Quest Pro vs G2 Impressions - 4090/7950x3D

[DirtyMike0330]

I have been patiently waiting for something like the Crystal to come out and combine a larger FOV with Aero-like visual quality but I honestly was not (and am not) too keen on dealing with Pimax. I also did not want to buy the Aero again because, although it looks fantastic, it isn't a big enough step-up from my G2 to warrant that kind of price tag. Not to mention, in my first attempt with it, I had two units with dead pixels...

I randomly saw some videos on the Quest Pro and decided it couldn't hurt to go pick one up today and try it out. I would never use something like the Quest 2 (nothing against those that do) but I find the G2 to be superior to that particular VR for flight sims, in most ways. 

I was pleasantly SHOCKED by the Quest Pro experience today!! I honestly don't know why it has not gotten more exposure in the flight sim community...

PROS:

1. The edge to edge clarity: Absolutely fantastic. Sitting in the Hornet, I could clearly see my 3 DDIs and other screens without having to move my head. This is unheard of in the G2 because of the very small sweet spot. 

2. FOV: Better than the G2, vertically and horizontally. I did not feel like I was looking through binoculars and I could see so much more in the periphery and also while looking straight ahead. And with CLARITY. 

3. Experience: I never personally had a problem with WMR, but Oculus and Oculus Tool Tray was an absolute dream to use. Quickly copied another user's settings from this forum and it was plug and play with the Oculus Link cable. I also really enjoyed that I could manipulate my desktop from within the headset (with the G2, I was just squinting to see my desktop because I keep my monitor on my desk and my cockpit is separate and a little distance away). All of my sims and add-ons started right up, no muss no fuss. 

4. Performance: Still not going to get 90fps in DCS but the performance was definitely better than what I had with the G2. This is using the MT launcher with native OpenXR. I am touching 90 frequently airborne and, even sitting on the carrier, I would have bouts of 70-80 before ASW kicked in locked me in at 45. I am debating on switching ASW from auto to just on for DCS, but will have to play around with that a bit. With the G2, I just kept unlocked MR on always via OpenXR toolkit. 

CONS:

1. I am not a fan of the onboard audio, at all. I ended up just tossing my wireless Arctis Nova 7s over top and it was comfortable (plus I got to benefit from their sound quality). 

2. I don't like that, even with the link cable, some user's could run out of battery while playing. In my case, I am lucky enough that my motherboard's USB-C port basically kept the battery percentage stable while I was playing. 

3. Half-Con: I would have preferred a DisplayPort option and kept hearing people speculate about "compression" with the link cable, but I noticed nothing but smooth play and glorious visuals. So I don't know what else to say on that! 

 

So yeah, I am actually very, very surprised here. I was expecting a lot of things to be annoying enough that I would just return the QP after testing, but, in a plot twist, I will likely be putting the G2 up for sale in a few days of continued QP use. 

Having used the G2 for a long time and tried the Aero, I honestly believe the QP is currently the best of both. ESPECIALLY now that the price tag has significantly dropped and it is only 1k new. The edge to edge clarity gives me Aero vibes and, whether or not the paper specs say the G2 should be better or not, THE SIMS LOOK MILES BETTER THAN THE G2. It isn't even close! I don't know how else to articulate my delight at this point: the cockpits and environment look fantastic compared to the G2! 

I don't know what else to say here other than I am glad to have found an alternative to the Aero, price-wise, and that I will likely not have to suffer through whatever tragedy the Pimax Crystal launch will likely end up being. 

 

For anyone wondering, these are the settings I copied and I see no need to do further tinkering:

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by DirtyMike0330

[diamond26]

I’m a Quest2 user and I wondered if you have tried using upscaling (NIS) through OpenXR toolkit and resolution override instead of OTT super sampling. It works better in Q2 ( in my case) 

As an example I use 3020x3060 as override and 135% upscaling (OTT SS is at 0)

Also try Turbo mode on 

Interesting to hear your results 

Edited March 22, 2023 by diamond26

[Tepnox]

2 hours ago, diamond26 said:

I’m a Quest2 user and I wondered if you have tried using upscaling (NIS) through OpenXR toolkit and resolution override instead of OTT super sampling. It works better in Q2 ( in my case) 

As an example I use 3020x3060 as override and 135% upscaling (OTT SS is at 0)

Also try Turbo mode on 

Interesting to hear your results 

 

I tried this in OpenXR with NIS and FSR and my results were not that sharp. Best results I got was the native supersampling. I use CAS for 70% extra sharpening in my case. This is very subjective and can really depend on the headset itself. I also read that some G2 users were going the opposite way: using 300 % native resolution and shrink that down with FSR and a 60% setting. Many ways to test and tweak ;D

[diamond26]

11 minutes ago, Tepnox said:

I tried this in OpenXR with NIS and FSR and my results were not that sharp. Best results I got was the native supersampling. I use CAS for 70% extra sharpening in my case. This is very subjective and can really depend on the headset itself. I also read that some G2 users were going the opposite way: using 300 % native resolution and shrink that down with FSR and a 60% setting. Many ways to test and tweak ;D

when you say native what exactly you mean, because OTT supersampling is not native. My understanding is that native is only the one in Oculus app that ends up to 5408x2736. 

But yes all these testings are subjective  

[Tepnox]

57 minutes ago, diamond26 said:

when you say native what exactly you mean, because OTT supersampling is not native. My understanding is that native is only the one in Oculus app that ends up to 5408x2736. 

But yes all these testings are subjective  

Well it still is "native" rendering because OTT overwrites the Oculus settings itself. If you have 5408x2736 setting enabled in the Oculus Home Settings this is a 1.0 baseline (the current rendering is 2816x2896 per eye - I don't know if that is a typo on Oculus Home but the actual rendering is slightly higher than the setting itself with Quest Pro). If you use 1.15 in OTT you will get 3232*3328 per eye (baseline multiplied with 1.15).

You could also set 0.8 in OTT and get 2256*2320 per eye (baseline multiplied with 0.8).

I know the Quest Pro has "natively" 1800x1920 pixels per eye lenses. So Supersampling happens all the time even with the lowest Oculus Home settings.

So with OTT you do not add an additional layer, you simply overwrite the Oculus settings. The pixel setting in Oculus Home just defines the baseline and what is 1.0.

If you want a prove: just set a desired supersampling in OTT (for example 1.3):

Now you open the OculusDebugTool.exe (C:\Program Files\Oculus\Support\oculus-diagnostics) and will see the same setting mirrored in there:

So OTT just manipulates the Oculus settings itself.

If you set 0 in OTT you will get the baseline (=1.0) you defined in Oculus Home. This setting is also nice if you want to switch the pixel densitiy inside the game settings itself (when supported in that game).

I prefer fixed values in OTT and also using profiles for different VR games - matter of taste.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Tepnox

[skypickle]

7 hours ago, diamond26 said:

I’m a Quest2 user and I wondered if you have tried using upscaling (NIS) through OpenXR toolkit and resolution override instead of OTT super sampling. It works better in Q2 ( in my case) 

As an example I use 3020x3060 as override and 135% upscaling (OTT SS is at 0)

Also try Turbo mode on 

Interesting to hear your results 

 

I am thinking about buying a VR headset. What is OTT? What is ASW? And why would you want to do 'supersampling' to generate more pixels than the headset can display? Wouldnt that degrade FPS? Or maybe I am confusing supersampling with something else.

[diamond26]

1 minute ago, skypickle said:

I am thinking about buying a VR headset. What is OTT? What is ASW? And why would you want to do 'supersampling' to generate more pixels than the headset can display? Wouldnt that degrade FPS? Or maybe I am confusing supersampling with something else.

You better open a new thread to avoid derailing OP's thread on Quest Pro

[CybrSlydr]

Color me surprised. 

I have a G2 and was pondering what my next upgrade was going to be for a wider FOV and better edge to edge clarity.

Might have to "rent" one from BestBuy and see what you're talking about - though I do not like the idea of giving Facebook even more of my data.

EDIT:  The biggest hit on the G2 for me is that I have an OLED monitor and switching between the two, the difference is quite stark.  I wish I could get OLED quality picture in VR.

Edited March 23, 2023 by CybrSlydr

[GunSlingerOZ]

Thanks for the fantastic post, much appreciated. As a Reverb G2 owner, I find the reprojection artefacts to be terrible during A2A dogfights, so I only fly A2G in VR now. How does the Oculus compare to the G2 in this regard? Are there still ghost-like shadow blobs around nearby aircraft? 

[obious]

Just to add my 2 cents. I bought a QP just to test it out a month or so ago and was also blown away. I know the QP gets a lot of stick for being a Meta product but it really is a first rate product. 

[DirtyMike0330]

9 hours ago, CybrSlydr said:

Color me surprised. 

I have a G2 and was pondering what my next upgrade was going to be for a wider FOV and better edge to edge clarity.

Might have to "rent" one from BestBuy and see what you're talking about - though I do not like the idea of giving Facebook even more of my data.

EDIT:  The biggest hit on the G2 for me is that I have an OLED monitor and switching between the two, the difference is quite stark.  I wish I could get OLED quality picture in VR.

 

Caught me off guard too! I was initially planning on "renting" it too but my G2 is officially up for sale at this point! The good news is that you can sign-up now without your Facebook credentials. I'm sure they will still get your data in other ways though  I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the night and day difference in quality between the QP and the G2 in visuals if you give it a look. 

[DirtyMike0330]

4 hours ago, GunSlingerOZ said:

Thanks for the fantastic post, much appreciated. As a Reverb G2 owner, I find the reprojection artefacts to be terrible during A2A dogfights, so I only fly A2G in VR now. How does the Oculus compare to the G2 in this regard? Are there still ghost-like shadow blobs around nearby aircraft? 

Some of this may be system-spec dependent, but with my PC, I'm not having any kind of noticeable artifacts with the Oculus ASW. It works great. Just a visual upgrade in every way compared to the G2. I know what you are referring to with the G2 and I'll say that when flying in formations and unauthorized acrobatics with my squad mates, things remained smooth and blob-free. Also, using IL-2 as an example, my spotting has drastically improved. With the G2 I could see planes out a distance but they were hard to ID sometimes in any way other than shape, but the QP has significantly cleared this up and I can see a lot more detail in enemy planes a lot sooner than I was able to before. This is similar to the experience I had when I tried the Varjo Aero. I am basically considering the QP like an Aero-Light at this point, especially at half the cost (more than that if you don't have the necessary lighthouses/audio solution). 

[CptBligh]

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how higher FOV and lower resolution is giving better clarity.  Maybe the displays are just that much better otherwise?

signed,

Former Oculus Rift and current HP G1 wearer

[jurinko]

7 hours ago, GunSlingerOZ said:

Thanks for the fantastic post, much appreciated. As a Reverb G2 owner, I find the reprojection artefacts to be terrible during A2A dogfights, so I only fly A2G in VR now. How does the Oculus compare to the G2 in this regard? Are there still ghost-like shadow blobs around nearby aircraft? 

bit OT, but you can run DCS in OpenXR with SteamVR reprojection where the artifacts are almost none. 

[DirtyMike0330]

2 hours ago, CptBligh said:

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how higher FOV and lower resolution is giving better clarity.  Maybe the displays are just that much better otherwise?

signed,

Former Oculus Rift and current HP G1 wearer

I believe it boils down to pancake lenses vs Fresnel lenses. 

[actually_fred]

> I believe it boils down to pancake lenses vs Fresnel lenses. 

Pancakes get the edge-to-edge, though quality of materials and design is still a huge variable both for the lenses and the optical stack overall; for the quest pro, they're great, but there are other headsets with pancake lenses which are a huge step down in visual quality compared to good fresnel headsets

Edited April 2, 2023 by actually_fred

[ismaeljorda]

A couple a days ago my friend Jorge 'Maniac' invited me to test his META QUEST PRO in DCS to compare with my VARJO AERO. These are my first impressions. English subtitles available.
 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by ismaeljorda

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

On 3/21/2023 at 11:11 PM, DirtyMike0330 said:

I honestly don't know why it has not gotten more exposure in the flight sim community

1. Price! Even at £990.00 (over Amazon from time to time), I cannot shell this amount out

2. It is Meta, some may have negative impression on this company,

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

On 3/21/2023 at 11:11 PM, DirtyMike0330 said:

3. Half-Con: I would have preferred a DisplayPort option and kept hearing people speculate about "compression" with the link cable, but I noticed nothing but smooth play and glorious visuals. So I don't know what else to say on that! 

Well, it is better than using a LAN cable or WiFi (you know which headset I was talking here)

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

1 hour ago, ismaeljorda said:

A couple a days ago my friend Jorge 'Maniac' invited me to test his META QUEST PRO in DCS to compare with my VARJO AERO. These are my first impressions. English subtitles available.
 

 

 

Need QP footages!!!

[ismaeljorda]

hace 30 minutos, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants dijo:

Need QP footages!!!

Sorry! I couldn't record anything with the QUEST PRO since I was at my friend's house. The video is just to illustrate the narrative of my experience. But don't worry, when my own QUEST PRO arrive I'll make videos with it and a much more in-depth review.

[jparker36]

On 3/23/2023 at 7:57 AM, CptBligh said:

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how higher FOV and lower resolution is giving better clarity.  Maybe the displays are just that much better otherwise?

signed,

Former Oculus Rift and current HP G1 wearer

The reverb is sharper in the sweet spot, 100%. The difference and what people mean by clarity, is that I can be looking directly through the HUD on a jet, and without moving my head glace to my instruments/MFD and read them at exactly the same resolution/clarity as the HUD. The resolution/sharpness isn't G2 sweet spot level, maybe 85% of it, but its across my entire FOV. The G2, to read the instruments or MFD at all I'd have to move my head to center it in the sweet spot. I did get used to doing that so was fairly indifferent, but when I tried the quest pro, I couldn't go back. 72fps native also gave a FPS boost vs trying to keep 90 native on the G2. So I got to turn up the settings, use my eyes more naturally, better color reproduction, local dimming, all in exchange for some loss in peak clarity. To me, well worth it. 

[dburne]

In respect to the comments on the Aero he made earlier, I find the sweet spot to be much larger than he did - I would say 95% of my lenses have excellent clarity. I would certainly be curious to try Quest Pro just to see how it compares to my Aero especially reading all his other comments- but no way am I spending that much on a Meta product. Plus with the Aero I have the beauty now of using Dynamic Foveated Rendering with Eye Tracking and it works fantastic.

[unlikely_spider]

24 minutes ago, jparker36 said:

The reverb is sharper in the sweet spot, 100%. The difference and what people mean by clarity, is that I can be looking directly through the HUD on a jet, and without moving my head glace to my instruments/MFD and read them at exactly the same resolution/clarity as the HUD. The resolution/sharpness isn't G2 sweet spot level, maybe 85% of it, but its across my entire FOV. The G2, to read the instruments or MFD at all I'd have to move my head to center it in the sweet spot. I did get used to doing that so was fairly indifferent, but when I tried the quest pro, I couldn't go back. 72fps native also gave a FPS boost vs trying to keep 90 native on the G2. So I got to turn up the settings, use my eyes more naturally, better color reproduction, local dimming, all in exchange for some loss in peak clarity. To me, well worth it. 

Oh I shouldn't have read this! The last thing I need is to buy another headset!

[ismaeljorda]

I was very happy with the performance of the Varjo Aero with MT and DFR but after testing the extreme smoothness of the QUEST PRO I am not so satisfied anymore. That's why after trying them at my friend's house I decided to buy a unit for myself and try them much more in depth. As I said, the Varjo Aero is unbeatable in image quality, not in vain it has panels of approx. 1000px more per side, but the smoothness of the Quest Pro in DCS is something else. I hope VARJO improves MOTION REPROJECTION, fixes the red/blue shift and ghosting issues to match the Meta experience but with infinitely better panels. Because in that, Varjo continues to be unbeatable.

I didn't think I'd be so impressed after trying the Pro coming from using the Varjo Aero for a year and a half. But I am. Looking forward to receive my Quest Pro to continue testing.

Edited April 29, 2023 by ismaeljorda