Vive Pro vs Rift - my first thoughts

[imacken]

EDIT: COMPLETELY CHANGED MY OPINION - SEE POST #13

So, thinking I’d like to try the higher res, I bought the Vive Pro today and this is what I think so far.

1) Setup. Rift wins by a mile here. Vive was difficult for me to set up, as I think the base stations have got to see each other which means one is behind me on a shelf and the other to the left of my PC. With the Rift, I have one to the left of my monitor and one to the right, both on top of my speakers. Much neater for me.

2) Visual quality. At first, I couldn’t get the Vive Pro to look good at all, until I realised that the sweet spot is tiny compared to the Rift. On the sweet spot, the higher res is nice, but overall, I prefer the Rift despite the fact the higher res is welcome in cockpits and terrain.

3) Audio quality. This was the most disappointing aspect of the Vive Pro for me. The quality is really poor. What has happened to the lower register? Seems to be completely missing. The Rift has great audio quality, and the headphones are a more comfortable fit.

4) Frame rate. Well, of course, I was expecting a drop with the Vive Pro, but frankly, I was shocked by the difference. My standard most demanding DCS test is the Hornet Instant Action mission On the Ramp in the Persian Gulf map. Take off on the 270 runway then turn to around 310, fly to the sea then turn left and fly through Dubai. Well, on the Rift, I get a steady 45fps, with a little drop when turning after leaving the sea. On the Vive Pro, I was getting between 20 and 30! Unusable, so had to turn settings down.

5) Comfort. Again, the Rift wins out here as it is less bulky and sits very comfortably on my head.

6) Cost. Hardly much point in mentioning this really, but £1300 compared to £400? Hmm.

I welcome any suggestions to make my Vive Pro experience better from you guys, but at the moment, I think I’ll be sending it back!

Edited November 22, 2018 by imacken

[epolta]

I've tried odyssey, odyssey+ and vive pro and I keep coming back to rift. Overall I felt the Vive Pro was a tad more comfortable and the visuals were way better for me, but sadly I had red, blue, green static in the headset right out of the box. Apparently this is somewhat common and means the breakout box or hmd cable needs to be replaced. HTC has been a nightmare to deal with and I worry about future hardware issues. For the price, I decided to return it, because I really wanted to be "wowed for the $" I agree with setup. I had steam and steam vr already installed, but it was still giving me fits and even resulted in a blue screen at one point. I spent over an hour with HTC support and they were trying to get me to update firmware in my controllers etc to fix blue, green spots in HMD. Ultimately they wasted a ton of my time, and It's been three days since they agreed to let me return it and I still don't have my prepaid RMA labels. For that price, I expect better! I never even booted into DCS because of the static in Steam VR. I really hope Oculus comes out with a slightly improved screen for an oculus 1.5 rev. I'd be all over it!

[imacken]

If the base station cannot "see each other", as my office setup is, you'll need to use the sync cable that came with them. It connects the two base stations. Also you'll need to change the "C" base station to an "A" base station, so you have base stations A & B, not B & C. Push the mode buttons on the back of the base stations so that one base station is “A” and one base station shows “b”.

 

Also sounds like you need to do some changing in the SteamVR "Setting".

This is my setting, and I'm getting mostly 45fps with my specs, see below, which is less than yours.

 

In the "Video" Tab of SteamVR Settings - I've unchecked "Enable Motion Smoothing". For DCS World, I subjectively consider it a negative impact on performance, and it introduces undesirable anomalies, at this time, that is. This could change?

Most importantly check "Manual Overide", and for starters set the slider to only 100%. The "recommended setting" for my GPU, is recommended at 148%, which is insane for my GPU running DCS World, just not gonna happen. This is basically Pixel Density, so I set this at 100%, and set the DCS > Options > VR > Pixel Density setting to 1.4. You can experiment with all this latter, but, for sanity's sake, I highly recommend to start as stated above.

 

In the "Applications" tab, under "Motion Smoothing" make sure that "Use Global Setting From the Video Tab to the Left (Disable)" is selected.

 

"Developer" tab, uncheck "Enable Advanced Supersample Filtering".

 

I did not install any of the "VivePort" software on this system, only the SteamVR application. The VivePort, for what ever reason, caused noticeable stuttering with DCS and I would have to disable it in the Windows Task Manager when running DCS World on a previous system. You can get the SteamVR app from Steam here (see Step 8 ).

 

Hope this helps, and if you still have any Rift drivers/software/window registry installed, I don't know if they will play well with SteamVR or not. I'm suspecting not.

Thanks for that.

I've now connected the base stations via cable, so that is better.

I can't see 'enable motion settings' in the video tab, or 'motion smoothing' in applications.

I don't have Viveport installed, and have now uninstalled all Oculus software/drivers.

Can you tell me what your DCS settings are, as I have no idea of how you are getting a steady 45 fps with your specs.

What fps do you see when first loading the Hornet mission on PG that I mentioned?

[dburne]

So, thinking I’d like to try the higher res, I bought the Vive Pro today and this is what I think so far.

1) Setup. Rift wins by a mile here. Vive was difficult for me to set up, as I think the base stations have got to see each other which means one is behind me on a shelf and the other to the left of my PC. With the Rift, I have one to the left of my monitor and one to the right, both on top of my speakers. Much neater for me.

2) Visual quality. At first, I couldn’t get the Vive Pro to look good at all, until I realised that the sweet spot is tiny compared to the Rift. On the sweet spot, the higher res is nice, but overall, I prefer the Rift despite the fact the higher res is welcome in cockpits and terrain.

3) Audio quality. This was the most disappointing aspect of the Vive Pro for me. The quality is really poor. What has happened to the lower register? Seems to be completely missing. The Rift has great audio quality, and the headphones are a more comfortable fit.

4) Frame rate. Well, of course, I was expecting a drop with the Vive Pro, but frankly, I was shocked by the difference. My standard most demanding DCS test is the Hornet Instant Action mission On the Ramp in the Persian Gulf map. Take off on the 270 runway then turn to around 310, fly to the sea then turn left and fly through Dubai. Well, on the Rift, I get a steady 45fps, with a little drop when turning after leaving the sea. On the Vive Pro, I was getting between 20 and 30! Unusable, so had to turn settings down.

5) Comfort. Again, the Rift wins out here as it is less bulky and sits very comfortably on my head.

6) Cost. Hardly much point in mentioning this really, but £1300 compared to £400? Hmm.

I welcome any suggestions to make my Vive Pro experience better from you guys, but at the moment, I think I’ll be sending it back!

 

From everything I have read to date from users of the Vive Pro, most of yours are right there with what several of them pretty much say about it.

 

Still hanging in there with my Rift for the time being.

[imacken]

Thanks but your image is too blurry to see any detail on the SteamVR settings. Could you re-post?

I've attached what I see in Video tab.

[imacken]

OK, so I'm on the beta now and I can see the options you are referring to.

[imacken]

Another question, if the Vive Pro is 1440x1600 per eye, then why does Steam VR say that res is approx 50%?

[imacken]

Don't know, I just start/set with it a 100% and go from there.

 

Fair enough, but that is then 4032x2240!

I'm going to try at the native res to see what it looks like.

[imacken]

1) Setup. Rift wins by a mile here. Vive was difficult for me to set up, as I think the base stations have got to see each other which means one is behind me on a shelf and the other to the left of my PC. With the Rift, I have one to the left of my monitor and one to the right, both on top of my speakers. Much neater for me.

2) Visual quality. At first, I couldn’t get the Vive Pro to look good at all, until I realised that the sweet spot is tiny compared to the Rift. On the sweet spot, the higher res is nice, but overall, I prefer the Rift despite the fact the higher res is welcome in cockpits and terrain.

3) Audio quality. This was the most disappointing aspect of the Vive Pro for me. The quality is really poor. What has happened to the lower register? Seems to be completely missing. The Rift has great audio quality, and the headphones are a more comfortable fit.

4) Frame rate. Well, of course, I was expecting a drop with the Vive Pro, but frankly, I was shocked by the difference. My standard most demanding DCS test is the Hornet Instant Action mission On the Ramp in the Persian Gulf map. Take off on the 270 runway then turn to around 310, fly to the sea then turn left and fly through Dubai. Well, on the Rift, I get a steady 45fps, with a little drop when turning after leaving the sea. On the Vive Pro, I was getting between 20 and 30! Unusable, so had to turn settings down.

5) Comfort. Again, the Rift wins out here as it is less bulky and sits very comfortably on my head.

6) Cost. Hardly much point in mentioning this really, but £1300 compared to £400? Hmm.

I welcome any suggestions to make my Vive Pro experience better from you guys, but at the moment, I think I’ll be sending it back!

 

I haven't responded as I thought I would take a few days to reassess the situation, and just as well I did, as I have (almost) completely changed my opinion from my initial impression.

 

LET ME SAY, THAT MY COMMENTS ARE DISREGARDING PRICE!

 

1) SETUP. I attached the base stations to tripods, and then, the setup was a breeze. Also, at the time of my initial post, I didn't realise I could connect the base stations via a cable if I wanted them at the sides of my monitor. Still, the tripod wireless solution works really well, both for DCS type games, and stand up ones.

 

2) VISUAL QUALITY. Again, I was wrong about this. There is a massive improvement with the 80% greater number of pixels in the Vive Pro. The difference can seem subtle at first, but when you are flying, it is really obvious after a while. The biggest difference is with the hugely reduced Screen Door Effect. The terrain just looks so much more natural, and targets are much more visible because of this. Additionally, the cockpits are so much clearer on the instruments, and I find myself leaning forward to get closer to the instruments a lot less, and hardly ever use the VR zoom. Finally, there is a huge improvement in text quality of messages appearing on screen. For anyone who plays a certain well known 'dangerous' space combat/trading title, the difference is huge. Really is chalk and cheese in that cockpit compared to the Rift.

 

3) AUDIO. There is still an issue here, although it can be worked around. If I use the Vive Pro Multimedia device as opposed to the Vive Pro High Definition Device, then the bass and low frequencies are there. However, the quality is not anything like as good as the High Def device. So, the answer to that was to use an equaliser that you can choose which device it applies to, and that solves the problem. Annoying to have to do that on such an expensive piece of kit, but still.

 

4) FRAME RATE. After playing around with (mostly quite high) settings, I have a pretty acceptable 45 fps in most locations. (I have taken out comparisons with Hornet and Persian Gulf, as that map seems to struggle on most modules, and the Hornet still has major issues in VR in my opinion.) So, just about acceptable, not as good as Rift, but that is to be expected.

 

5) COMFORT. Again, I have changed my mind on this. You have to get used to the fact that the Vive Pro sits differently on your head compared to the Rift, and that is what I didn't get initially. Now that I am wearing it correctly, it feels a lot more comfortable than the Rift especially in long sessions. The Rift always felt unbalanced in the sense that it was front heavy and wanted to tilt your head forward. The Vive Pro is much more balanced, and you are not so aware that you have a big piece of kit stuck to your face! Another aspect of the Vive Pro, is that it is easy to wear glasses with it on, and I couldn't say that for the Rift either.

 

So, all in all, I am very happy with the Vive Pro, and my Rift will be going up for sale soon!

[imacken]

For my Gen 1 Vive's, I just use a separate gaming headphone/mic when flight simming, when in the lab doing room scale, I use the provided earbuds.

 

But, let me give you a little suggestion in the wearing of glasses with the vive, and that is too refrain from doing so. Being as the Vive, and more so the Vive Pro cost as much as they do, I highly recommend getting prescription lenses for your Vive /Pro.

 

Thanks for that. Entertaining videos!

Re audio, the last thing I want is another big piece of plastic stuck to my head in the form of another headset! With the equaliser, the sound quality on the HTC High Def device is now perfectly good.

I fully get what you mean about glasses scratching the lenses, but I am the only user, and so far, even with the closest setting, I am not getting any contact between my glasses and the Vive lenses. On the VR Lens site, there is only a Vive option, no Pro. Are they the same size?

Another question for you, do you have any trouble with the base stations waking from sleep? Regularly, I seem to have to restart SteamVR or even my PC to get them to fire up. That is a pain.

[imacken]

I'm not sure, but, I think so, you could email VR Lens Lab to ask.

As for the Base Stations going to sleep, and having a hard time kicking em out of bed, yes, having issues also. You can do the Devices > Reboot Vive Headset.

Or you disable the feature in the tab: Settings > Base Station > Power Management > uncheck "Enable Power Management" option.

 

Yep, tried emailing them, but no reply after a couple of days. But, would you not know if they fit if you have bought them already for your Pro?

 

Yes, I could turn Power Management off, but even though v2 base stations are way quieter than v1, there is still a slight hum audible in a quiet room when not playing.

[hansangb]

You can always get the goggle option. It sits a little close to the eye, but a quick gluing of some foam took care of it.

[imacken]

I only have access to the "Vive's" and a "Vive Pre", we do not have any of the Vive Pro's as of yet. :(.

 

You don't have a Pro? So, the discussion about settings and frame rates was not relevant then.

I clearly misunderstood!

[imacken]

Actually yes, they both use the same SteamVR app, same functions, what changes relevance more than anything else in your favor is a newer GPU than what I'm using.

Your Application Resolution, I'd think would be different at 100%.

Mine is 1512x1680 at 100%, I'd think yours would be higher at 100%.

 

I don't think there is a comparison. I was talking about the Vive Pro. It has 80% more pixels to pump around than the Vive or the Rift (which I had before).

I did wonder how you were getting 45fps with those settings and your GPU. I feel a little relieved now!

[hannibal]

:Flush:I bit the bullet and brough a vive pro.... :Flush:

[imacken]

:Flush:I bit the bullet and brough a vive pro.... :Flush:

 

You won’t regret it!

Takes a lot of tweaking and setting up, but very much worth it in the end.

[hannibal]

i dont mind tweaking!

[Brun]

I upgraded my original Vive to the Pro yesterday, resistance finally broken by £100 discount (headset only) over the black Friday weekend.

 

When it was first released I was put off by the resolution only being increased by ~30%, but the improvement in image quality is actually much better than I expected. Still needs a decent amount of supersampling (I'm on 1.6 at the moment) although I haven't had much time to find the best balance between that and antialiasing.

[imacken]

When it was first released I was put off by the resolution only being increased by ~30%, but the improvement in image quality is actually much better than I expected. Still needs a decent amount of supersampling (I'm on 1.6 at the moment) although I haven't had much time to find the best balance between that and antialiasing.

 

Don’t know where you get 30% from, the actual increase is almost 80%!

[Brun]

Don’t know where you get 30% from, the actual increase is almost 80%!

The resolution - i.e. number of pixels in each direction was only increased by 33%. There's 77% more pixels overall. The latter was promoted by the marketing because it sounds more impressive.

 

Similar comparison between HD and UHD, double the resolution but the number of pixels is four times greater.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Brun

[imacken]

The resolution - i.e. number of pixels in each direction was only increased by 33%. There's 77% more pixels overall. The latter was promoted by the marketing because it sounds more impressive.

 

Similar comparison between HD and UHD, double the resolution but the number of pixels is four times greater.

 

Sorry, but you are wrong in that. It’s not a marketing ploy, it’s a fact.

If you had 1x1 tiles, how many would you need to form a 2x2 square? Yes, 4!

So you would have 4 times the number of tiles to form 2x2 as 1x1, yet you would call that a 100% increase, not 400%!

You are right however when you say a 33% increase per dimension, so 1.33x1.33 is approximately 1.8, hence the increase in pixels (resolution) is around 80%.

[Brun]

It's semantics really, but I think people generally regard 'resolution' as the horizontal and vertical dimensions of an image or display. Therefore if you take a screen which is originally 1200 pixels high (as in the original Vive) and replace it with one that's 1600, I'd argue it's misleading to describe that as anything other than a 33% increase in resolution.

 

'Pixels-per-inch' is another way display resolution is defined, which again applies to a single dimension rather than area.

 

One exception to this I can think of is digital cameras, where people describe resolution in terms of overall pixels (usually megapixels). Like I said, semantics.

[imacken]

It's semantics really, but I think people generally regard 'resolution' as the horizontal and vertical dimensions of an image or display. Therefore if you take a screen which is originally 1200 pixels high (as in the original Vive) and replace it with one that's 1600, I'd argue it's misleading to describe that as anything other than a 33% increase in resolution.

 

'Pixels-per-inch' is another way display resolution is defined, which again applies to a single dimension rather than area.

 

One exception to this I can think of is digital cameras, where people describe resolution in terms of overall pixels (usually megapixels). Like I said, semantics.

 

Sorry, but this is not semantics. However, if you want to regard a 400% increase as 100%, then that is up to you. The facts are, that going from 1x1 to 2x2 in the same space, is an increase of 400% in pixel density or resolution.

[Brun]

No, that's a 400% increase in 'pixels'.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density

 

That all refers to density of pixels *per dimension*, not area. If you double the pixel density of an image, the number of pixels increases four-fold. They're different things.

[imacken]

You can defy convention if you like, but most people understand the common definition of resolution and their relative densities in the same physical space, hence the 80% increase correctly stated.