Quest Pro vs G2 Impressions - 4090/7950x3D

[slughead]

8 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

I’m sorely tempted by the QP, may I ask a question or two?

Im happy with how the G2 looks in the cockpit, it’s the view out the window that seems to lack clarity. Does the QP look better in this regard?

From what I’ve read here it seems performance is better than the G2 (MSAA x4 with my G2 is a no no) is this the case even if you bump up the PD to match the clarity of the G2?

Has anyone gone from G2 to QP and not been happy (After maximum tinkering)? It all sounds like an upgrade to me though I’m a little concerned I’ll be disappointed if it’s a noticeable drop in clarity.

I was going to get a new HOTAS as my next DCS cash dump, but this thread makes me think I’ll hang onto my Warthog for a bit longer and get a QP instead.

 

It’s far better in my opinion. Far less shimmering. Better colour. Edge-to-edge clarity so you can look with your eyes and not your head.

HOTAS… I am still using my Thrustmaster Cougar throttle combined with Warthog stick. I also have the warthog throttle for A-10 and F-18 flights. The Cougar throttle (I still have the original stick somewhere) I bought when they were first produced and the Warthog also when they were first produced. I had thought about replacing with a Winwing just to get the idle-cut-off and afterburner detects but just can’t convince myself that they are worth it especially as my Cougar throttle is running so sweet with the modifications I have made to it.

[Cytarabine]

It’s far better in my opinion. Far less shimmering. Better colour. Edge-to-edge clarity so you can look with your eyes and not your head.
HOTAS… I am still using my Thrustmaster Cougar throttle combined with Warthog stick. I also have the warthog throttle for A-10 and F-18 flights. The Cougar throttle (I still have the original stick somewhere) I bought when they were first produced and the Warthog also when they were first produced. I had thought about replacing with a Winwing just to get the idle-cut-off and afterburner detects but just can’t convince myself that they are worth it especially as my Cougar throttle is running so sweet with the modifications I have made to it.

I replaced my warthog throttle with a winwing Orion 2 recently and while it’s a nice upgrade, it doesn’t really compare to the difference the QP makes over the Reverb G2. It might be worth waiting to see what Meta announce at the upcoming event, the Q3 might be most of the feature set for a more reasonable price, particularly as some of the features (like DFR) which might not make it to a consumer level headset don’t work in DCS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slughead]

I do wonder what’s the point in DFR for an edge-to-edge clarity HMD. Why would you wan to degrade the visuals? The only reason I can think of is that if you have a system that’s not powerful enough to run at high settings then DFR/FR can help a little. But it is a huge compromise for a HMD like the QP in my opinion.

I think Meta’s reason for eye tracking is really aimed at making their avatars as lifelike as they can for interaction with other people. Working or interacting with other people as avatars is a big part of Meta’s vision of VR. To begin with I thought the meta verse in this regard was a bit of a joke. But recently I can see some uses for it. For example, people who jam online together, complete strangers, could do so in the future with the pass-through or virtual home features and see their counterparts in a virtual rehearsal room or stage. Facial expressions and eye movements would make a huge step forward when interacting with others.

[TZeer]

@nikoel Thank you for your reply.

I have as you, been lucky to enjoy DCS on the G2 with 60Hz without much issues.

I also had the FPS tuned to 45 FPS with G2 @  90 Hz a while back by locking the framerate. It was very good, but after an update something happend and the smoothnes went away. No matter how much I tweaked and tuned I was not able to get the enjoyable smooth framerates to come back. After that I have been running @ 60 Hz.

Do you find the Quest Pro easier to run compared to G2? A little bit of ghosting looking to the sides should not bother me much. But any sort of "stutter" or "jumping" frames looking to the sides is what annoys me.

But from what I understand the headset would give me what I'm looking for, and still have more room for improvement when better cards come out. Would I be correct in my assumptions then?

 

Regards

[TZeer]

54 minutes ago, slughead said:

I do wonder what’s the point in DFR for an edge-to-edge clarity HMD. Why would you wan to degrade the visuals? The only reason I can think of is that if you have a system that’s not powerful enough to run at high settings then DFR/FR can help a little. But it is a huge compromise for a HMD like the QP in my opinion.

I think Meta’s reason for eye tracking is really aimed at making their avatars as lifelike as they can for interaction with other people. Working or interacting with other people as avatars is a big part of Meta’s vision of VR. To begin with I thought the meta verse in this regard was a bit of a joke. But recently I can see some uses for it. For example, people who jam online together, complete strangers, could do so in the future with the pass-through or virtual home features and see their counterparts in a virtual rehearsal room or stage. Facial expressions and eye movements would make a huge step forward when interacting with others.

Even if you have edge-to-edge clarity, your eyes can't focus on the entire panel et the same time. So in short you are wasting resources pushing pixels where your eyes are not focusing.

You are not degrading any visuals. You are simply focusing on the highest possible detail where your eyes are looking, while the rest of the picture where you are not focusing is rendered in a slightly lower resolution. Correctly set up, you should not see much difference. But the hardware would have a much easier task.

You would still have edge-to-edge clarity, as the focuspoint would move where your eyes would look. It's one of the reason some people on the Varjo Aero are able to puch 90 FPS in certain scenarios with a 4090.

[dburne]

5 minutes ago, TZeer said:

Even if you have edge-to-edge clarity, your eyes can't focus on the entire panel et the same time. So in short you are wasting resources pushing pixels where your eyes are not focusing.

You are not degrading any visuals. You are simply focusing on the highest possible detail where your eyes are looking, while the rest of the picture where you are not focusing is rendered in a slightly lower resolution. Correctly set up, you should not see much difference. But the hardware would have a much easier task.

You would still have edge-to-edge clarity, as the focuspoint would move where your eyes would look. It's one of the reason some people on the Varjo Aero are able to puch 90 FPS in certain scenarios with a 4090.

 

 You nailed it, that has been my experience with DFR and eye tracking with my Aero. Really pumped my performance and can not tell any difference in image. 

[slughead]

17 minutes ago, TZeer said:

Even if you have edge-to-edge clarity, your eyes can't focus on the entire panel et the same time. So in short you are wasting resources pushing pixels where your eyes are not focusing.

You are not degrading any visuals. You are simply focusing on the highest possible detail where your eyes are looking, while the rest of the picture where you are not focusing is rendered in a slightly lower resolution. Correctly set up, you should not see much difference. But the hardware would have a much easier task.

You would still have edge-to-edge clarity, as the focuspoint would move where your eyes would look. It's one of the reason some people on the Varjo Aero are able to puch 90 FPS in certain scenarios with a 4090.

Thanks for the different perspective.

[nikoel]

40 minutes ago, TZeer said:

@nikoel Thank you for your reply.

I have as you, been lucky to enjoy DCS on the G2 with 60Hz without much issues.

I also had the FPS tuned to 45 FPS with G2 @  90 Hz a while back by locking the framerate. It was very good, but after an update something happend and the smoothnes went away. No matter how much I tweaked and tuned I was not able to get the enjoyable smooth framerates to come back. After that I have been running @ 60 Hz.

Do you find the Quest Pro easier to run compared to G2? A little bit of ghosting looking to the sides should not bother me much. But any sort of "stutter" or "jumping" frames looking to the sides is what annoys me.

But from what I understand the headset would give me what I'm looking for, and still have more room for improvement when better cards come out. Would I be correct in my assumptions then?

 

Regards

Hey Mate

I have had the same instance happen to me when I was rocking the G2. I somehow got the smoothness back when I re-installed OpenComposite and OpenXR for the 3rd time and tweaked some settings at random. Either way,. the 45 lock in the Quest Pro is smoother and better than the WMR was for me when it was at it's best. There is no stutter, only blur during high merges

Yes the Quest Pro is fair amount easier to run. You're not going to gain say a generation of performance, so check your expectations - but a series one is reasonable to expect (by that I mean like a jump from 3080 to a 3090) to give you a quick off-the-cuff perception difference

The killer feature is the 72hz mode. So when we do upgrade we will be able to hold 72FPS+ with MSAAx2/x4 - this means I can skip this <profanity>ty generation of GPU's from all three companies

Edited May 21, 2023 by nikoel

[Dentedend10]

I also have to add that the tracking is way better than G2. My room is not the best lit and anytime I turned to arm the ejection seat in the F14 the G2 tracking would get lost. The QP tracks beautifully all around, in case that’s a consideration for you. 
I still haven’t been able to get my second controller show up in DCS though, waiting for help on that. 
with the resolution turned up on QP I think finally I can say goodbye to the G2

[Sile]

Do you guys run the QPro with openXR and DCS Multithreading Client?

Or asked the other way around: Is it still possible to use Oculus API in DCS-MT? Or is DCS-MT exclusively supporting OpenXR?

I lost track somehow.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Yes, this is why I dump Pico4 and go back to the infamous Meta

[slughead]

1 hour ago, Sile said:

Do you guys run the QPro with openXR and DCS Multithreading Client?

Or asked the other way around: Is it still possible to use Oculus API in DCS-MT? Or is DCS-MT exclusively supporting OpenXR?

I lost track somehow.

You can do both.

[diamond26]

1 hour ago, Sile said:

DCS-MT exclusively supporting OpenXR?

To my experience this is the case. No OpenVR for MT

1 minute ago, slughead said:

You can do both.

How do you run OpenVR with MT?

[slughead]

1 hour ago, Dentedend10 said:

 

I also have to add that the tracking is way better than G2.

 

I concur. I’ve used the QP with very low light levels and not lost tracking.

[slughead]

3 minutes ago, diamond26 said:

To my experience this is the case. No OpenVR for MT

How do you run OpenVR with MT?

I haven't. @Sile asked if you could run DCS Multithreading Client with OpenXR or Oculus API. Both are possible using or not using the --force_OpenXR command line option. I think the Oculus API is OpenXR compliant (to a degree).

[diamond26]

2 minutes ago, slughead said:

I haven't. @Sile asked if you could run DCS Multithreading Client with OpenXR or Oculus API. Both are possible using or not using the --force_OpenXR command line option. I think the Oculus API is OpenXR compliant (to a degree).

Unfortunately as I am using MT, OpenVR ( or native Oculus API) is not compatible with MT. With or without command line, MT runs OpenXR, which of course is fine for Meta Quest headset but is limiting the options.

[slughead]

3 minutes ago, diamond26 said:

Unfortunately as I am using MT, OpenVR ( or native Oculus API) is not compatible with MT. With or without command line, MT runs OpenXR, which of course is fine for Meta Quest headset but is limiting the options.

I am using MT too and I can run with or without the command line option that forces openXR. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning openVR - that wasn't the question. In the Oculus settings, when you set Oculus as the active runtime it uses openXR. Am I missing something?null

[Sile]

Thank you. @slughead

@diamond26I didn't ask about OpenVR. That's not supported in MT, i think. But there is or was also the Oculus API which i thought might (still) work. See the picture I copied over from fred emmotts homepage (fredemmott.com). Marked the two paths in yellow.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Sile

[slughead]

4 minutes ago, Sile said:

Thank you. @slughead

@diamond26I didn't ask about OpenVR. That's not supported in MT, i think. But i there is or was also the Oculus API which i thought might (still) work. See the picture I copied over from fred emmotts homepage (fredemmott.com) Marked the two paths in yellow.

 

Yes openXR and Oculus API work with MT and… OpenXR Toolkit.

[Sile]

Ok finally I had some time to test it. DCS starts with or without command line argument. (--force_OpenXR)

How can i tell DCS uses Oculus API when starting without it?
I suspect it starts in OpenXR mode regardless of the command line argument. Yes OpenXR Toolkit works with both ways.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Sile

[slughead]

3 minutes ago, Sile said:

Ok finally I had some time to test it. DCS starts with or without command line argument. (--force_OpenXR)

How can i tell DCS uses Oculus API when starting without it?
I suspect it starts in OpenXR mode regardless of the command line argument. Yes OpenXR Toolkit works with both ways.

 

Check the DCS logs? There is a pinned thread about native openXR support in DCS that mentions native support for certain devices and that DCS looks for those first.

[diamond26]

Things are very simple. Try to run MT without or with any argument you prefer, if you see in DCS.log anything other than OpenXR then you have your answer.

By OpenVR I mean the Oculus native API. In ST regardless of having Oculus running as the OpenXR runtime you can have either Oculus native API when you don’t have any arguments or OpenXR if you use the OpenXR argument. In MT you can’t have this option.

[Dentedend10]

19 minutes ago, Sile said:

Ok finally I had some time to test it. DCS starts with or without command line argument. (--force_OpenXR)

How can i tell DCS uses Oculus API when starting without it?
I suspect it starts in OpenXR mode regardless of the command line argument. Yes OpenXR Toolkit works with both ways.

 

If you run MT, it's running OpenXR. If you run ST without command line, Oculus API is running - I know it because I cannot open OpenXR toolkit and my second QP controller shows up. If I run ST version with command line, OpenXR is running - I know it as I can open up the toolkit and my second hand controller isn't working.

This also shows the second hand controller isn't working because of the OpenXR API

58 minutes ago, slughead said:

Yes openXR and Oculus API work with MT and… OpenXR Toolkit.

I believe MT forces OpenXR - my second controller isn't working because of that. If Oculus API was running then my controller would show up - I think

[Sile]

Thank you. No things are not simple (for me). Especially in VR and coming from the WMR side.

With and without command line argument i get in MT:
"VISUALIZER (Main): LAUNCH IN VR OpenXR: Meta Quest Pro"

I suspect MT is running OpenXR regardless of command line argument. And the chain is different for MT and ST. 

The sticky post isn't up to date for the MT client:
"DCS has a chain of VR vendors in priority oculus, OpenVR, Varjo, etc. OpenXR was in that chain in top priority, now it is removed from this chain and only available when you explicitly specify it in command line of DCS." 

This changed after the MT Update, where OpenXR got the default for MT.

[Dentedend10]

1 minute ago, Sile said:

Thank you. No things are not simple (for me). Especially in VR and coming from the WMR side.

With and without command line argument i get in MT:
"VISUALIZER (Main): LAUNCH IN VR OpenXR: Meta Quest Pro"

I suspect MT is running OpenXR regardless of command line argument. And the chain is different for MT and ST. 

The sticky post isn't up to date for the MT client:
"DCS has a chain of VR vendors in priority oculus, OpenVR, Varjo, etc. OpenXR was in that chain in top priority, now it is removed from this chain and only available when you explicitly specify it in command line of DCS." 

This changed after the MT Update, where OpenXR got the default for MT.

Do you btw use the controllers? Are they working for you in MT?