VR Upgrade / replacement

[Qcumber]

It very much depends on your hardware. For my setup QVFR is far superior to OXRTK DFR. I can keep 72 fps most of the time over Cairo with QVFR. With OXRTK DFR I struggle to get 50 FPS. With no FR I am lucky to get 36fps. 

[Ghostmaker]

On 12/1/2024 at 1:21 AM, DucS2r said:

I would think so, that is a lot of horsepower. It takes a couple of weeks to dial everything in, with settings in Pimax Play, Quadviews companion and DCS. But that is pretty similar to the time I spent dialing in the G2. DCS has made major improvements that have made VR more efficient, at least for me. DLSS helps as well. The quadviews settings are the most crucial 

I know the pimax crystal light is a different unit. But my Hp reverb using openxr in the 4090 and 7800X3d does well on the fps. As far as im aware im not using quad views either 

[Brainfreeze]

12 hours ago, Qcumber said:

It very much depends on your hardware. For my setup QVFR is far superior to OXRTK DFR. I can keep 72 fps most of the time over Cairo with QVFR. With OXRTK DFR I struggle to get 50 FPS. With no FR I am lucky to get 36fps. 

interresting.  It is the other way around for me between QVFR and DFR

[Qcumber]

2 hours ago, Brainfreeze said:

interresting.  It is the other way around for me between QVFR and DFR

That's because you gave a 4090. I have a 4070 and a 5800x3d so have much more CPU headroom than GPU. QVFR utilises more CPU use and therefore takes some of the pressure off the GPU. I can maintain 72 fps in most situations with about 60-70% GPU use. Most of my CPU cores are running at about 60-70 too. 

With a 4090 OXRTK DFR will give better FPS. If you paired it with a 15900K maybe QVFR would be the better option

[Brainfreeze]

10 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

That's because you gave a 4090. I have a 4070 and a 5800x3d so have much more CPU headroom than GPU. QVFR utilises more CPU use and therefore takes some of the pressure off the GPU. I can maintain 72 fps in most situations with about 60-70% GPU use. Most of my CPU cores are running at about 60-70 too. 

With a 4090 OXRTK DFR will give better FPS. If you paired it with a 15900K maybe QVFR would be the better option

Thks for that explanation . I learned something there 

[Qcumber]

10 minutes ago, Brainfreeze said:

Thks for that explanation . I learned something there 

This thread is useful.

 

 

[slughead]

[Qcumber]

For me fps goes up over cities irrespective of whether QVFR is enabled or not. It might be a relatively higher increase than with no QVFR enabled. However, if I fly at full headset resolution across the whole frame(s) I am stuck to 36 fps if I am lucky.

[slughead]

3 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

For me fps goes up over cities irrespective of whether QVFR is enabled or not. It might be a relatively higher increase than with no QVFR enabled. However, if I fly at full headset resolution across the whole frame(s) I am stuck to 36 fps if I am lucky.

What are your DCS settings? Lowering things like textures, civilian traffic, draw distance (can’t remember the exact name) is going to reduce the load on the CPU and give more headroom and potentially more fps.

[Qcumber]

2 hours ago, slughead said:

What are your DCS settings? Lowering things like textures, civilian traffic, draw distance (can’t remember the exact name) is going to reduce the load on the CPU and give more headroom and potentially more fps.

Mid range settings really with medium distance. No civilian traffic. High textures. It's easier if I do a screenshot but not at my pc at the moment. I'm also conscious not to derail the thread too much. 

[slughead]

Just now, Qcumber said:

Mid range settings really with medium distance. No civilian traffic. High textures. It's easier if I do a screenshot but not at my pc at the moment. I'm also conscious not to derail the thread too much. 

I get the picture. Mine are all maxed out. Hence running QVFR over cities gives a drop on FPS whereas you may not notice.

[Qcumber]

3 minutes ago, slughead said:

I get the picture. Mine are all maxed out. Hence running QVFR over cities gives a drop on FPS whereas you may not notice.

I definitely notice an increase in GPU/CPU use over cities and potentially an FPS drop, with or without QVFR. It's just that my system can't cope without QVFR. 

I might see how the new GPUs look next year. A 5090 and a pimax super!? 

[slughead]

Personally, I think there needs to be work on the software side rather than developers relying on hardware to get them out of a hole. I don’t think that current CPUs are being utilised fully, but hey, I’m not the one with the source code so who am I to say. We’re still awaiting Vulcan. I can’t see how a 5090 is going to make things faster without improvement on the software/CPU side. I am more than happy to be wrong though.

[Qcumber]

2 hours ago, slughead said:

Personally, I think there needs to be work on the software side rather than developers relying on hardware to get them out of a hole. I don’t think that current CPUs are being utilised fully, but hey, I’m not the one with the source code so who am I to say. We’re still awaiting Vulcan. I can’t see how a 5090 is going to make things faster without improvement on the software/CPU side. I am more than happy to be wrong though.

That's why I am waiting before getting any expensive hardware. My performance just keeps improving so hopefully that will continue to get better in 2025. 

[Nedum]

On 11/29/2024 at 3:43 PM, Aapje said:

The Quest 3 has major comfort issues, but this can be remedied relatively cheaply with aftermarket headstraps and the like. There are a ton of options, since the headset is sold in large volume. The Pimax seems to have better default comfort than the default for the Q3 (but this is not saying much), but there are fewer options to really tune it to your likes. 

The Q3 lenses are great, with little distortion and a big sweet spot. So it is relatively easy to get a nice sharp image, while the Pimax has a much more limited sweet spot. QA of the Pimax is poor, especially for the lenses and their fitment.

The Quest has a USB C port, which means relatively low bandwidth, so the video signal has to be compressed. As a result, the visual quality is restricted. The Crystal Light can reach better quality, but this requires a strong GPU. However, the Quest has much more flexibility with getting shorter/longer or lighter cables. I've seen complaints that people consider the Crystal Light cable too heavy and too short. AFAIK there is no optical cable available, although it has been requested from Pimax, so perhaps they'll make one.

The Quest has the option to be used wirelessly, that does not exist for the Pimax.

From what I've seen, both tend to require more tuning/fiddling than the G2, which seems to be a common complaint by people moving over.

 

How you try to compare the big sweet spot and so a nice sharp image of the Q3 with the more limited sweet spot of the Pimax Crystal Light leads to wrong assumptions!

It sounds like, because of the smaller sweet spot of the Pimax Crystal Light, the image quality and sharpness of the CL is limited to the smaller sweet spot. That is wrong, and we should say that.

The Pimax Crystal Light, once in the sweet spot, will always give you over 95 % of the whole lenses a way sharper picture as the Q3 can ever do!

There is no question about that!

There is a big difference if we talk about edge to edge clarity of the lenses (here is the Q3 the big winner), the sharpness (here hits the CL the Q3 like a bus) or the sweet spot.

What's right is, the Q3 has the bigger sweet spot, so you don't need to struggle with the headset to find it, but the Pimax has a much bigger sweet spot than the G2. 

And If the player has found this sweet spot, the overall sharpness of nearly the entire lenses of the Crystal Light, is much, much, much better as the one of the Q3!

The Quest 3 can and will never compare with the Pimax Crystal if we talk about sharpness, colors, and brightness! Not a tiny little bit!

I own the Quest 3, the G2 and the Pimax Crystal (not Light), and I can compare all of them. And one should know, the new panels and lenses of the Crystal Light are now better as the ones of the old Crystal. I could test the Crystal Light, and I was impressed how good they are. And if my old Crystal is so much better than the Q3, how could one try to compare the Light and the Q3 if we talk about sharpness?

No way!

I think people try to compare apples with oranges, if they try to compare a Quest 3 and a Crystal light if we talk about visuals and sharpness.

If we are talking about features, then the Q3 starts to shine!

Leaving aside the thing about the sharpness, the rest of your posting is spot on.

 

At the end: If I had to choose between a Q3 and the Light, and it's only about Sims, the Light would be my favorite. Would I also like to play other VR-Games, like Beatsaber, or do some social gaming, or AR, I would go with the Q3. The Q3 has the better features and the controller tracking is much more precise. Are visuals the main thing, then again the Crystal Light. The tracking of the controllers is good enough for most of the games. Even Beatsaber is very playable if you play only hard mode.

Personally, I would never buy any new VR-Headset without eye tracking anymore. If one has the money, one should go for a VR-Headset with eye tracking.

It's unbelievable how much more GPU power one can use for better image quality. But it's expensive if you want to buy a new VR-Headset like the Pimax Crystal Super.

Edited December 3, 2024 by Nedum

[Aapje]

@Nedum

None of what you are saying actually disagrees with what I said.