wormeaten

Not in the next 10 years. For that, you will need a display with minimum 4500x2500 native resolution and to run it GRTX 6080ti TURBO.

About SDE. A major factor for SDE is lens magnification and PPI of the display. So magnification factor for Vive, Rift or WMR is same. Pimax5K/8K got smaller magnification factor. So to compare look at Vive and Vive PRO. Vive displays have around 430PPI and Vive PRO around 530PPI. I took Vive to compare because it is only in displays differences. Similar is if you compare with Samsung O, Rift and Rift S now. Pimax is even better not just because 5K have around 530PPI but as well smaller magnifications what reducing SDE as well. Pimax8K display got around 800PPI that is why SDE on (k is lowest possible. My point is, Reverb display is much smaller so to stretch it to 114FOV lenses need much higher magnification factor what increasing size of the pixel. So 2160x2160 is effecting on PPD, not on SDE. As I remember when they announcing production on such displays two years ago they also say they have 3000PPI what is for SDE more important spec than resolution. Now when you take into consideration higher magnification factor it will look like if Vive or Rift will have displays with around 1200PPI. Practically there is no SDE. Of course display without SDE is not existing but this is now near normal monitor experience according to SDE. Reverb/Cosmos will also have the best PPD, around 21. To remind you aimed PPD for near monitor experience in VR is above 30. Just to give you clear values in numbers so you can imagine how this will look like.

My IPD is 67 so should be OK for software alignment. For those with such need should be made some DIY modification like in this example with Lenovo Explorer WMR or some people do it with Pimax 4K in the past. Other is a suggestion for HMD production. They say the problem is with physical IPD adjustment increasing cost of production and additional weight. They should do some easy assembly here will be possible to manually single time is possible to adjust this IPD just by having the larger elliptic hole for a screw. That way you could just loosen such screw move lens left or right and then tighten a screw and fixed it to the new needed IPD. If you are not confident to do by you should be cheap but easily doable in the nearest mobile service. This is anyway consumer version and once done by your own need should stay that way perfectly adapted to the customer need.

DigitalEngine. If we are talking about only the major difference between Cosmos and Reverb and that is numbers of cameras for tracking so what that will have with resolution especially if they will use same display?

Rift S?! Definitely have its advantages and as entry level VR has its place and public on market. Realistic price for it is 300$ and you will see soon, even before Winter will drop on that price level. But to be honest it is not real step forward for CV1. It is cheaper but more to the Oculus in production cost than to the consumers.

There is no proper user reviews yet so it is hard to debate about something hardly noticeable or proven as an issue at all.

PPD = Pixel per Degree and it is imperial, not metric or maybe it is metric any way. Who knows. :music_whistling: I'm curious about Cosmos pricing. if will be similar to Reverb 600 to 650$ will be OK everything higher hard for justified. Lower will be competitive and Vive will have great chance to replace Rift from Throne od PV VR HMD. King is dead. Long live the King! The only question is who will win the throne of Enthusiast VR kingdom, Reverb or Cosmos?

Just for DCS two more cameras will not be major difference. Also, according to pictures Oculus Quest and Rift S have better coverage than Cosmos.

In my opinion Reverb's 600$ is the best to buy in way VR performances per $. Pimax5K is not worth that money because to reach that level as a finished product you need to spend 1200$. It is too expensive for that level of quality Pimax provide. Rift S is OK because will be cost in few months not more than 300$ so good as a starter. Better value per $ than Pimax as well. Solid for Starter. O+ is still OK but Will be interesting to se real specs and price for Vive Cosmos.

This is done by software, Pi tool, so this is the only way to do it. Another possible way will be by physically changing lenses and reducing screen size which is not the case here. So this is it 100%. No one doesn't official in specs. There are some YouTubers who was trying to measure it and there are some tools for it but it is impossible to get 100% accurate data simply because every individual cant see VR world exactly the same so we have to take some average values based on multiple sources. For accurate values, we will need multiple testing under the same condition and no one did it yet at all. As I describe before this values I used same principles to every HMD and implement it here so this is not 100% exact values but giving 99% accurate values for accurate comparison. So if you compare these numbers with some true lens under the same condition comparison on several reviews on Youtube you can find. This is just to help you imagine what difference could look like. Take these values just as one piece of the puzzle to get the picture of what to expect. So far all my prediction based on such calculations was proven in the end by third part detailed reviews. If you don't trust check it out by your self for existing HMD's to confirm you can trust such calculation no matter it is not exact and official.

About Pimax5K it is a little bit different. Real horizontal FOV is around 170 to 180° max. It is not determined officially or measured by someone. When you reducing FPV on Pimax it is made by reducing horizontal resolution so peripheral part of the screen stay black (off) but that is not effecting on PPD because how in the percentage you reducing resolution same way you reducing FOV so PPD stays the same. So if we take 180° FOV on Pimax3K in central view we got 100° like on Rift for example and ve got additional 80° periferal and that you should devide per eye, 40° to the left peripheral and 40° to the right. So one eye is approximate 140° FOV what is 2560/140= 18.285 so PPD on Pimax5K under similar principal used on other HMD we calculated is around 18. Such results proving multiple reviews where is made some pictures true lens for comparison. These pictures do not represent your personal impressions in VR but accurately showing difference same as those numbers we calculate for PPD just to give you picture what you can expect from some of those HMDs.

114° is diagonal and 2160 is horizontal so you can't calculate it like this. Also, you have to divide horizontal resolution by horizontal FOV per eye not combined together. So Vive, Rift, WMR have almost same FOV per eye. If you use 100° as reference FOV to all HMDs and divide it with horizontal rezolution you will not get exact PPD by specifications but will get almost 99% accuracy for numbers value comparison.

This goes in both ways. GPU technology for implementing SLI/CF regularly or even for VR in the way to use single GPU per eye already exist but it is not implemented on the software side read as games. In the same way, as we need to increase numbers of VR users you can say that DCS will benefit from such technology as well no matter is it for VR or normal monitor usage. Point is DCS is enormously demandable by hardware resources so it needs proper SLI/CF support to increase players base who can afford hardware for proper performance. With proper SLI/CF with 2x RX590 or GTX 1080, you can get significantly better performances than with RTX 2080ti in half price. So if you look in that way SLI/CF is more ED need than for just VR. This is a twoway street.

There is some issue here. Now it is definitely confirmed by Oculus. Rift CV1 is dead, not producing anymore so touch controllers as well. It is obvious now how all this work based on implementing just touch controllers need to be pushed into other controllers as well especially WMR because insideout tracking proves itself as future of VR tracking. Everybody switching to it even Vive with Cosmos. So don't worry about it ED should do that as well or we will not have any support at all. About concern for HP performances, everybody working on the implementation of Fixed Foveated Rendering technology. This mean increase of performances by Super Sampling just on the center, so called Sweet Spot and not peripheral which is blurred by default and if you want to check it you need to turn your head anyway to get it in your sweet spot. That way hardware need for supersampling will reduce in half compared how it is now. As well higher native resolution less need for SS. So this 2160x2160 should need resources similar to Vive PRO or O+ with much better clarity

There is one thing obvious now. Rift tracking and Vives lighthouse tracking days are numbered. Insideout tracking is reliable, relatively cheap and easy to set up. So this is a winner in VR tracking. That's it.

Huge disappointment especially when I was talking about such screen in a time when CV1 was launched. Then people insulting me as "idiot who doesn't know what he is talking at all". And look now, Oculus representing 4 year old technology in LCD display as huge miracle improvement. I don't have anything against the single display, in fact, I'm still using my DIY VR based on LG G5 with more advanced IPS display same resolution. This single display has logic as cheaper part for production simply because it is produced in huge quantity for the smartphone industry and that quantity reducing the price. But today there is different standards and smartphones have longer displays 1440 x 3120. You get where I'm going here. this will be 1560x1440 per eye. With a little wider lens this additional pixel could increase FOV to 125° or even 130°. That will be a real improvement of the VR experience, not just crisper picture bat better and significant immersion improvement what is most important in VR. The worst thing here is that such increasing production price will be maximum 20 to 30$ but such HMD will easily sell much better for 450$ than this Rift S will be for this 400$. I can't get the feeling of how VR industry today lead people who don't have real clue about VR experience even technology. Rift S is not worth an upgrade and even it is questionable for new users because Lenovo Explorer provides you similar experience for half of the price.

Maybe this video could help as well especially with latest rumors about Rif S is actually Quest.

And now some new rumors about Rift S. Edited: Rift S is starting at 5:05. I put it in the link but on this forum this not working as should be so you need to jump manually. For new HP news just start a video from the beginning.

Take this 114° with grain of salt. It is 114° diagonal which is less than 110° horizontal. The same trick to deception is used by Pimax where they claim 200° FOV diagonal what in the end was 170° horizontal. So this 114° could be trick to look better when in reality it isn't.

11. That is with same condition as other HMD. Vive havethe same, 11 and it is pretty much close to the Oculus claim for 13 which I think is little exaggerated.

Not necessary. With switching to Vulcan engine this might be solved by default or with some tweaking in graphics engine. Point is Vulcan give you such possibility DX11 not. It is pointless to work on this issue on old engine when switching to Vulcan is around the corner. That is the point.

This is not exactly official numbers but it is pretty accurate. It is based on horizontal resolution/horizontal FOV per eye. This per eye is important because HMD FOV is for both eyes so for 110° FOV one eye sees around 100° this additional 10° is a stereoscopic difference per eye. So it is simple for WMR/Vive PRO is 1440/100 = 14.4 so around 14. As I say it is not an exact official number and for that, we need more precise specification and no one provide it. But this is good to get the picture in the numbers. So far all of my predictions and assumptions based on such and similar calculation was proven after the release of certain products and multiple users reviews.