Chief_Biv

Crystal/Quadviews user here who was lucky enough to not update DCS yet. I would like to know from ED if there is a short or long wait to fix this too? I suppose I should refrain from updating for now, but was looking forward to using the new patch's content.

If push the bound re-center view button (in DCS), make sure that you are in a comfortable position and try and look straight ahead in the desired neutral position. If you head is way off centre line you may have to do it twice to get back into a normal position. I don't understand the request to put a re-centre in PimaxPlay as this will only affect what you see in the PimaxPlay home and will have no effect on your viewing position in DCS.

Is this compatible with the original Crystal, or just Crystal Light?

No problems. The single eye setting is the default DCS setting for these aircraft. It could be because in actual fact the real aircraft HMD's only put the image in front of a single eye.

Go to the Special tab and select A-10Cii. Then HMD render "both eyes" for a clearer render of the HMD display. It's similar for every aircraft equipped with HMD.

You can set it so that it appears in both eyes. The setting is in DCS

The Crystal will be fine with the RTX3090. I don't have the Light, but the differences are no battery to worry about (good if you are playing DCS), it's lighter (good), it's cheaper (good), and it does not include an eye tracker (not as good for DCS as you cannot have dynamic foveated rendering). Therefore with the Light you would have to put up with fixed foveated rendering for a performance boost and this will result in you having to see lower resolution pictures away from the centre of your viewing. This all depends on you settings with Quadviews and the tradeoff you choose between performance and viewing fidelity. The Crystal is much better than the G2 overall. It's only drawback is its weight and comfort. On the comfort side of things I have found that the Crystal is cooler on the eyes compared to the heat buildup I experienced on long sessions with the G2. I hope this helps you deliberate.

Can you clarify this statement. I have VR performance issues on and close to the ground. I have been using the Instant "Takeoff" mission on Caucusas. I am OpenXR, MT and the Crystal in 72Hz mode. I can get it to 72fps at high altitude. However fps is all over the place on or close to the ground in this mission and the training missions I have tried so far, and only in the Phantom. Is OpenXR problematic with this module at the moment?

I tried the Quest 3 before going with the Crystal. I found the Quest 3 was not as sharp in the middle of the view point compared to the G2. The Q3 had consistent clarity edge to edge. However, I struggled to read instruments and see targets compared to the G2. The Crystal is better visually than the Q3. It remains sharp a lot wider than the G2, however near the edges of the view it does go blurry and there is chromatic abberations. I have found the Crystal a more pleasant and WOW! experience compared to the Q3.

I decided on the Pimax Crystal to replace my G2. The eye tracking allows better visuals and fps performance and was a big upgrade without upgrading my GPU. Everything is better (visuals, performance and software). The only drawback compared to the G2 is weight and comfort. I can still play for hours though.

I have noticed this issue after putting down the headset whilst in DCS. When I returned and woke up the headset the eye tracking was not working. A headset reboot fixed it. At least I have had a couple of flights where I have simulated how the Crystal Light will perform. If Light owners use Quadviews FFR in DCS I think most of them will be happy with it.

Quadviews can be used with the Crystal.

I totally agree with this as I experienced the increased performance provided by Quadviews in the G2 compared to OXR Toolkit FFR. One thing more important than additional head movements to consider with FFR is that you will not be able to be as aggressive with the lower resolution of the outer zone as you can with DFR. You will have to keep the resolution higher in the outer zone for it to be an acceptable experience. This will be what causes the biggest performance difference between the Crystal and Crystal Light.

I used to run my G2 with MR turned on and played between either 45fps or 30 fps with the G2 operating at 90Hz. Whilst the movements were all smooth on the G2 the biggest draw back was the ghosting/smearing of objects as you passed by them quickly and a hint of warbling around the edges of the canopy. I am still experimenting with the Crystal having just come from the G2. I have it running at 72Hz. It mostly sits at 72fps with my current settings, but at times it does drop below this and I have Smart Smoothing turned on for these occasions. When running at 36fps with smart smoothing operating I get a similar experience to the one I had with the G2. It's not ideal, but acceptable. However, the experience with it running at 72fps thanks to Quadviews and DFR is absolutely fantastic. Obviously the Crystal Light would struggle to be operated without Smart Smoothing unless you use lower render and in game graphic settings and aggressive Fixed Foviated Rendering. I also had the chance to trial ASW locked at 45fps on the Quest 3. I also found this to be comparable to MR on the G2 and Smart Smoothing on the Crystal. It's hard for me to find much difference between them. They all have similar ghosting and smearing. I suppose I would rank the Quest 3 lowest because I found it provided the least clarity of image out of these three headsets. Notwithstanding the drawbacks, I prefer the smoothing/MR over the stuttering I experience when looking sideways outside the canopy when fps drops below the native frequency without MR/Smoothing on. One disadvantage with the Crystal's smart smoothing is I think it takes longer for it to transition from 72fps to 36fps and back again. You do get slight stuttering during these transitions. I reckon the G2 managed to change between 45fps and 30 fps a bit quicker, maybe because there is only 15fps difference between them, rather than 36fps. I have not tried running the Crystal at 90Hz to really assess this because it is a marginal thing and I would probably end up spending more time with Smart Smoothing on than off, and this is undesirable for me. I hope this helps.

I should have followed this thread closer. I raised a ticket with Winwing. My issue has been occurring for the last 6 months or so. I have an Orion 1 F-18 HOTAS. I have only had the random disconnections with the Joystick and no problem with the throttle. In response to WW support I sent them a photograph of the USB plug on the base, and have swapped USB cables and ports. This includes plugging the joystick into unpowered hubs and into a powered PCIe USB card and directly into the Motherboard USB slots. Every one of my USB controllers has been checked to make sure Windows does not not remove power from any USB port on my PC. I note that a couple of users on this thread have followed advice, based on a fix for prior problem with a Libra, to connect the stick to a powered USB hub and this has not resolved the issue for the Orion 1/2 devices. Because the throttle device comes with more axis/buttons/LED lighting than the stick I would have thought that the throttle would be the device more likely to fail due to inadequate power supply. My throttle can connect anywhere and still work and therefore I doubt that the stick's problem is going to be resolved by a powered hub. In the meantime Winwing asked that I disconnect the stick from its base and see if I can replicate the problem by just using the stick's x-y axis without the stick connected. Whilst I can see the base in the SimmApp software, registering movements without the stick connected, the whole stick was not visible to DCS and therefore I could not fly in DCS to see if I could replicate the proble. Is there a trick to ensuring that DCS recognises the base without the stick connected?? After failing to do be able to try and replicate the problem without the f-18 stick connected, Winwing then offered me a discount on a new Orion 2 base. I am hesitant from doing as they suggest because I can see on this thread that customers with Orion 2 bases also suffer the same problem. This problem is so random. Saturday I got a whole session in without it occurring. On Sunday it started happening quite frequently. It can even happen whilst I am in the middle of very light maneuvers like doing AAR behind a tanker. It can even happen whilst my hand is off the stick whilst in Autopilot. It lasts typically between 10 and twenty seconds before the stick reconnects again. I get the Windows audio chime when it connects and disconnects. However, I have turned Hotplug USB devices back on in DCS control settings to ensure I get an additional on-screen message when it connects and disconnects in game. I only really use the HOTAS with DCS. I downloaded Star Wars Squadrons from Steam for $2 and started playing it and got a disconnect whilst playing it too. I have not played that game since, but I think this confirms it's not necessarily a DCS issue. I suspect the problem will come down to: Loose wiring connections either in the base or within the stick - which is probably related to them instructing me to try and narrow this down to one or the other - Winwing issue; A faulty chip in the joystick upstream of the USB port - Winwing Issue A firmware fault - Winwing issue faulty motherboard (not likely given this problem only happens on this one device out of many attached to the PC (Throttle, pedals, external HDD, VR headset/headtracking, mouse and keyboard) Inadequate power (not likely given this problem only happens on this one device out of many attached to the PC (Throttle, pedals, external HDD, VR headset/headtracking, mouse and keyboard).

I know your pain. So I have used the Crystal for almost a week. My longest session was 2 hours. Battery probably reduced to 75 or 80%. I have the copper cable that ships with it and plugged everything in as instructed with the powered USB hub that comes in the box. I reckon it would take several hours flying before it drains. Plus you get a second battery. I will never fly in VR that long. I would seek advice from people that have owned a Crystal longer than me regarding hassles with the battery. Early signs for me is that it will not be an issue. The eye tracking/Quadviews combination is fantastic in DCS. It is a noticeable upgrade from a Reverb G2. I think the Light will still be an upgrade. If you have a 4090 it's a harder decision. If you have a mid range GPU you will need to use FFR and that will not be as good to look at, and will result in lower fps too. It's a hard call between these two because of the price difference. The Crystal Super will come without battery but will have DFR. Pimax said that it would come at the end of this year. That could easily be delayed for what is a new product, especially the new way they are mounting their interchangeable displays. I think 6 months is an aggressive estimate of when consumers will get their hands on one.

I don't think you need to run the Crystal at really high SS like you do on the Quest Pro. Being connected by a Display Port to your GPU will bring a massive improvement to your visual experience. I reckon a 4070 with a Crystal will be able to maintain 72fps in most situations. However, it won't when low over Guam on Marianas. My 3080 can. A Crystal Light would not be able to perform as well though. In the focus region distant and near buildings look almost as good as a flat screen. The Crystal is so much clearer than my old G2 or the Quest 3. Not just buildings but also reading MFD's and instruments too.

I had an interesting situation last night in my Crystal. The eye tracking stopped working in the middle of a mission (It started working again after rebooting the headset). Therefore I had to finish the mission with what was effectively fixed foveated rendering in Quadviews. Thankfully the centre of the view was the focus point. However, I would have thought that this would simulate how a Crystal Light would have been set up in DCS. Because I use an aggressive Quadviews setup (only 30% is the focus area at 121% and I only have 5% peripheral resolution) I saw plenty of pixelation around the edges. Therefore if I had a Crystal Light I would want to increase the peripheral resolution. From this I believe that a Crystal Light would still provide an acceptable experience but I would be relying on Smart Smoothing with my GPU to get the right balance of performance and visuals. I have just come from a G2 and I think that a Crystal Light will be an upgrade for G2 users looking for a new headset. However, if you can afford it, eye tracking is the way to go. I have not had any experience with the QP, but I have with the Quest 3. I have heard that the Quest 3 is equivalent, or better visually, compared with the QP. I can say that the Crystal is way above the Quest 3 in visual clarity (I was using the USB Quest Link with the Q3). The question for Mr Qcumber is whether you go for the Light - you get better visuals with less frame rates compared tour QP, or spend the extra money and get a full Crystal and maintain your performance. You don't have to run the Crystal with massive super-sampling to get amazing visuals. I could not tell if there is a difference in horizontal fov between the Q3 and the Crystal. They are about the same.

I found that the G2 was unpleasant without MR as soon as it dropped below the headset's refresh rate and preferred the smoothness that MR provided over the smearing/ghosting artifacts. If I had a 4090 I would have turned down some eye candy to keep above 90fps. VR without MR = eye candy.

I bit the bullet and bought the Crystal to replace my broken G2. I set it up last night with Quadviews DFR straight away and ran some test flights using the same in game graphics settings I had for the G2. Running at 72Hz. The results = WOW!!! On the free flights I usually use to benchmark my settings (Syria and Marianas) it holds 72fps everywhere except over Guam island. Even on the ground on Guam I am getting double the fps I could achieve with the G2. And, this is with the increased clarity and sweet spot the Crystal is known for. This is likely due to DFR and I suspect that the G2 was running at higher resolutions to overcome barrel distortions in its Frenel lenses. I know that upgrading to a 4090 would be the ultimate upgrade. However, for people like who only have a mid tier GPU like a 3080, the extra money spent on the cost difference between a Light and a Crystal is less than the option of having to pay for a beefier GPU to run a Light that does not come with DFR. I am not sure if there is anyone else out there that is in my situation (DCS VR junky that needs to replace their G2 but only has a 3080 or similar GPU) that is contemplating what to do, but I would be happy to help share the details of my experience, which includes trialing a Quest 3 as a another alternative to the Crystal and Crystal Light. Anyway I have some more experimenting to do with my settings...

I think my mind is in the same place as Dangerzone's. I would have pre-ordered the CL already if it included DFR, if its cost was between the CL and the Crystal. I think I have to wait for the reviews on the CL to make the decision. I recall the G2 3184x3096 resolution quoted by Nedum had been quoted by others when setting up resolution overrides in the OpenXR Toolkit. However, I am not sure if this resolution is an equivalent comparison to the Crystal's quoted resolution. Everyone remarks about the big increase in clarity provided by the Crystal compared to the G2. Was the G2's optics that inefficient compared to the Crystal's? I would like to be better informed than I currently am when making the final decision.

I ran my G2 with a 3080 and I want to wait a couple of years before upgrading my PC. I ran it at 45fps in MR and with mid to low settings in DCS. G2 died so a new headset is urgent and the 3080 has to drive it. I have to choose between a Crystal and a CL. I get the benefits that come with DFR as per this: I am thinking of approaching the purchase like this: 1. The Crystal is a dead set upgrade. I should be able to get a much better experience by way of DFR. Crisper picture, slightly better FOV and bigger sweet spot. Disadvantage is the cost, weight, and battery. 2. The CL would have to be upscaled from a lower than native resolution to render the same amount of pixels as the G2. Therefore the advantages for the CL are similar setup to G2, lower cost, weight, and slightly better sweet spot and FOV. The disadvantage is that it will not be a major upgrade from the G2, it would be more like replacing the G2 with a G2.5. I would appreciate the opinion of people with a Crystal and a GPU similar to a 3080.

I need to replace my G2 and I only have a 3080. I am disappointed that the Light version does not get eye tracking. However I am interested in someone reporting how the FFR 2.0 will work with it and the lower res mode (replicates the G2 resolution and then upscales that). I already use Quadviews FFR on the G2 and I suspect I will get a similar experience to the G2 but with a bigger sweet spot and field of view. I think I need to decide between the Light and the Crystal. I would really like to drop the battery, but I am not sure if my PC is strong enough to drive the Light.

WMR will be removed from Windows 11 if you allow your PC to upgrade to the 24H2 version of Windows 11 later this year. You will need to put a stop to this particular upgrade (just like me). If you buy a PC now it should still come with WMR.

ED has introduced a lot of performance enhancements in the last 12 months (MT and DLSS). Therefore, provided you can live with down rating some of the visual candy you can enjoy VR on a modest GPU. Yes more horsepower will be next on my upgrade path (cash sink hole). Hopefully the G2 will keep running for a while yet.