8618]

Mark, please try to look at the camera directly next time, not your off to the side monitor. TIA

[@markkovalcson7243]

I saw that too! I had my camera monitor next to the lens and I kept looking at it. I should probably turn off the monitor or put it way to the side and just look straight at the camera. I'm learning :)

[@Reprogrammed_By_SEGA]

Part of the 0.001% VR scene; headset $1000+ $1500+ PC. You wonder why young people are not into VR and the whole industry is flagging with poor indie games. This is the bottleneck. It is a bunch of Atari 2600 players who left gaming back in the 80's and VR brought them back with their fat Gen X wallets and are trying to push it on people who don't have two pennies to rub together in this economy.

[@Automan9]

there needs to be something for everyone. Thers already multiple headsets now for console money or less. Some people want boundary pushing headsets and others want middle of the road. We're getting there now where an offering for every price range is available. Its just the industry maturing. The bottleneck is indeed DFR, not much else

[@themanhimself3]

@@Automan9 They just dropped the price of the quest 2 to 199.

[@Reprogrammed_By_SEGA]

@@themanhimself3 Stock clearance of a device that is going to be discontinued in a year. Quest are burning customers by selling people what are realistically non options. Giving them a bad first experience then eventually canning support. When they should focus on one unit at a good price.

[@KC_24s]

Original person put it perfectly

[@SuperrHands]

Cutting edge tech is expensive to develop and inherently only accessible by people who can afford it. The good news is this makes it possible for future more affordable headsets to exist. Without early adopters it doesn’t make sense for companies to pioneer the tech.

[@Leynad778]

Running lower resolution than the physical isn't unusual like with the Quest 3 and did you know, that the 8KX already had the exakt same amount of pixels than the Crystal or VR1? With the AVP on the market it's mandatory going higher in pixel-count and -density for headsets in that price-range, if you can fully fuel it in your sim of choice or not. And a higher physical resolution is either better for non-distorted FOV or sharpness. I agree that the sweetspot for the current PC-performance is more in the BSB-range, but last gen headsets like the Index are just not satisfying enough with today's hardware because of their low resolution and fresnel lenses. You will not have this problem with a modular Crystal Super and using VR-headsets for 5+ years similar to displays should become normal.

[@markkovalcson7243]

The 8KX is actually harder to drive at wider FOV settings because of all the polygons that need to be rendered down and the fact there is no DFR available to help with that.

[@Leynad778]

@@markkovalcson7243 I'm not an expert, but I doubt that the FOV has any effect on the render-demand because if you look around or not, it needs to be there. Even TrackIR has no impact on performance despite it can do 200° hFOV. If DFR works with a game, seems there are almost none, it's not that much of a fps-boost and FFR does similar things just for every game. Steam Link for Meta Quest is using FFR and first I just thought, it's as good as DP. After a 2nd test I noticed how they are doing it and nice trick for optimal bandwidth usage.

[@markkovalcson7243]

@@Leynad778 It actually has a pretty large impact on rendering because the GPU has to render everything it sees within that FOV. If you have a smaller FOV it has less to render and then rasterize. So even if you have the same number of pixels coming back, the load is higher when there is more of the image that has to be examined.

[@Leynad778]

@@markkovalcson7243 Nope, it's all about render-distance, means it renders everything around you no matter what FOV you are using. Or can you name one game that reloads when you are looking around?

[@markkovalcson7243]

@@Leynad778 That doesn't match the information I have. I'll need to verify.

[@TLTUG]

I agree the Pima super is not able to run it at the highest settings but why would you buy the Somnim 1 for a lot more with less specs for the most part. We will see if Pimax is truefull about about the 130 feild of view. I'm hoping they are both great headset. I really hope something smaller that has it all.

[@GreyMatterShades]

That DFR miracle you're praying for could ironically be the PSVR 2. Sony announced they're hoping to have it working as a PC VR headset by the end of the year. I don't expect high-end PC VR players would want one, but a $550 USD headset with eye-tracking and DFR support could push adoption of that technology a lot faster if adoption rates are high. I'm not really holding my breath though. Ultimately these are the inevitable issues of being at the bleeding edge of technology. You're in a niche of a niche, made obscure not by lack of appeal, but from the cost of the hardware putting it well out of reach of the vast majority of society. High-end VR hardware is largely being pushed forward by the enterprise sector, so it's no surprise it isn't moving in lock-step with consumer GPUs. And software features like DFR will only be adopted once there's sufficient demand, which will only be brought on by hardware at a more consumer friendly price point (PSVR 2, maybe Quest 4 or Quest Pro 2).

[@sean.d7171]

Yeah it's a problem with gpu power but I still rather have higher resolution and turn down shadows and other higher demand graphics points. I run super sampling as high or higher than the new super resolution in my crystal now and with few tweaks I'm still 120hz in most games i play. I like sharpness over lighting and shadows. Remember though the crystal still looks better than a hp reverb at the reverb resolution . so I think it's not a paperweight it will be nicer visuals turn down to 2880 and 5090 will bump it up again. The super will probably be delayed intill may next year pimax are always late.

[@ji3200]

I preordered Pimax Super and i will play lot of older UE 4 games with rtx 4090. I will play UE5 with RTX 6090 in the future. Way too many older UE 4 games to play that i haven't play yet in VR. No bottlneck for me as long as i play UE4 games

[@sean.d7171]

The crystals glass lenses are better than varjo aero lenses. I have them both

[@markkovalcson7243]

I'm not disputing that. I've heard many others who say the same thing.

[@Emir_de_Passy]

"Xr4 a paperweight outside of DCS" just shows you have never used one. You assume incorrectly that it is simply an aero or even a crystal when used at 35ppd. Until Vr1 comes out, nothing touches the Xr4. At 51ppd or 35ppd. Probably even 30 actually.

[@markkovalcson7243]

You are correct that I've not used one. I know it has more field of view than the Aero or Crystal to be sure, and it obviously is a very high end headset with counter balance, top materials for head support and construction and if the pass through cameras are useful for your application there is that. The bigger point was that we can't leverage the full potential of these headsets without DFR right now and it will take a couple generations of GPU's to be able to drive it, assuming it has DP 2.1 support. I never checked to see if it did.

[@SLAYINGVR]

You get a sub

[@Statementdogorginal]

VR graphics aren't the best🤷‍♂️

[@Killswitch1411]

Think in 2023 I played the least amount of VR and this year hasn't been really any different. I been a VR user since Oculus DK1 and once Vive came out I played lots of VR in the past couple years I have played less and less because content. I'm not really a simmer so feels like the content. If a person plays their fav sim they prob are having a blast. I want more games like Half-Life Alex. I have zero plan to buy another Headset my current HMD is the BSB.

[@markkovalcson7243]

I was just playing some HLA yesterday. For some reason I find In Death has a lot of replayability too, but sims can have endless replayability depending on the individual.

[@carlosdominguez3108]

"If you've got a 51 PPD headset that you can only run at 35 PPD..." Huh? So you're physically changing the displays yourself? You realize that statement doesn't make sense right? PPD is tied to the hardware and optics. It doesn't change.

[@markkovalcson7243]

No. It's like running HD on an UHD TV. The TV is still UHD, but in this case you would only have one channel you could watch in UHD and everything else would only be HD. In this case the issue isn't lack of applications, but just that they don't allow current GPU's to push full resolution because they don't have good DFR support. Or you can wait for two generations of GPU's.

[@markkovalcson7243]

There is the other part to this issue mentioned elsewhere in the comments. The XR-4 doesn't have the bandwidth to ever run full resolution to the display without DFR. Currently the 4090 only supports DP 1.4a and even the headsets with 8Mp displays have to use compression to get full edge to edge resolution at a decent framerate. With Nearly twice that resolution even if the GPU could render the full edge to edge resolution at a decent frame rate, it would need DP 2.0-2.1 to move the bits to the headset. Currently the 4090 can't support it. So without Quad View DFR they will never display their rated ppd where you are looking.

[@carlosdominguez3108]

@@markkovalcson7243Again, you're conflating two different things (rendered resolution of the game and resolution of the physical displays themselves) which makes what you're saying confusing and in some instances downright unintelligible. Saying you're running a 51 PPD headset at a different PPD doesn't make sense. That headset is 51 PPD no matter what. Native resolution of some games and support for DFR, etc is a valid thing and I agree with you to some extent, but you're mixing and interchanging different measurements is hard to understand sometimes.

[@markkovalcson7243]

@@carlosdominguez3108 Apologies for the confusion. The hardware is a given resolution by design. The problem is when you can't actually drive that resolution because of other bottlenecks.

[@SETHalpine]

@@markkovalcson7243 DP2.0 or...USB I guess that there is more computers equipped with USB3.2 than with DP2.0.... Bandwidth: USB 3.1 Gen 1 = 5 Gbits/s (Quest3 Pico 4's USB connection but limited by Android and XR2 O,2Gbit/s ) DP1.4a =32,4 Gbit/s but USB necessary. 802.11ax(Wi-Fi 6 et 6E) =8 Mbit/s à 10,5 Gbit/s 802.11ad(WiGig) =6,75 Gbit/s 802.11ay (WiGig2) = 20-40Gbit/s(...up to 176 Gbit/s very short range) USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 = 20 Gbits/s USB4.0 = 40/80 Gbits/s DP2.1 =80 Gbit/s. Japanese broadcaster NHK has developed a real-time HEVC encoder capable of encoding 60 fps video in 7680 x 4320 (8K) (Pimax Super equivalent) at 85 Mbps compression ratio of 350:1 4320p240fps stereoscopic video would require around 366 Mbps=0.366Gbit/s Not so much indeed but.... Assuming a compression ratio of 200:1 ....200:1 ! in VR....the DSC of the DP1.4a is 3:1.... The Quest 3 uses 200 Mbps ( with what 20 or 30:1 ratio of compression?) when streaming the signal in a good USB wire, bottlenecked by XR2. A Pimax Super would need at least 4/5 times more...1000Mbps or 1Gbit/s with the same average compression rate used in a headset Android/USB streaming with bad ratio and bottlenecked system... Or at least 3/4Gbit/s for a DP quality or a USB 3.2 quality with 3.0 ratio.... who need of Display port !? Many computers has already USB... Same for Wifi... WiGig 1 reaches a maximum of 7 Gbit/s. Which is good for 1 Gbit/s real and average ratio...in practical conditions. Yes, we must take into account the numerous interferences... Hence the need for WiGig2, if you want a good ratio And unlike TV which doesn't care about latency in its broadcast, and can have 1" delay in its live broadcast, provided by cameras, VR must calculate visual feedback to your action and stay under 12 ms, and in more with more images per second than TV! And there, that increases greatly the necessary flow rate!!! and so require WiGig2....or wired USB4/DP2...40Gbit/s with a GOOD ratio of compression For me the Pimax Crystal range doesn't worth the hype.... VR above 2x6Mp is bottlenecked ...by XR2 and Android, by Nvidia and expensive unable graphic cards...By Dp1.4 and its DSC...

[@Pillokun]

I am writing theis as I click on the vid so before I have watched it to the end so to speak. Bottleneck? making me motion sick... ;) But what happened to "simultaneous multi projection" that nvidia released with the pascal series. Meaning the gpu would not need to render two images, and it could also be used for screens that were curved. Would be so nice to have a curved screen but without seeing the lines in cad loook curved as well.

[@maegnificant]

There is just no money in this industry. No one is playing.

[@Reprogrammed_By_SEGA]

Agreed, cost of living crisis going on in the background. This is like watching a guy talk about his Ferrari. Self indulgent waste of time.

[@markkovalcson7243]

I completely agree that there are not enough titles like HLA and game companies have lost their shirts making games for VR. In fact my grown children who are both gamers spend very little time in VR. The Quest 3 being a stand alone device not requiring a PC has a decent assortment of games. When you get to driving and flight simulation, there is endless replayability and many of the people into sim racing or sim flight tend to build sim rigs etc and have more funds for enthusiast headsets in this market.

[@maegnificant]

@@markkovalcson7243 many games still feel miles behind what flat games have to offer, in content, graphics, gameplay and innovation. And there just seems to be some reservation facing this technology altogether, as the hardware sales and especially software earnings are tiny and player retention is even smaller. Without Meta and Valve, this platform would not exist in my opinion. And Meta is losing billions upon billions investing in the space and look how basic the whole VR UX still is. There needs to be some giant evolution hardware-wise and creative innovation on the software side before VR will get even close to mainstream. As long as there is no money to make, it's going to be a long endurance walk.

[@JimBob1937]

​@@Reprogrammed_By_SEGA , I'm probably going to sound like an old man here, but your attitude is part of your issue I think (given your other replies here as well). I grew up pretty poor, like didn't always have food, mother went to prison, and other such issues... yet, I worked hard and worked out of that situation when I was old enough to do so on my own. Yes, cost of living has went up, and yes, it can certain strain your wallet. However, you'd be very surprised by what you can do if you go into ultra savings mode, and pick up work where you can. We're all in on the struggle, even those you view as more financially established. There is no reason to go on denigrating everyone about a hobby you can't afford at the moment. Instead, it'd be more productive to make getting such a headset a goal, and give yourself something to work toward. P.S. And no, I am not that old, haha.

[@JimBob1937]

@@markkovalcson7243 , yes, same view here. Skyrim VR, and other experiences are so immersive that it is a treat just to get into the worlds, that just a few games alone make it worth it to me. This isn't me coping with lack of titles (that increased a lot with UEVR), it's just that I am personally quite satisfied with the few experiences that I have played. I had a blast revisiting one of my games from when I was young, Far Cry 1, in VR. That was an experience I could have only dreamed about at the time it came out.

[@brettgrieves]

Fully agree re pimax I think the Beyond has hit their sales badly. I don't see the crystal on the steam hardware survey at all. The beyond has overtaken the aero.

[@farmertrueVR]

The Crystals registers as an 8K in Steam. I thought the same until I bought a Crystal a few months ago.

[@markkovalcson7243]

@@farmertrueVR The Crystal is better than the Aero in a number of ways and if you are happy with it, that is all that matters!

[@markkovalcson7243]

I still consider the Beyond and Crystal to be polar opposites in terms of a persons priorities. Not right or wrong, but different. I love my Beyond for sims and room scale. It puts a grin on my face and that is all that matters.

[@tkdmp5698]

That is why i dont trust Pimax I want an experience not to tick boxes It reminds me of the time that teachers in industrial design always said that we design experiences not products It makes so much sense If pimax get his sht together they could be so good

[@markkovalcson7243]

I try to separate their marketing engine from the products which some people like. The fact is that while the Crystal doesn't have 125 hFOV many people are very happy with theirs and from a display standpoint it was a step up from the Aero, so they did provide improvements even if they included a lot of baggage that the vast majority were not interested in. I also know people who consider the 8KX an experience that has spoiled them for narrower FOV headsets. The experience and results vary a lot from person to person.

[@Haunteral]

Unwatchable. Quit swallowing.

[@rickpaul8012]

I love someone who will just say it man. Hell yeah man