Is VR dead?

[HugoB]

Article about FOV from Valve:

https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/index/deep-dive/fov

 

[tlsmikey]

I had an O+ and I didn't notice any SDE (or very, very minimal if at all) but what made me return it was the lack of sharpness. That filter they used takes away the sharp edges and makes everything very soft looking. Wasn't for me.

On the iRacing forums it seems like its a 50/50 mix of folks that like the O+ approach.

 

[HugoB]

I actually don't like what I read in that article.. Hope my concerns are alleviated when I get my hands on the Index next week. The canted lens design troubles me the most, apparently every software and GPU are based on parallel optics rendering and they'll need re-projection to render for canted lenses.

Then they say they actually don't render a bigger FOV compared to last gen HMD's, but only because of ergonomics (eye relief and IPD adjustment) they manage to maximize FOV for 'most users'... I already have a VR-Cover pad in my Rift CV1 that's really thin, so my eyes are already almost touching the lenses, this gives me maximum FOV... I guess Index won't be bigger for me then.

The higher refresh rate does sound interesting, they explain it means faster pixel display illumination will help getting a sharper picture, because there is less motion blur on movement and objects, this increases overal clarity, similar to increasing resolution. Sounds good.

 

[Bjarne Hansen]

Had same feature of being able to move the lenses in and out on the old OSVR HDK2.
And it did make a huge change to the FOV but also found it was only clear on a very specific small range of the movement.
I do agree with that one of the most important aspect of VR is that the headset actually fits your face and sits perfect distance for your eyes both eye relief and IPD distance.
Not sure we have seen the right designs yet.

 

[RCHeliguy]

The Index appears to be the best design released so far.

The StarVR HMD may be the only one with better optics, but we still don't have a release date.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Then they say they actually don't render a bigger FOV compared to last gen HMD's, but only because of ergonomics (eye relief and IPD adjustment) they manage to maximize FOV for 'most users'...

So in all commercials it's 130 degrees, in fine print 'er..., not really'. But yes, best design ever..
Cosmos will publish spec today or tomorrow, btw.

 

[RCHeliguy]

So in all commercials it's 130 degrees, in fine print 'er..., not really'. But yes, best design ever..
Cosmos will publish spec today or tomorrow, btw.

They had to put a number on it even though it varies.
As I understand it, for most people it will be better than 130, so 130 is supposed to an average to conservative estimate.

So the fact that they are honest about the variation in FOV is funny?

How about all the other vendors that use worthless numbers?

Are you suggesting that they should have just published a number, called it good and not offered an explanation?

What they've done is give the user the means to optimize their fit much better as well as making other changes that improve the field of view. Yeah, let's penalize them for this effort. That's very constructive.

 

[Bjarne Hansen]

I think the point is that how can they clam 130 degrees and then on the other hand say it all depends.
They are right in pointing out that FOV is not an exact figure but they better be right that people get 130 Degrees with the Index or they will get a bad rap right out the gate the first day.

 

[RCHeliguy]

I think the point is that how can they clam 130 degrees and then on the other hand say it all depends.
They are right in pointing out that FOV is not an exact figure but they better be right that people get 130 Degrees with the Index or they will get a bad rap right out the gate the first day.

Why are they being held to higher standards than others?

What I read was that some people are only seeing 95 degrees on a Rift or Vive depending on their faces and that 110 is not an accurate number for the headsets that many of us have been using for the last couple years. No outcry about their reputation?

 

[Bjarne Hansen]

Why are they being held to higher standards than others?

Because the charge 2-3 times more than other headsets and clam it is 130 degrees!
If it turns out to be the same as the others 95-105 degrees! Would you feel they taken you for a ride?
There is a guy that made a background for steamVR where you can test FOV and clarity.

With my Lenovo headset I get 103-105 degrees but that is with changed padding that fits my face if I go back to standard it is more like 90-93 degrees.
Can't say it make a huge difference but the display looks more clear for me.
That said I would like to see 130-140 degrees for sim racing but after having tried several different headsets lately I think the most important headset feature are that it fits you and is comfortable to wear.

 

[RCHeliguy]

2-3 times.... Doesn't appear that you included the Vive Pro in that number. So no accountability there even though it has less FOV and was more expensive than $1000 for the whole system.

2-3 times includes two base stations and the new controllers. If you don't care about controllers you can get some Vive Wands cheaper. If you don't care about cutting edge tracking, you can pick up used 1.0 base stations. For that matter for sim racing you only need one.

Just saying that you are not comparing apples to apples.

Also having double standards in general is total BS.

 

[Bjarne Hansen]

Also having double standards in general is total BS.

Funny you should write that!

Calm the f... down! it is just a toy. Not worth a heart attack.
You are jumping at every post like it is an personal insult to you even if you just remotely think it has the lest criticism for the Index headset.
We are trying to exchange information and experiences here not being fanatics.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Why do you assume I'm doing any more than a friendly rebuttal?

You're the one escalating the tone of your response.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Mr. Peacock on offense again. Popcorn time!

 

[Jeremy Ford]

Mr. Peacock on offense again. Popcorn time!

And these....

 

[RCHeliguy]

And these....

Those look great!

 

[Jeremy Ford]

Those look great!

The FOV is amazing, and no SDE.

 

[HugoB]

I think FOV is a confusing topic. For example HP quotes the Reverb as having 114 degrees FOV, but users measure as little as 85 degrees when actually mounted and testing in game. This could mean their head and face structure limits their ability to get the full FOV, or HP was a bit optimistic about their claim. When Valve state their Index has 30 degrees more FOV than previous generation, do they mean 30 degrees more than the quoted FOV from manufacturers? Or the actual minimal FOV users experience when mounting the HMD? Because if it’s the latter, it just means they found a way to make the mounting more adjustable (eye relief) so that 'most' users get the maximum attainable FOV.. This is still better than getting the minimum FOV, but their claim therefore is a bit ambiguous. It just means they actually deliver 'most' users what last gen HMD’s where promising. So not more than before, but still in a way, if you weren’t getting full FOV before.

I think because VR is still a relatively new market, there aren’t yet a lot of established standards. Manufacturers list FOV, but is this rendered maximum? Diagonal? Horizontal? Theoretical maximum?

If you buy a car that list a 400HP engine, and you drive around with it and it’s great, but then you dyno it and find it only manages 298HP, you’ll probably be a bit pissed. But this is what a user of HP Reverb measured: 26% less than quoted.

So until we have a standard for VR FOV, it’ll be a mess.

 

[Jeremy Ford]

110 degrees, as long as your eyes are touching the lenses?

It does make you wonder. Is the FOV degrees taken from the physical surface of the lens or from the actual eye line which is further back? I would imagine the manufacturers would employ BS tactics to enhance the numbers from technically real specs, if not realistic real-world use.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Issue #1 Usable FOV
One thing that isn't being mentioned is usable FOV. Let's take those HP Reverb numbers you mentioned 114 and 85. The center section of the lens is crisp and clear with lots of detail, but how many degrees of clear image do you actually get with your eye balls. By most accounts that value is a MUCH smaller number than the overall FOV.

The Index is supposed to have edge to edge sharpness such that the usable FOV that you can actually use by moving your eyeballs to read a gauge vs. moving your head down is much larger.

Issue #2 FOV vs angular information presented
Let's take a 3 screen arrangement for comparison.
Let's assume that everything you normally see in a VR headset is presented on the center monitor.

If you stick your head closer to that center monitor it takes up more of your field of view, but it isn't actually giving you any more information.

I was hoping that more FOV would mean that I would see more of my surroundings, if not I still have to move my head just as much to see something and it's not buying me as much.

Question for Pimax users: Did you need to change your angle of view presented in your racing software package like you do for a screen, or did it just adjust the scene automatically when you chose Small, Normal, Large ?

And yes I agree that we will eventually need to have VR standards for any of the specs to have any value whatsoever.