Vality: New high res headset coming 2021

[Harlikwin]

Current prototype is 36PPD (compared to low-mid 20's for Reverb). Projected production model 46 PPD!!! 2x2k displays so performance wise should be about like Reverb. So, "close" to retinal resolution (60-70ppd). Only downside is narrow FOV (85 deg). But early days...

 

 

https://www.roadtovr.com/vality-is-building-a-compact-vr-headset-with-ultra-high-resolution/

 

[metzger]

85 fov ? This sounds horrible

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

[Harlikwin]

85 fov ? This sounds horrible

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

 

Well if you consider the Reverb is maybe 100 (and the OG CV1 was more like 90's) then its 7 degrees of each "edge". So not as bad as it might sound. Also, from the sound of it, their lens design actually gives you most of that FOV as usable real-estate unlike the current crop of headsets where the central third or half is usable as advertised and the outer FOV is useless blurry crap. I mean if someone cut off 7 degrees off the edge of my reverb I wouldn't notice since I can't use it anyway.

[dburne]

I will take higher resolution over higher FOV any day.

Certainly would be great to have both, but if not possible I would take high res.

This one certainly looks very interesting.

Maybe my Rift S will hold out till then.

Edited September 20, 2019 by dburne

[javelina1]

I will take higher resolution over higher FOV any day.

Certainly would be great to have both, but if not possible I would take high res.

Definitely. I could "suffer" with a reduced FOV, to sacrifice for resolution.

[Harlikwin]

I will take higher resolution over higher FOV any day.

Certainly would be great to have both, but if not possible I would take high res.

This one certainly looks very interesting.

Maybe my Rift S will hold out till then.

 

The reverb becons Don...

 

[Harlikwin]

Definitely. I could "suffer" with a reduced FOV, to sacrifice for resolution.

 

Yeah I think we are all on that same boat. Honestly I'm surprised how rapidly things seem to be moving toward better res. If their ~1k price point and 46ppd is true it will be a big hit IMO. I mean double the PPD of the current Reverb which is pretty darn good already for its center res. Plus the thing is tiny compared to any other headset. I'm just not sure I can wait another 5 quarters!

 

If this thing does indeed pan out by mid 2021, the further thought I had is that by 2025 or so we might actually have retinal level PPD headsets available for pro-sumers. Which is something I would have put off by at least a decade by my earlier lines of thinking about it.

Edited September 20, 2019 by Harlikwin

[dburne]

The reverb becons Don...

 

 

Lol - maybe I might consider if ever could use without Steam VR - not much a fan of Steam VR - too bloated.

[Harlikwin]

Lol - maybe I might consider if ever could use without Steam VR - not much a fan of Steam VR - too bloated.

 

I don't know where you came to that conclusion, I far prefer it occulus in almost all ways, my Reverb performs better than my Rift frame wise, with higher settings. And its WMR for steamVR. Supposedly ED is looking at doing native WMR support too.

[dburne]

I don't know where you came to that conclusion, I far prefer it occulus in almost all ways, my Reverb performs better than my Rift frame wise, with higher settings. And its WMR for steamVR. Supposedly ED is looking at doing native WMR support too.

 

From another game that requires Steam VR.

So I had Steam VR- Oculus Runtime - Rift S.

There is a third party App - Open Composite - for the Rift or Rift S. I changed from using Steam VR to Open Composite, and the performance went up significantly for me versus going Steam VR - Oculus. It is apparently a lean program. I would think if ED ever did offer native support for WMR, you guys might see similar results.

 

Plus I will admit I am biased, just not a big fan of Steam/Steam VR. Big reason I did not consider the Index.

 

Anyways back to topic - I will be following the progress from Vality for sure, that lean compact size looks pretty neat.

[Willie Nelson]

For my money, the Reverb is good enough resolution, I would rather somebody improve the lateral FOV (proportional rebase in resolution rather than to the square) additionally, the lenses could maybe be worked in the improve the sweet spot and take it beyond 30 degrees as the next step. Not saying an improvement in the resolution wouldn’t be a great advantage but perhaps their is higher priorities, thoughts?

[dburne]

I think FOV will come that will be very good, when they can get eye tracking/foveated rendering working together which should really help push it forward.

 

May be a while yet though.

Oculus was working toward that, however I fear they have changed direction and it is not so much on their radar currently.

Hopefully others will continue to push toward this .

[DerekSpeare]

85 degrees...lolo

[Harlikwin]

85 degrees...lolo

 

Its probably better than the current practical Reverb FOV... But LOL on broseph…

[Harlikwin]

For my money, the Reverb is good enough resolution, I would rather somebody improve the lateral FOV (proportional rebase in resolution rather than to the square) additionally, the lenses could maybe be worked in the improve the sweet spot and take it beyond 30 degrees as the next step. Not saying an improvement in the resolution wouldn’t be a great advantage but perhaps their is higher priorities, thoughts?

 

Well 2 points,

 

1. From what I read the clarity is across most of the FOV so a much wider sweet spot, which given a multi element optical path makes a lot of sense.

 

2. My thinking before I saw this was similar to yours. But, these guys are using using displays and optics in a much better way kind of like the Xtal, and at a much better price point. Realistically they could probably do a 90 or 100 deg FOV and sacrifice a bit of PPD. I.e. 10-15% would get them the range to equal a reverb etc. and cost them 4-5 PPD. So 40 instead of 46 or whatnot as well, so we will have to see.

[Harlikwin]

I think FOV will come that will be very good, when they can get eye tracking/foveated rendering working together which should really help push it forward.

 

May be a while yet though.

Oculus was working toward that, however I fear they have changed direction and it is not so much on their radar currently.

Hopefully others will continue to push toward this .

 

I swear Foveated rendering is the "precious", but I don't think its gonna happen anytime soon. These guys can get 46PPD out of similar pixel counts as the reverb in a slightly smaller FOV. So I don't think performance is going to be an issue. Its all in the glass. And really the reverb is pretty good now, I'm pretty sure I'd be really happy with a 46 ppd given the reverb is in the low-mid 20's.

[Harlikwin]

From another game that requires Steam VR.

So I had Steam VR- Oculus Runtime - Rift S.

There is a third party App - Open Composite - for the Rift or Rift S. I changed from using Steam VR to Open Composite, and the performance went up significantly for me versus going Steam VR - Oculus. It is apparently a lean program. I would think if ED ever did offer native support for WMR, you guys might see similar results.

 

Plus I will admit I am biased, just not a big fan of Steam/Steam VR. Big reason I did not consider the Index.

 

Anyways back to topic - I will be following the progress from Vality for sure, that lean compact size looks pretty neat.

 

Honestly, I Think oculus and steam don't really play well together relative to WMR and steam. I was shocked that when going from CV1 to reverb, my performance went UP with the same settings. It seemed nuts, but I don't think there is an overhead issue. I was running PD 1.8 in the rift when I got my reverb. With 0 settings changes in DCS I tried the reverb, and it ran better than the rift, at PD 1.8... Think on that. I've since optimized a few things, but I get better frames in DCS with the reverb than the rift CV1. Think on that...

[Willie Nelson]

Well 2 points,

 

1. From what I read the clarity is across most of the FOV so a much wider sweet spot, which given a multi element optical path makes a lot of sense.

 

2. My thinking before I saw this was similar to yours. But, these guys are using using displays and optics in a much better way kind of like the Xtal, and at a much better price point. Realistically they could probably do a 90 or 100 deg FOV and sacrifice a bit of PPD. I.e. 10-15% would get them the range to equal a reverb etc. and cost them 4-5 PPD. So 40 instead of 46 or whatnot as well, so we will have to see.

 

1. Fair enough and good to hear.

 

2. You and I had a conversation about the Reverb before it was in widespread use related to the pushing power required for something like a Reverb, turns out you were better informed than I and indeed I’m very happy with performance despite the marginalised whingeing of “DCS not being optimised” nothings perfect but DCS and the Reverb Rock! I Would wonder about the GPU required to power the sort of headset you’re talking about, surely even a 100 degree FOV with that sort of PPD would be requiring SLI?

 

Great to see lots coming out over the medium term and lots of new toys coming out, if I wasn’t on a layover though I wouldn’t be talking about how much I love the Reverb, I’d just be flying with it! After I cook the dinner, take out the rubbish and put the kids to bed of course :D

[Harlikwin]

1. Fair enough and good to hear.

 

2. You and I had a conversation about the Reverb before it was in widespread use related to the pushing power required for something like a Reverb, turns out you were better informed than I and indeed I’m very happy with performance despite the marginalised whingeing of “DCS not being optimised” nothings perfect but DCS and the Reverb Rock! I Would wonder about the GPU required to power the sort of headset you’re talking about, surely even a 100 degree FOV with that sort of PPD would be requiring SLI?

 

Great to see lots coming out over the medium term and lots of new toys coming out, if I wasn’t on a layover though I wouldn’t be talking about how much I love the Reverb, I’d just be flying with it! After I cook the dinner, take out the rubbish and put the kids to bed of course :D

 

Actually, the interesting thing is it uses 2k displays just like the Reverb. So in theory, it should run just as well with a significantly higher PPD. We know from headsets like the Xtal or the VR1 that a good image isn't just about pixels. I never quite appreciated however what you could do with microdisplays (much higher pixel density on the display) that they are using. I mean it remains to be seen if they can pull it off with a reasonably affordable lens train. But it sounds like the production unit will have slightly higher res display panels, so 2.1-2.5k is my guess, and will cost in the 1-1.5k range.