Reverb G2 to Quest 3 is a no go

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

but it's not difficult to describe a way to conclusively demonstrate that you couldn't tell the difference in a very low frame rate and a very high one.

Oh absolutely you can. Or I can. Everyone is perhaps different in this regard. Some people see blue or gold dresses after all. Your own eyesight is vastly better than any screen so you’d always perceive anything short of real life vision quality. I assume since everyone has eyes they know what real life looks like this shouldn’t require explaining. 

14 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

There is nothing, at all, to guarantee that even at 100 FPS you will not have stutters

I don’t get stutters on my system. I have to imagine stuttering is a hardware problem. 

This is all really off topic for VR. I don’t think VR headsets have variable refresh rates. They do indeed need consistent high frame rates though, more so than monitors. 

[kksnowbear]

As I said, I was only replying to what someone else said.

You cannot see the difference in 1 frame per second and 100, you're confusing factors.  The proof is possible, but it requires separating frame rate from the perception of motion (which you continue to confuse).  PM me, we'll arrange a wager.

The confusion leads to exactly what you've now said: The perception that stuttering is always a hardware problem.  It's not; your imagination laid aside.

As I've said, no point in trying to explain this to someone who doesn't want to understand.

Back to the subject at hand.

Edited February 21 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

33 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

You cannot see the difference in 1 frame per second and 100, you're confusing factors.  The proof is possible, but it requires separating frame rate from the perception of motion (which you continue to confuse).

Anyone can see the difference between 5 and 50 FPS. You’re sorta hijacking the subject and trying to make it more confusing than it needs to be.
And this is really all off topic here.

[kksnowbear]

PM sent

Edited February 21 by kksnowbear

[Strong05]

Added my settings to the first post for the quest 3 and the G2.

Edited February 21 by Strong05

[Shanks]

I've just got a Quest 3 and found it a great alternative to the G2, I have found the edge-to-edge clarity adds to the immersion and I am able to get what looks and feels like G2 visuals to me.

The head tracking is miles better than the G2, I used to have the lights on full in the room and sometimes position in VR would jump around with the G2 when it lost tracking, Quest 3 I was flying and didn't realise my wife had turned the lights off and the headset didn't miss a beat.

I am also finding using the targeting pods easier with the quest 3 not sure why.

Overall happy with the change to the Quest 3, I had to play with all the settings to get the performance and visuals I am happy with, but that's what we sign up for with DCS VR.

Would recommend giving it a go if you are looking to change the G2, just buy a better head strap.

[hockey3761]

Just saw this thread. Concerned about my Reverb G2, and was debating on getting a new headset. The thought of losing the great clarity is a concern, don't want to sacrifice that, and don't want to spend more then $500 ish on a headset to at a minimum maintain the great clarity on any future headset  that I am currently getting on my G2

[Nedum]

On 2/19/2024 at 11:27 PM, Elphaba said:

Not only are the visuals sharper than the G2 (in fact so close to the Pimax Crystal that I also tried a month ago and returned because it was no where near worth the money) but there is literally no sweet spot. I don't have to move my head to read gauges one at a time, I can, like in real life, just move my eyes to see them and keep my head tracking the bandit.

In what physics-free world should this take place?
I myself have a G2, a Quest 3 and the Crystal here.
Would you please post your settings so that my Quest 3 gets a better picture quality than my G2 in the sweet spot?

What setting eliminates the Screen Door Effect of my Quest 3?
My G2 is currently clearly superior to the Quest 3 in the sweet spot (no SDE). But it must be amazing settings if it is even to come close to the image quality of my Crystal.
I would love to understand the physics behind how a device with significantly poorer values can almost outperform another device with significantly better values.
My tests have all shown the exact opposite of what you describe here.
I can't believe that you have ever experienced how good the picture quality of the Crystal is, otherwise you wouldn't have made this claim.

On 2/21/2024 at 3:57 AM, Elphaba said:

FFS are you really trying to argue with someone who has the G2, Quest 3 and tried the crystal for a month when you've done none of that?!

I own the Crystal Pimax and the Quest 3 and I have to say: "You are wrong!"

Do yourself a favor and leave it alone.

Edited February 24 by Nedum

[Nedum]

On 2/21/2024 at 1:28 PM, kksnowbear said:

Typically, what's taking place is someone wanted 'bragging rights' for the latest, most expensive hardware, but didn't want to admit that's really what they were after.  So, the way to justify throwing money at bragging rights is "I can see the difference in 45 and 60 FPS".

No, you can't, and it's actually easy enough to prove you can't see the difference between even 1 and 100 FPS.

Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they could identify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second.

Please explain.

And if we want to discuss this, use the term of Hz please. Humans can't really see "Frames".

https://www.reachcambridge.com/wp-content/uploads/How-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-see-.pdf

 

 

Edited February 24 by Nedum

[kksnowbear]

On 2/23/2024 at 10:19 PM, Nedum said:

Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they could identify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second.

Please explain.

And if we want to discuss this, use the term of Hz please. Humans can't really see "Frames".

https://www.reachcambridge.com/wp-content/uploads/How-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-see-.pdf

I'll gladly explain...but I got bitched at in this very thread for going "off topic", so I stopped posting.

Just to be sure I don't get attacked again, are you asking me to discuss my point further, as part of this discussion?

(Oh, BTW, spoiler alert: That article makes my point, precisely and succinctly.  It's there, you just haven't realized it.  In fact, I've never seen the article at all before now, but it does specifically and absolutely state exactly the point I'm making).

Hey, while we're on the subject of that article...about these "Air Force tests"; you know what they say online: "Link or it didn't happen".  So, please be good enough to provide at least some reference for this alleged Air Force testing.  Unfortunately, linking an article which mentions a test but has no link or reference itself doesn't count.

Incidentally, Hz stands for "cycles per second", in fact, and I don't believe that applies to a discussion concerning computer graphics frames rates.  Refresh rates are measure in hertz, not frame rates.

Edited February 25 by kksnowbear

[nikoel]

I believe your spicy hot take would have gotten a more receptive response had you used the term 'Frame Timing'.

This is one of the primary reasons VR overlays—be it fpsVR, OpenXR Toolkit, etc.—prioritize showing you frame-time graphs, with an FPS figure secondary. Frame delivery matters. Of course, this has its limits. If you're rendering at 100-250fps on a headset set to a refresh rate of 72Hz, it's highly unlikely you'll be impacted. But I digress

The FPS value has correlation with the smoothness of the experience through frametimes. For example, if your frame delivery consistently hits 75fps at 13.3ms on a 90Hz refresh rate, the experience won't be pleasant; you'll encounter screen tearing. This happened to me when I upgraded from a 3900X to a 5800X3D. My FPS jumped from 45 to approximately 65 (forgive me, I can't recall the exact number), and the experience was horrendous. I thought, "What the heck did I upgrade for?"

Because WMR only supported motion reprojection, I used Manual Reprojection, locking the game at 45fps in AMD Adrenaline. Because of the way AMD handles locking frame rates, this resulted in a consistent frame delivery of 22.2ms. This ensured the render of two identical frames for every two refresh cycles, resolving the issue at the cost of blurring fast-moving objects. This is particularly relevant for fast-moving objects, as you've pointed out

The best experience for a G2 at 90Hz would be a GPU/CPU frame graph that does not exceed 11.1ms—this means that the frames are consistently delivered at or within the refresh cycle.

Some people might be wondering right now, isn't this just a fancy way of saying 90FPS? Yes, but no! This is all because of frame time delivery!

An experience at 90FPS at a constant 11ms frame timing is night and day difference compared to 89 frames which are all delivered for half a second, and 1 frame for the other 500ms. But both average out to 90fps

An interesting fact: the reason we use 120Hz and 144Hz screens is that many movies are filmed at 24FPS, which helps avoid screen tearing.

Edited February 24 by nikoel