Pimax Crystal Core and Pro

[VirusAM]

These leaks seem very interesting.
Let's hope for a < 1000€ PCVR only headset.
Basically a Pax Crystal without the battery and the XR2 chip.
It should be lighter and cheaper
 

 

Edited April 8, 2024 by VirusAM

[shrimpy_dikdik]

I've been on the fence for a while about upgrading from my G2 to a Crystal and one of the things holding me back was the additional standalone stuff that I would never need, paying for it with both additional cost and weight.

 

So the news of this core version has interested me. It depends on how much stripped back it is, I would give it a pass if (probably unlikely) they also removed the eye tracking. The removal of the battery is of course a good thing but wouldn't that influence the comfort? Maybe requiring an additional counter weight instead? But a pcvr only Crystal for say €1000-€1200? I'd take that. 

 

Also read that some users face audio issues and that should be removed in a core version as the audio will not be handled by the snapdragon processor which caused latency. 

[VirusAM]

2 hours ago, shrimpy_dikdik said:

I've been on the fence for a while about upgrading from my G2 to a Crystal and one of the things holding me back was the additional standalone stuff that I would never need, paying for it with both additional cost and weight.

 

So the news of this core version has interested me. It depends on how much stripped back it is, I would give it a pass if (probably unlikely) they also removed the eye tracking. The removal of the battery is of course a good thing but wouldn't that influence the comfort? Maybe requiring an additional counter weight instead? But a pcvr only Crystal for say €1000-€1200? I'd take that. 

 

Also read that some users face audio issues and that should be removed in a core version as the audio will not be handled by the snapdragon processor which caused latency. 

Yeah, for me just a Crystal without the mobile part, but with everything else in place (eye-tracking and display port) would be the to go headset depending on the price.

We really need a 5/600$/Euros range dedicated PCVR headset.

[Shortcut]

Just my luck the return window on my Crystal ended last week. I wonder if they are going to keep the Crystal as a middle headset or drop it. I'm thinking the 12K is going to be over 2K.

[72Stu]

It should be an interesting year with the Somnium VR1 seeing big improvements and close to launch too.

[Shortcut]

From what I'm seeing the Somnium VR1 is going to be over 2k and most likely will need a 4090 - 5090 to run it the 12K will most likely need the same.

Edited April 11, 2024 by Shortcut

[Peedee]

On 4/9/2024 at 7:00 AM, shrimpy_dikdik said:

I've been on the fence for a while about upgrading from my G2 to a Crystal and one of the things holding me back was the additional standalone stuff that I would never need, paying for it with both additional cost and weight.

 

So the news of this core version has interested me. It depends on how much stripped back it is, I would give it a pass if (probably unlikely) they also removed the eye tracking. The removal of the battery is of course a good thing but wouldn't that influence the comfort? Maybe requiring an additional counter weight instead? But a pcvr only Crystal for say €1000-€1200? I'd take that. 

 

Also read that some users face audio issues and that should be removed in a core version as the audio will not be handled by the snapdragon processor which caused latency. 

Pimax Crystal Light was announced today!

- a Crystal with no stand alone features, pure PCVR solution with DisplayPort cable. No batteries of course.

- 250g less weight in the front. 60g less in the back. Great!
- New kind of headstrap, looks nice actually.
- no eyetracking module  

699 US dollars with no local dimming, 899 US dollars for a version with local dimming.  

[Dangerzone]

3 hours ago, Peedee said:

Pimax Crystal Light was announced today!

- a Crystal with no stand alone features, pure PCVR solution with DisplayPort cable. No batteries of course.

- 250g less weight in the front. 60g less in the back. Great!
- New kind of headstrap, looks nice actually.
- no eyetracking module  

699 US dollars with no local dimming, 899 US dollars for a version with local dimming.  

Gutted that there's no eyetracking in it. That's a dealbreaker for me! 

What is 'local dimming'? 

[shrimpy_dikdik]

4 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Gutted that there's no eyetracking in it. That's a dealbreaker for me! 

What is 'local dimming'? 

Deal breaker for me too. I will just stick with my G2 until the 5090rtx comes out and I upgrade my machine and see what is available then. 

[The_Nephilim]

16 minutes ago, shrimpy_dikdik said:

Deal breaker for me too. I will just stick with my G2 until the 5090rtx comes out and I upgrade my machine and see what is available then. 

well for poor users like me this option left out which makes it more cost effective.. I personnelly see no need for eyetracking.. 

[shrimpy_dikdik]

17 minutes ago, The_Nephilim said:

well for poor users like me this option left out which makes it more cost effective.. I personnelly see no need for eyetracking.. 

No eye tracking means no DFR which means you loose the previous FPS gains in the original Crystal. It will have FFR but you can get that with openxr toolkit and the gains are very small in my experience, a couple of FPS maybe. 

[Qcumber]

31 minutes ago, The_Nephilim said:

well for poor users like me this option left out which makes it more cost effective.. I personnelly see no need for eyetracking.. 

Without DFR you will need a 4090 to run the light version. If I could afford a 4090 rig then I would most likely go for a crystal or crystal super. 

[Peedee]

5 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Gutted that there's no eyetracking in it. That's a dealbreaker for me! 

What is 'local dimming'? 

That's sad to hear. You might be loosing out on a very good headset. No eyetracking doesn't seem to bother Pico 4, Quest 2, Quest 3, Valve Index and HP Reverb G2 owners...   Because it is a cost thing. To get premium features it seems we have to pay premium prices... for now at least. This is supposed to be a cheaper Crystal whereyou  get the good Qled panels, good aspherical lenses, and a pure PC VR wired connection, no battery worries or compression artifacts  A much improved Reverb G2 For 699 dollars.

What you gain on from the the Quest and Pico headsets are much higher resolution/PPD, wired PCVR with displayport connection, No batteries. Also since I own Quest 2, Quest 3 and Reverb G2 too, I can say that the Crystal (and also the coming Crystal light) has better FOV than them. If you opt in for the local dimming version (though 200 dollars extra for that is a bummer), then you get deeper blacks and better colors too.

So basicly, if I didn't own the Crystal, I'd happy to replace my G2 with a Crystal Light for that extra resolution and wider FOV - and keep the display port cable. And of course since I primarily use my headset for simming, I the Quest/Pico headsets I have doesn't compete since they lack display port  

I think for 699 dollars this sounds like a very good option for simmers.

The local dimming - it's the same you see on modern Qled TV's where the backlight behind the pixels can be turned on or off in different zones, meaning you get better blacks and contrast ratio. The more zones the better. And they have increased to number of local dimming zone a lot from my Crystal   But, of course, it's not OLED where individual pixels can be switched on and off

Eye tracking is a very nice thing. But when I use my Pico4 or Quest 3 I don't think about it. What I do think about when doing PCVR with those headsets (which I still sometimes do), is the compression artifacts and lag. Though I have to admit, this has gotten much better since the start. But I still worry a bit about battery life on them- which I admittedly also do when using my Pimax Crystal - which is why I am considering the new Pimax Crystal Super too  

Edited April 16, 2024 by Peedee

[Qcumber]

6 minutes ago, Peedee said:

I think for 699 dollars this sounds like a very good option for simmers.

In theory yes. But if you don't own a 4090 you will need to reduce DCS settings and use reprojection. 

Edited April 16, 2024 by Qcumber

[Dangerzone]

18 minutes ago, Peedee said:

That's sad to hear. You might be loosing out on a very good headset. No eyetracking doesn't seem to bother Pico 4, Quest 2, Quest 3, Valve Index and HP Reverb G2 owners...   Because it is a cost thing. To get premium features it seems we have to pay premium prices... for now at least. This is supposed to be a cheaper Crystal whereyou  get the good Qled panels, good aspherical lenses, and a pure PC VR wired connection, no battery worries or compression artifacts  A much improved Reverb G2 For 699 dollars.

 

It doesn't bother those others because (and correct me if I'm wrong) - the resolution is less all-round to start with. My concern would be that native resolution with no foveated rendering is going to be a GPU hog, so yeah - I may have to pay premium price for a premium headset. Apart from that - I love the idea of a much improved Reverb G2 - plus with Windows giving the middle finger to all it's WMR users, the timing of it's release is excellent. 

Quote

Eye tracking is a very nice thing. But when I use my Pico4 or Quest 3 I don't think about it. What I do think about when doing PCVR with those headsets (which I still sometimes do), is the compression artifacts and lag. Though I have to admit, this has gotten much better since the start. But I still worry a bit about battery life on them- which I admittedly also do when using my Pimax Crystal - which is why I am considering the new Pimax Crystal Super too  

This is where I struggle to buy the Crystal TBH. The fact that it's not designed for PCVR only - and has the battery, and other things that I simply don't want. Paying premium price for a VR headset but then not getting something dedicated to PCVR I struggled with. It might be best for me to wait for the Crystal Super instead. That DFR is probably going to save more $$$'s on having to get a GPU to render for everything - and since I already have a 4090 - it may save me having to upgrade to the 5090 when it's released which could be a cash saver.

Thanks for the info on what local dimming is too!

 

12 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

In theory yes. But if you don't own a 4090 you will need to reduce DCS settings and use reprojection. 

Exactly - and even then, you probably will need to reduce it anyway - given the extra pixels in that headset over the Reverb. I use the Reverb with the 4090 - and that's one of the key reasons I don't want a headset with extra resolution without DFR. With DLSS, I've finally got to a place where I can tweak the settings to a level to maintain 90fps. I don't want to spend lots of money and 'go backwards' struggling with FPS's again.

 

TL;DR: Don't get me wrong - this is very good news for a budget VR headset or HP Reverb Replacement. Just personally - I would have been very keen to pay extra to have DFR due to the overhead the resolution will put even on my 4090.

Edited April 16, 2024 by Dangerzone

[Qcumber]

5 minutes ago, Dangerzone said:

Thanks for the info on what local dimming is too!

The quest pro has local dimming and eye tracking. And it's not a performance hog. 

[VirusAM]

In theory yes. But if you don't own a 4090 you will need to reduce DCS settings and use reprojection. 

We'll need to see what Fixed Foveated rendering 2.0 means.
They advertised this as a solution

[Qcumber]

2 hours ago, VirusAM said:

We'll need to see what Fixed Foveated rendering 2.0 means.
They advertised this as a solution

True. That could make a difference. Using QVFR in fixed mode improves the performance with my Pico 4 but at the expense of reduced peripheral clarity. DFR on my Quest Pro is a lot better. 

[Peedee]

4 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

It doesn't bother those others because (and correct me if I'm wrong) - the resolution is less all-round to start with. My concern would be that native resolution with no foveated rendering is going to be a GPU hog, so yeah - I may have to pay premium price for a premium headset. Apart from that - I love the idea of a much improved Reverb G2 - plus with Windows giving the middle finger to all it's WMR users, the timing of it's release is excellent. 

This is where I struggle to buy the Crystal TBH. The fact that it's not designed for PCVR only - and has the battery, and other things that I simply don't want. Paying premium price for a VR headset but then not getting something dedicated to PCVR I struggled with. It might be best for me to wait for the Crystal Super instead. That DFR is probably going to save more $$$'s on having to get a GPU to render for everything - and since I already have a 4090 - it may save me having to upgrade to the 5090 when it's released which could be a cash saver.

Thanks for the info on what local dimming is too!

 

Exactly - and even then, you probably will need to reduce it anyway - given the extra pixels in that headset over the Reverb. I use the Reverb with the 4090 - and that's one of the key reasons I don't want a headset with extra resolution without DFR. With DLSS, I've finally got to a place where I can tweak the settings to a level to maintain 90fps. I don't want to spend lots of money and 'go backwards' struggling with FPS's again.

 

TL;DR: Don't get me wrong - this is very good news for a budget VR headset or HP Reverb Replacement. Just personally - I would have been very keen to pay extra to have DFR due to the overhead the resolution will put even on my 4090.

 

Yes, the resolution on those headsets are lower to start with.

Ok, so,  if you have a Reverb G2 now, you don't have dynamic foveated rendering. And the new Crystal Light will be in the same situation. What resolution are you running your G2 at now? The full resolution on the Crystal will be higher, yes. But - two solutions to consider... first off - me, I run my crystal at 72fps. (You get used to that quite fast! 60fps is too low. But 72fps i just fine for me in sims). That gives me quite a number of extra fps. Also, it is quite possible to run the Crystal at somewhat lower than the full 100% resolution (which honestly is quite high it is corrected for distortions and such) and still get a better picture than G2. First off, the panels are better, the optics are better, so you get better contrast, much increased number of pixels gives higher pinsel density, and therefore even less screen door effect. The lenses gives you a bigger sweetspot and edge to edge clarity. And you get at bigger FOV too!   My G2 has some mura/dirty screen effect. On my Crystal I see none.

When I first got my Crystal, the perfomance both in DCS and the headset itself, (no quadviews and no dynamic foveated rendering working) was way worse than now. But still it was a big improvement over my G2. Now of course, all those features are working, but I still run my headset at 72fps because I like improved eye candy over 90 fps now that I am used to it.

Also Crystal is claiming improved fixed foveated rendering coming to the Crystal Light... but I guess we have to wait and see about that.

Maybe they will sell a eyetracking module for the Crystal Light later? They did that with the 8KX, but not sure how well that one worked.

EDIT: Not needing windows mixed reality stuff gives better performance with the crystal. Though I am not sure how much of an impact that has. 

Edited April 16, 2024 by Peedee

[Chief_Biv]

I need to replace my G2 and I only have a 3080. I am disappointed that the Light version does not get eye tracking. However I am interested in someone reporting how the FFR 2.0 will work with it and the lower res mode (replicates the G2 resolution and then upscales that). I already use Quadviews FFR on the G2 and I suspect I will get a similar experience to the G2 but with a bigger sweet spot and field of view. I think I need to decide between the Light and the Crystal. I would really like to drop the battery, but I am not sure if my PC is strong enough to drive the Light.

[AlpineGTA]

Everyone has different preferences of course, but for me, as a G2 owner, the Crystal Light seems to answer everything I wished for in the Pimax feedback thread.

Just a pure PCVR headset - A simpler, lighter, less expensive version of the Crystal, without a battery, no DFR and 60Hz. With the added bonus of bigger sweet spot, better lenses, better clarity, wider FOV, FFR 2.0, ability to run at G2 resolution upscaled and no Windows MR. On paper at least it seems like the perfect sub $1,000 dollar replacement that G2 owners have been waiting for. I hope it lives up to expectations.

 

 

[Shortcut]

I have the crystal and it was sold as a wireless or cable headset but it seems now if I want to make it work properly I need to spend an additional $200.00 WTF. I'm  more than a little Pissed.

Edited April 16, 2024 by Shortcut

[Panny]

It's alarming to me that they pushed the headset without eye tracking precisely because of the additional GPU workload without DFR.

Why would you market an affordable headset that still needs a £1k+ graphics card? I would have never got the Crystal if it didn't have eyetracking. 

[Marshallman]

I'm sticking with my G2 until things get real...... performance, price, clarity, connectability.

[NAM]

$699 is a reasonable price. Don't really need eye tracking.

Pimax 8kx is running fine on 6900XT/5800x3d, which more demand on GPU with large 160 FOV.

The only concern is the relative small FOV. I think the len is fixed, cannot be replace with newer larger FOV len.