Pimax crystal Vs quest pro

[Qcumber]

I have a QP and am considering getting the Crystal Light. Does anyone have any experience of both the QP and the Crystal? I am particularly interested in the following:

1) With the QP I need to push the resolution quite high to get the best quality results. About 3500x3700. How much over the base 2880x2880 do you need to SS to get a good image? Can you run without SS? 

2) How does the horizontal field of view compare? 

Thanks

 

[Brzi_Joe]

Crystal with quad views turned on is crazy good - with 3090 I have 110% supersampling where I look, and 15% supersampling around. (100% is about 4000*5100)
With 4090 people are using ss 150%, and that is easy with quad views ( better option for dynamic foveated rendering).

You can try quad views with your quest pro also. I never tried Quest pro...

[Qcumber]

9 minutes ago, Brzi_Joe said:

Crystal with quad views turned on is crazy good - with 3090 I have 110% supersampling where I look, and 15% supersampling around. (100% is about 4000*5100)
With 4090 people are using ss 150%, and that is easy with quad views ( better option for dynamic foveated rendering).

You can try quad views with your quest pro also. I never tried Quest pro...

Thanks. I am already using QVFR with my QP and it's a game changer. With a 4070 I am wondering if I can get away with running a Crystal with the same resolution. I can push my overall resolution to about 4700x4500 with periphery set to 0.3. with this I can maintain 72 FPS. It looks like the crystal would need about the same. How do distant buildings look compared to flat screen? 

[Brzi_Joe]

Crystal light does not have eyetracking, sorry. With eyetracking you can probbably manage some good setings, maybe to set crystal in 120Hz mode, and limit fps to 60 (I use that, it is great).

I play IL-2 a lot, without foveated rendering (it is not supported), with resolution 3320x3850 (80-90 fps, nvidia 3090). Maybe you can compare with that.

PS: I have no idea how flat screen looks, I play only vr last 7-8 years

Edited April 25, 2024 by Brzi_Joe

[Nedum]

Would never buy any HS without Eye Tracking anymore.

But if money is a thing, the CL could be a game changer coming from a G2.

Even with a reduce resolution to the same as the G2 (3120*3060) you should be pleased from the colors, the brightness, and the lenses.

Right now I am waiting for the Crystal Super. The only HS I am interested in (Eye Tracking, 50 PPD and 130° horizontal view, whoop, whoop ).

[Chief_Biv]

I had an interesting situation last night in my Crystal. The eye tracking stopped working in the middle of a mission (It started working again after rebooting the headset). Therefore I had to finish the mission with what was effectively fixed foveated rendering in Quadviews. Thankfully the centre of the view was the focus point. However, I would have thought that this would simulate how a Crystal Light would have been set up in DCS. Because I use an aggressive Quadviews setup (only 30% is the focus area at 121% and I only have 5% peripheral resolution) I saw plenty of pixelation around the edges. Therefore if I had a Crystal Light I would want to increase the peripheral resolution. From this I believe that a Crystal Light would still provide an acceptable experience but I would be relying on Smart Smoothing with my GPU to get the right balance of performance and visuals. I have just come from a G2 and I think that a Crystal Light will be an upgrade for G2 users looking for a new headset. However, if you can afford it, eye tracking is the way to go.

I have not had any experience with the QP, but I have with the Quest 3. I have heard that the Quest 3 is equivalent, or better visually, compared with the QP. I can say that the Crystal is way above the Quest 3 in visual clarity (I was using the USB Quest Link with the Q3). The question for Mr Qcumber is whether you go for the Light - you get better visuals with less frame rates compared tour QP, or spend the extra money and get a full Crystal and maintain your performance. You don't have to run the Crystal with massive super-sampling to get amazing visuals. I could not tell if there is a difference in horizontal fov between the Q3 and the Crystal. They are about the same.

Edited April 27, 2024 by Chief_Biv

[Chief_Biv]

On 4/22/2024 at 4:36 AM, Qcumber said:

Thanks. I am already using QVFR with my QP and it's a game changer. With a 4070 I am wondering if I can get away with running a Crystal with the same resolution. I can push my overall resolution to about 4700x4500 with periphery set to 0.3. with this I can maintain 72 FPS. It looks like the crystal would need about the same. How do distant buildings look compared to flat screen? 

I don't think you need to run the Crystal at really high SS like you do on the Quest Pro. Being connected by a Display Port to your GPU will bring a massive improvement to your visual experience. I reckon a 4070 with a Crystal will be able to maintain 72fps  in most situations. However, it won't when low over Guam on Marianas. My 3080 can. A Crystal Light would not be able to perform as well though. In the focus region distant and near buildings look almost as good as a flat screen. The Crystal is so much clearer than my old G2 or the Quest 3. Not just buildings but also reading MFD's and instruments too.