Best headset for Refresh rate, FOV, and tracking

[guitarxe]

Hi All, I was hoping you could help me make an informed decision. This will be my first time trying VR as I now have a computer system that can probably handle it (i9-11900k, 4070ti). Since I am not experience in VR I can't rightfully claim what is more important for VR, and will have to rely on your guidance. However, I am that kind of gamer that still uses a 1080p monitor, but with a very high refresh rate. For me, that makes a huge huge difference, and I am guessing for VR that having high FPS running on high refresh would be even more important.

All that said, after doing a bunch of research, it seems to me that the Valve Index is going to be the best option. It has good FOV, the headset itself is supposedly highly adjustable and good quality, and it has adjustable refresh rate that can go pretty high. The only down side is the lower resolution compared to other VR headsets, but correct me if I'm wrong that the two 1440x1600 eyepieces combined together provide a comparable image quality to a 1080p monitor, do they not? That would mean that it should help to hit higher FPS rates at those resolutions.

I am not too stressed about the lower resolution image quality because I have never gamed on anything higher than 1080p myself, but I am worried about being able to read labels/MFDs in the cockpit if the resolution proves to be a little too grainy. Truth be told, I often have to zoom in now to read fine details on my current monitor anyway, so if there is a zoom option available in VR I figure that I should be fine, but I would love to hear what others have experienced and how it felt for them.

I wasn't able to find a lot of topics in this forum regarding the Index so I wasn't able to research answers to these kind of questions, but I'm also a little concerned whether it's not a popular option for DCS because of something I'm missing.

[speed-of-heat]

So many assumptions...

As a rule of thumb, at any given setting and resolution  frame rate in 2d, will drive the equiviliant of 1/3 the FPS you get in 2d in VR...

So if you get 180fps in 2d you will get about 60 in VR for the same number of pixels at the same settings.

 

[guitarxe]

All the more reason that a lower resolution in the VR headset would achieve higher frame rates, is it not?

[LucShep]

Forget high refresh and framerates in VR for DCS.

The way things work are completely different in VR... it's far more intensive on hardware resources, you also reach the limitations of DCS itself far sooner (it's not all a matter of hardware muscle). Some things work better or not depending on the PC, the headset, and the user (perception and sensibilities to motion, stutters and framerate are key).

For now, one thing I know is for certain - regardless of whatever headset one gets, and no matter how good one may think his/her system can be, you'll be forced to either:

1.  Run the game in motion-reprojection (usually half framerate lock of the selected refresh with motion smoothing) to achieve good visual settings.
2.  Or you go hunt for those practically impossible high framerates, but at absolutely horrible "minecraft levels" of detail.

Which means that, if you're getting a headset with higher refresh-rate specifically for DCS and flight-sims, that choice won't necessarily work (my opinion is it won't at all).
Resolution over framerate in DCS VR works better, and is more important (IMO) because you really need the visual clarity along with the smooth experience that isn't necessarily only exhistent at ultra high framerates (again, completely different to 2D).

The Valve Index is still a great headset, but for this particular use case I'd rather get the HP Reverb G2. For sure a better choice for seated games/sims like DCS.
Maybe wait just a bit more (September/October) for the upcoming Meta Quest 3, see how the reviews and first user impressions here are.

VR will never perform as good as in 2D, compromises have to be made for the best experience (be ready for it).
But then it's all worth it, DCS in VR is amazing! 
 

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by LucShep
added video to illustrate point

[diego999]

Quote

I now have a computer system that can probably handle it (i9-11900k, 4070ti)

Yes. Your rig can handle VR, just not with max settings.

Quote

I can't rightfully claim what is more important for VR, and will have to rely on your guidance. However, I am that kind of gamer that still uses a 1080p monitor, but with a very high refresh rate. For me, that makes a huge huge difference, and I am guessing for VR that having high FPS running on high refresh would be even more important.

Consistency is the key in VR. Steady 45fps are always better than, let's say, 72 but jumping all over the place. The effects can go from mild discomfort to vomiting over your keyboard. Everyone is different, you just need to find the settings your brain prefers. I can play no problem with interpolated frames at 36 "real" fps, but for other people that is unacceptable.

Quote

correct me if I'm wrong that the two 1440x1600 eyepieces combined together provide a comparable image quality to a 1080p monitor, do they not? That would mean that it should help to hit higher FPS rates at those resolutions.

Yeah, but no. You're sitting one meter away from your monitor, and when using your VR googles the screen is 2cm away from your eyes. I have a Quest 2 and while it has almost 1.5x the pixels of my 1080p monitor, the perceived quality is a lot less because it's almost glued to my eyes.

Quote

I am worried about being able to read labels/MFDs in the cockpit

I can read labels and instruments no problem, Quest 2 has 1,832×1,920 per eye (take that with a grain of salt). Index has a lower resolution, so I can't really answer. But in my non-expert opinion, you should go for a better headset. Your rig can handle it.

EDIT: forgot to add, the only tricky instrument to read in VR for me is the Mirage F1's HUD (tiny numbers). But there are mods for that.

Quest 3 comes next month. I'd wait to see what it offers.

Edited August 16, 2023 by diego999

[Rodeo]

To me the most important thing I looked for in VR headset is instrument clarity. I will admit I am a total unapologetic spoiled VR snob having owned first a Pimax 8kx and now thankfully a Varjo Aero. I completely understand the expense I’ve spent to chase the VR dream so @guitarxe I would heed the advice of the phenomenal VR members here that recommend the best headset for instrument clarity in whatever price range you are looking at.  Being able to easily read and understand your instruments, gauges, HUD and such is much more important and enjoyable than the “clarity” of a building or terrain IMHO. With that said  welcome to the Dark Side and we are happy you want to join VR flying.  

[Qcumber]

If money is no issue I would go for a headset with eye tracking. Dynamic foveated rendering seems to make a big difference on GPU load. See the Foveated Rendering thread on this forum.

If £1000 plus is too much, go for a cheap option such as the Q2 (£300) or Pico 4 (£330), or wait for the Q3 (at £500, not as cheap). These will run Quad View Foveated Rendering but in fixed mode. With a 4070ti you will be able to get good quality at 45 fps reprojected or even 72 fps without space warp in some maps/modules. Bear in mind that whatever headset you get, you will need to spend quite a lot of time working out which combination of settings work for you and which extra bits of software (e.g. Openxr toolkit etc.) are needed for your best experience.

Edit: forgot to say, consider a second hand rift s which are very cheap. I've kept my old one and am still surprised at the performance. Instrument clarity is good if you increase resolution to about 150%. Distant objects are not as clear as a Pico 4 and you can see the "screen door". But it has a DP and good latencies. With a 4070ti it will run very well with a lot of settings maxed out. A good entry to VR. I tested it again yesterday with settings maxed out including extreme landscape. It maintained 40 fps (80 reprojected) on all situations I except f14 low over Marianas islands when it dropped to about 35 fps with noticable stutter. No issues over Cairo. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Qcumber

[autracer]

If money is no issue I would go for a headset with eye tracking. Dynamic foveated rendering seems to make a big difference on GPU load. See the Foveated Rendering thread on this forum.
If £1000 plus is too much, go for a cheap option such as the Q2 (£300) or Pico 4 (£330), or wait for the Q3 (at £500, not as cheap). These will run Quad View Foveated Rendering but in fixed mode. With a 4070ti you will be able to get good quality at 45 fps reprojected or even 72 fps without space warp in some maps/modules. Bear in mind that whatever headset you get, you will need to spend quite a lot of time working out which combination of settings work for you and which extra bits of software (e.g. Openxr toolkit etc.) are needed for your best experience.
Edit: forgot to say, consider a second hand rift s which are very cheap. I've kept my old one and am still surprised at the performance. Instrument clarity is good if you increase resolution to about 150%. Distant objects are not as clear as a Pico 4 and you can see the "screen door". But it has a DP and good latencies. With a 4070ti it will run very well with a lot of settings maxed out. A good entry to VR. I tested it again yesterday with settings maxed out including extreme landscape. It maintained 40 fps (80 reprojected) on all situations I except f14 low over Marianas islands when it dropped to about 35 fps with noticable stutter. No issues over Cairo. 

I have Meta Quest Pro.( link cable) Without any tools, i run DCS with most Settings on high, with max Resolution @72 hz.
7950x3d / 4080 / 64 GB RAM.
Im happy with that. Only with AH64 there are some stutters. So i reduced Gras to 0 schadows to flat. Thats it for men

Gesendet von meinem SM-G980F mit Tapatalk

[WipeUout]

Your ideal VR solution will be personal and tailored to what you can afford.  There is no standard here and if I can give you only one piece of advice : try it before if you can!

As I wrote a few times before, the VR proposition is to sacrifice quality of visuals for immersion.  In VR you are not looking at the simulation anymore, you are in the simulation.  

I will try to give you my take (very biased) on the features you mentioned in your title:

Refresh rate:  There are HMDs out there that have all kind of refresh rates up to 180hz with the pimax 5k super (possible but with lowest FOV setting only).  Some people can sim at 60hz, most prefer to have 90hz which is the sweet spot I would ague.  Having the ability to switch refresh rate is interesting to allow different settings depending on the map you use for example.  With lower refresh rate you can have more details or resolution or tackle busy scenarios.  A setting that is used in VR to cope with low FPS is re-projection.  This is great to ensure a smooth video but at the expense of artefacts and ghosting, which is not tolerable for everyone.  If you can try it before hand, it will be an important factor in your decision.  

FOV:  Here the Pimax 8k and 5k offer the widest.  For my personal taste, FOV is a critical element of the immersion experience.  I've tried the Index, Oculus 2, Reverb G1 and G2 and Varjo and would never switch to anything on the market now for my 8kX.  Nevertheless, a lower FOV will still give you a huge difference in immersion over 2D flying, and is also less demanding on your hardware.

Tracking:  There are basically two possibilities here, inside or outside tracking.  In other words, tracking performed internally by the HMD or through external means such as the ''lighthouse''.  The most accurate and stable tracking way is the outside but it cost more as you need extra hardware (1 or 2 lighthouses).  that is not to say the inside tracking can't be good, there are HMD that are pretty good at this also.

good luck!

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by WipeUout
Typo