HP's Reverb VR Pro Headset

[sze5003]

Thanks for your words

Anyway i think that the issue is more gpu related that cpu related as my GPU is the one constantly above 16ms and often 22, causing the under 45 fps performance. While i have never seen the cpu over 16ms.

This morning I tried also the shader mod (which i cannot use as i fly multiplayer) but I had not many good results.

I don't know what to do, but i think that my 1080ti can handle the Oculus Rift S, but not the Reverb's resolution.

I have to play at 60hz or sell it and return to the Rift S

My specs and yours are very similar except the processor. This has me worried as I was planning on going to the reverb and don't want to fly anymore with the odyssey. I'd rather not go with the rift S though.

 

Secoda has a 2080 and that's very similar to the cards you and I are running and he's able to get decent frame rates using steam set to sample at 188%.

 

Do you think it's just your processor that's the big outlier? I too am not wanting to order a 2080ti for only like 25% overall improvement in all other titles I play on my PC.

[Macka]

Doesn't it also depends if you use steam vr or steam vr beta?

 

I'm also thinking when I get my reverb that I'll uninstall wmr for steam vr app from within app. I don't think it's needed.

 

I've stuck with stable steam vr and only tried the beta once with my Odyssey but I didn't like it.

 

Yeah. So I went and tried both with and without steam beta with Harlikwins original 108%SS steamVR and and DCS PD 1.8 and it dropped my PG freeflight from 65fps down to 28-30fps. Then tried with his new settings of Steam VR 160% and DCS PD of 1.0 on Steam beta and regular brought fps back up to 65 avg fps.....of course it dropped to 48-50 ish when I flew down low through the main drag. Bare in mind it could be my CPU which is on a 6 core I5 9600 which wont allow me to get to 1.8 DCS PD and remain smooth. Which is why I suggested Steam 100% as a starting point and move up from there..... as everyone has different CPUs and Graphics cards...ie a 1080 on a 6700 might struggle at my settings.

[VirusAM]

My specs and yours are very similar except the processor. This has me worried as I was planning on going to the reverb and don't want to fly anymore with the odyssey. I'd rather not go with the rift S though.

 

Secoda has a 2080 and that's very similar to the cards you and I are running and he's able to get decent frame rates using steam set to sample at 188%.

 

Do you think it's just your processor that's the big outlier? I too am not wanting to order a 2080ti for only like 25% overall improvement in all other titles I play on my PC.

 

I tried the Rift S, and it was quite good....i choose the reverb due to the good performance reporting in this thread and higher resolution.

But unfortunately it is not my experience.

In previous VR experiences the Cpu seemed to be the bottleneck, but with the reverb probably we need a 20 series card. And the 2080 is not really faster then the 1080ti...so that leads to the 2080ti. But i don't want to spend this kind of money.

Maybe if the reverb had the option to put the screen to 80hz similar to rift S, it would be feasible.

 

About Secoda probably he is on an older windows version.

For me 100% in steamvr is 2512x2464 for eye.

78% is the most similar setting to hp reverb native resolution. But it is still too much for my 1080ti

Edited August 24, 2019 by VirusAM

[jojo]

I tried the Rift S, and it was quite good....i choose the reverb due to the good performance reporting in this thread and higher resolution.

But unfortunately it is not my experience.

In previous VR experiences the Cpu seemed to be the bottleneck, but with the reverb probably we need a 20 series card. And the 2080 is not really faster then the 1080ti...so that leads to the 2080ti. But i don't want to spend this kind of money.

Maybe if the reverb had the option to put the screen to 80hz similar to rift S, it would be feasible.

 

I don’t know if it’s good, but WMR can be set at 60Hz.

[Naruto]

With a 2080TI and the shader mod, I average 12 - 13ms on GPU in caucasus map free flight with f-18 and it spikes to 18-20 ms when I look left or right at the terrain trees. It is very smooth

 

No shader mod, I average 18 - 20 ms on GPU when look at forest of trees.

 

My current DCS Openbeta with shader mod settings that give me 45 FPS and very smooth performance for the most part even with the f-14.

 

[sze5003]

I tried the Rift S, and it was quite good....i choose the reverb due to the good performance reporting in this thread and higher resolution.

But unfortunately it is not my experience.

In previous VR experiences the Cpu seemed to be the bottleneck, but with the reverb probably we need a 20 series card. And the 2080 is not really faster then the 1080ti...so that leads to the 2080ti. But i don't want to spend this kind of money.

Maybe if the reverb had the option to put the screen to 80hz similar to rift S, it would be feasible.

I too don't want to spend money on a 2080ti knowing well in a few months Nvidia will have something else that may be more worth it.

 

I was surprised as well when I saw the performance results in the thread and saw many users with a 2080 which is very similar to the 1080ti. Most people in here have the 2080ti though.

 

I guess it's no harm trying the reverb for myself and returning it to hp within the 30 days if performance is an issue. But then I won't know what to do.

 

The index is pricey and clutters my area with the base stations and the resolution isn't as nice as the reverb. The rift S same thing for the resolution and I'm tired of my Odyssey being so uncomfortable to fly in for long periods.

 

Is there that much of a bigger difference running reverb at 60hz vs 90hz at least in dcs? If it looks sharp and plays smoothly at 60 I think I'd be happy.

[VirusAM]

I too don't want to spend money on a 2080ti knowing well in a few months Nvidia will have something else that may be more worth it.

 

I was surprised as well when I saw the performance results in the thread and saw many users with a 2080 which is very similar to the 1080ti. Most people in here have the 2080ti though.

 

I guess it's no harm trying the reverb for myself and returning it to hp within the 30 days if performance is an issue. But then I won't know what to do.

 

The index is pricey and clutters my area with the base stations and the resolution isn't as nice as the reverb. The rift S same thing for the resolution and I'm tired of my Odyssey being so uncomfortable to fly in for long periods.

 

Is there that much of a bigger difference running reverb at 60hz vs 90hz at least in dcs? If it looks sharp and plays smoothly at 60 I think I'd be happy.

It is doable.

But the difference is noticable.

For comparison rift s 80hz vs 90hz of other headsets is not noticable

[Harlikwin]

With a 2080TI and the shader mod, I average 12 - 13ms on GPU in caucasus map free flight with f-18 and it spikes to 18-20 ms when I look left or right at the terrain trees. It is very smooth

 

No shader mod, I average 18 - 20 ms on GPU when look at forest of trees.

 

My current DCS Openbeta with shader mod settings that give me 45 FPS and very smooth performance for the most part even with the f-14.

 

 

That's similar to my settings.

[Harlikwin]

Cheers Harlikwin. Maybe the draw distance issue with DCS and DCS PD was my problem and by dropping DCS PD to 1.0 fixed my performance issue hence my results......Can you elaborate on this issue as there seem to be quite a few with performance issues that looking at their specs should not be the case.

 

The main reason I did it is for air spotting. Turns out if you run higher than 1.0 then it gets harder to spot air objects as they are rendered "smaller" if using DCS PD. If using Steam, not a problem. In terms of performance, im not sure. In "theory" they might be same but it seems like Steam PD is more efficient. Though it may be because its not as "high" as DCS PD. I,e 200% Steam is probably like 1.5 DCS PD.

[Harlikwin]

I don’t know if it’s good, but WMR can be set at 60Hz.

 

 

Supposedly some reviewer did this early on. I don't know what performance impact it has. Personally I think 45 looks fine, but it might be me.

[Harlikwin]

Yeah. So I went and tried both with and without steam beta with Harlikwins original 108%SS steamVR and and DCS PD 1.8 and it dropped my PG freeflight from 65fps down to 28-30fps. Then tried with his new settings of Steam VR 160% and DCS PD of 1.0 on Steam beta and regular brought fps back up to 65 avg fps.....of course it dropped to 48-50 ish when I flew down low through the main drag. Bare in mind it could be my CPU which is on a 6 core I5 9600 which wont allow me to get to 1.8 DCS PD and remain smooth. Which is why I suggested Steam 100% as a starting point and move up from there..... as everyone has different CPUs and Graphics cards...ie a 1080 on a 6700 might struggle at my settings.

 

Don't neglect the Nvidia settings, or driver version either.

 

108% at that time was the closest I could get steam VR to do 2160x2160. 1.8 was what I was running my old CV1 rift on at the time.

 

I get a stable 45 most of the time with the 1.0/160%. Which is good enough for me, because I'm not flying in downtown dubai most of the time.

 

I mostly just turned the frame counter off because if its on I pay attention to it. If its off, I don't care and it looks good 99% of the time. And 45 looks good enough to me. Other folks may vary from that.

[ShaZe88]

I can't imagine what would be the performance if DCS finally had support for Vulkan. It would have allowed us to use fixed foviated rendering with the headset. Hopefully some similar optimizations will be made which will allows us to reach appropriate FPS.:v:

[JG27_Arklight]

Finally got my Reverb set up and it's not worth it. The bump in resolution is not quite to the level it is hyped up to be. There are also quite a few big tradeoffs that simply make it not worth it, IMO. Packaging it back up and returning it. Going back to my Rift S....glad I didn't return it.

 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Wmacky]

Finally got my Reverb set up and it's not worth it. The bump in resolution is not quite to the level it is hyped up to be. There are also quite a few big tradeoffs that simply make it not worth it, IMO. Packaging it back up and returning it. Going back to my Rift S....glad I didn't return it.

 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

 

Yeah, The resolution will never 100% good enough until we finally arrive at 16K! That said, As lacking as the Reverb still is in resolution, everything else including Rift S is even worse. I choose not to go worse!

[VirusAM]

Yeah, The resolution will never 100% good enough until we finally arrive at 16K! That said, As lacking as the Reverb still is in resolution, everything else including Rift S is even worse. I choose not to go worse!

The difference is not so big as the numbers would tell

[dburne]

You can't go by resolution alone as there are other factors.

I was quite pleased and pleasantly surprised by how good the Rift S turned out to be, while still being able to maintain performance like I was getting out of Rift CV1.

I like being able to run at higher graphics details and still able to get good enough performance for me, would not want to trade that off.

 

Now I personally have not tried out the Reverb to compare for myself, and likely won't get be getting one. I will stick with the S and see what happens maybe a year or so down the road.

[sze5003]

You can't go by resolution alone as there are other factors.

I was quite pleased and pleasantly surprised by how good the Rift S turned out to be, while still being able to maintain performance like I was getting out of Rift CV1.

I like being able to run at higher graphics details and still able to get good enough performance for me, would not want to trade that off.

 

Now I personally have not tried out the Reverb to compare for myself, and likely won't get be getting one. I will stick with the S and see what happens maybe a year or so down the road.

How would the rift S compare with the original odyssey? I'm gonna order the Reverb but I'm also worried about performance so rift S would be my next option.

[JG27_Arklight]

Yeah, The resolution will never 100% good enough until we finally arrive at 16K! That said, As lacking as the Reverb still is in resolution, everything else including Rift S is even worse. I choose not to go worse!

The resolution in the center of your viewing area is better (probably about a 1/2 inch circle, sweet spot). Beyond that, the image turns into a very noticable blur. It's almost like you have to look directly at something to be able to see it amd take advantage of the resolution.

 

Keep in mind that I'm a just referring to the tiny focal spot (where the image is clear) and the blurry rest of the image....I didn't mention the fact that there is also some odd color/effect/whatever that seems to almost make the view of the world around you somewhat muddled or slightly "dirty", it's hard to describe. Although the resolution is higher, the overall image quality seems much worse (if that makes sense). Side note...the reviewers that reported, "omg* there is no SDE! It's just like a panel!", are full of it. Sorry, no other way to describe it. Lol

 

Now, don't get me wrong, the center resolution is better, but the actual size of this higher resolution sweet spot area is very small. This was probably the biggest shock to me while using it. It's really hard to quantify just how bad the sweet spot is....other than it really is a SPOT. haha

 

When I first tried it on and began using it I could notice the resolution difference over the Rift S, but it really wasn't something I would call a big difference...I'd actually put it more in the, "ok....a little less SDE", category. Having said that, the SDE on the Rift S I wouldn't call bad. The visible picture on the Rift S is actually quite good and noticabebly "clearer" than the CV1, imo. The difference between the Rift S clarity and the Reverb seems a lot smaller than the difference between the CV1 and the Rift S.

 

As an aside, ignore the specs in my signature, I built a new PC this weekend before testing out both headsets against eachother (9900K/Rtx 2080 Ti/32gb RAM/ M2 Drive.

 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Edited August 25, 2019 by JG27_Arklight

[dburne]

How would the rift S compare with the original odyssey? I'm gonna order the Reverb but I'm also worried about performance so rift S would be my next option.

 

I can not answer that as I never had an Odyssey.

I have seen others report that the Rift S is better, but hopefully someone that has had both can comment on this for ya.

[Secoda]

For me the Reverb sweet spot is about 80% of the display (huge). The guy whose Valve Index I tried said for him the Reverb sweet spot was maybe 60% of the display. I assumed that was IPD difference since mine is 64 mm which is basically optimal but I think it is more than that. He also had to push the Reverb against his head for best display. Go figure. Since the Reverb lacks both adjustments on the VI it is likely it will not work for a lot more folks. I think we keep reading about the experiences of folks who physical characteristics are on the edge of the Reverb's specs who have problems with the sweet spot, etc..

 

It took me a full month to get the Reverb tweaked along with Windows (gaming performance tweaks), etc. It's a difficult process and some never get there.

 

For me personally the Reverb is a solid notch in clarity above the RIft S or VI but I also thought the VI was a bit better than the RIft S in DCS when I tested them (distance spotting). Your mileage may vary. If only Valve had put out a 2160 x 2160 headset. :smilewink:

 

The resolution in the ear center of you LR viewing area is better (probably about a 1/2 inch circle). Beyond that, the image turns into a very noticable blur. It's almost like you have to look directly at something to be able to see it.

 

Keep in mind that I'm a just referring to the tiny focal spot (where the image is clear) and the blurry rest of the image....I didn't mention the fact that there is also some odd color/effect/whatever that seems to almost make the view of the world around you somewhat muddled or slightly "dirty", it's hard to describe. Although the resolution is higher, the overall image quality seems much worse (if that makes sense). Side note...the reviewers that reported, "omg* there is no SDE! It's just like a panel!", are full of it. Sorry, no other way to describe it. Lol

 

Now, don't get me wrong, the center resolution is better, but the actual size of this higher resolution sweet spot area is very small. This was probably the biggest shock to me while using it. It's really hard to quantify just how bad the sweet spot is....other than it really is a SPOT. haha

 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Edited August 25, 2019 by Secoda

[Wmacky]

You can't go by resolution alone as there are other factors.

I was quite pleased and pleasantly surprised by how good the Rift S turned out to be, while still being able to maintain performance like I was getting out of Rift CV1.

I like being able to run at higher graphics details and still able to get good enough performance for me, would not want to trade that off.

 

Now I personally have not tried out the Reverb to compare for myself, and likely won't get be getting one. I will stick with the S and see what happens maybe a year or so down the road.

 

 

I'm not going by resolution numbers but by what I see, as I do own a reverb as well as a 1440 Vert, pixel HMD. The Reverb looks better. Simple as that. Is it a breath taking difference? Well no, these are still early days and you just have take what you can get. I've decided to keep both, one for superior view, and one for excellent FOV until I can get a headset that does both. Each are TOTL and the best money can buy, in at least one metric. The most important metrics IMHO

Edited August 25, 2019 by Wmacky

[JG27_Arklight]

For me the Reverb sweet spot is about 80% of the display (huge). The guy whose Valve Index I tried said for him the Reverb sweet spot was maybe 60% of the display. I assumed that was IPD difference since mine is 64 mm which is basically optimal but I think it is more than that. He also had to push the Reverb against his head for best display. Go figure. Since the Reverb lacks both adjustments on the VI it is likely it will not work for a lot more folks.

 

It took me a full month to get the Reverb tweaked along with Windows (gaming performance tweaks), etc. It's a difficult process and some never get there.

 

For me personally the Reverb is a solid notch in clarity above the RIft S or VI but I also thought the VI was a bit better than the RIft S in DCS when I tested them (distance spotting). Your mileage may vary. If only Valve had put out a 2160 x 2160 headset. :smilewink:

My IPD is 65. The picture on the Reverb is higher resolution but the actual picture quality seems a step below the Rift S, in my opinion. That higher resoution contrasted by smaller viewing area, other image aspects and things like the heavy obtrusive cable don't justify the $250 price premium over the S. The heavy cable is just annoying..I hope they look at that in future products. They made a light headset....with a heavy cable...on one side. Beyond that, glass wearers will have a real issue with the Reverb and will probably want to purchase lens covers or contact lenses. In terms of comfort, and this is completely amd totally subjective, the Rift S seems a great deal more confortable.

 

Pricing scheme wise, HP seems to be putting all of their eggs in the resolution basket and that is unfortunate. I'm going to keep the S and see what Acer has up their sleeve in the coming months with the ConceptD. Hopefully it still comes to fruition :)

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Secoda]

I always wear glasses in the Reverb. For me there is no issues using glasses. What problem are you having? It is so easy to get the Reverb on and off in a few seconds with glasses and positioned correctly. I guess I don't understand that one.

 

Airplane and target spotting at a distance is my criteria for which headset is best because that is how I win in DCS. Cable or brightness of colors just don't matter much. More FOV is a mixed bag in a VR headset generally. I do think these will go wireless at some point. I do wish Acer would release their headset on the consumer side using the same lenses as the Reverb for some competition. HP did a horrible job with their product introduction.

 

My IPD is 65. The picture on the Reverb is higher resolution but the actual picture quality seems a step below the Rift S, in my opinion. That higher resoution contrasted by smaller viewing area, other image aspects and things like the heavy obtrusive cable don't justify the $250 price premium over the S. The heavy cable is just annoying..I hope they look at that in future products. They made a light headset....with a heavy cable...on one side. Beyond that, glass wearers will have a real issue with the Reverb and will probably want to purchase lens covers or contact lenses. In terms of comfort, and this is completely amd totally subjective, the Rift S seems a great deal more confortable.

 

Pricing scheme wise, HP seems to be putting all of their eggs in the resolution basket and that is unfortunate. I'm going to keep the S and see what Acer has up their sleeve in the coming months with the ConceptD. Hopefully it still comes to fruition :)

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Gun Jam]

Is there a reason not to purchase it from HP direct? I was waiting for amazon but that seems to be taking a while they still dont have any.

 

 

The ones on the Hp site should be as good as any right?

[JG27_Arklight]

Is there a reason not to purchase it from HP direct? I was waiting for amazon but that seems to be taking a while they still dont have any.

 

 

The ones on the Hp site should be as good as any right?

Yes. I ordered mine from there. They are all new revision from there.

 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk