Is VR dead?

[Rebel_488]

A quick Q without trying to find the answer in the thread (which may now anyways be out of date) With a 4090 & 13900KF combo - Do I go for a 8k PIMAX for a Reverb G2?

Thanks!

I’d wait to see pimax crystal release hopefully in a few weeks. Although have u looked at vario? That’s a strong pc for it

 

[blekenbleu]

2023 top tech trends: ...XR?
Obvious Technologies shares the top 3 trends to expect in 2023

1. Augmented and Virtual Reality​

2. Digital Twins: virtual simulation of real-world processes​

3. Artificial Intelligence and Big Data​

Fast Company: 2023 tech​

1. APPLE’S AR/VR HEADSET​

2. PLAYSTATION VR2​

3. META QUEST 3​

4. PHOTOSHOP WITH BUILT-IN GENERATIVE AI​

5. TEXT-TO-VIDEO GENERATIVE AI​

6. PIXEL TABLET​

7. IPHONE 15​

 

[gamma123152]

A quick Q without trying to find the answer in the thread (which may now anyways be out of date) With a 4090 & 13900KF combo - Do I go for a 8k PIMAX for a Reverb G2?

Thanks!

I'm very happy with my Reverb G2 and have around similar specs. You can run all titles maxed out with OpenXR toolkit. It's an amazing combi/the best that you can get now.

But I'm waiting for the Pimax Crystal to be released to replace my G2. But it can take a while before it's available. So if you're on budget or want it quick get the G2 and/or get the Pimax Crystal later. Not the 8kx. Also not the varjo, the crystal is better in almost all subjects from what I've seen and I returned my varjo aero and went back to the G2 to wait for something better(aero had many cons for me, long story, don't buy it especially now that the crystal is near).

 

[phaaser]

I want to go with a G2 but unsure what graphic card I should take. Does somebody has experiences if 7900 xt(x) runs despite current driver issues Ok with rfactor 2 and/or ACC?

 

[Rebel_488]

For vr choose nvidia. As for gpu 3080 (12g) upwards for a nice time. For rf2 one guy (using g2) has jumped from a 3090 to a 4090 and since upgraded a lot of his rig as he’s enjoying the upgrade so much.

 

[gamma123152]

I want to go with a G2 but unsure what graphic card I should take. Does somebody has experiences if 7900 xt(x) runs despite current driver issues Ok with rfactor 2 and/or ACC?

I had the 3080 and 3080TI and now the 4090 with the G2.

My honest answer is that if you like ACC then you can have no less then the 4090 with the G2. With even the 3080TI OCed to the max and tweaked to the max with all ini settings/tweaks/OpenXR toolkit ffr etc.etc. you simply couldn't get it in an enjoyable playable state. ACC is insanely demanding with the G2. With the 4090 I finally, after a lot of tweaking still; I got ACC running in Epic settings(most settings) and around native resolution and it's absolutely amazing in VR with the G2 so imo worth every cent. But with the 3080/ti it was just an irritation for me.

 

[phaaser]

Thanks @gamma123152 and @Rebel_488 for the fast response! I feared that I have to go for Nvidia 4080 or even 4090 - unfortunately they do not fit in my case (leaving the budget topic aside). Unfortunately the situation seemed to be similar for rfactor 2, vr and amd cards. I (want to) believe they will improve the vr performance for 7900 cards with an updated driver within the next weeks (or months), but it might be wise to not trust on this...

 

[anton_Chez]

I ran my G1 on a 1080Ti for years before upgrading to the 6800XT. Headset firmware issues aside, actually running the games gave me no issues. Sometimes I wonder if people have had the experiences they are trying to make others avoid or are just parroting the narrative. There is no reason a 7900XT/X will not give you a good VR experience, apart from the cards being rather rubbish compared to what we were being led to believe.

We've had issues in the past when AMD were finally starting to release some products worth owning, but they have been on the market now for over 2 years and I am confident that if I plug my G1 Reverb back in to use today, I will have a great time with it on the 6800XT.

 

[gamma123152]

I ran my G1 on a 1080Ti for years before upgrading to the 6800XT. Headset firmware issues aside, actually running the games gave me no issues. Sometimes I wonder if people have had the experiences they are trying to make others avoid or are just parroting the narrative. There is no reason a 7900XT/X will not give you a good VR experience, apart from the cards being rather rubbish compared to what we were being led to believe.

We've had issues in the past when AMD were finally starting to release some products worth owning, but they have been on the market now for over 2 years and I am confident that if I plug my G1 Reverb back in to use today, I will have a great time with it on the 6800XT.

It's all subjective in the end. If it was up to me then I couldn't handle it; a 1080Ti with a G1 in sim racing. I'm glad for you that you enjoyed either strong motion reprojection, low Hz, low resolution/settings, low framerate. (Combination of those probably) For me personally it would simply be unplayable this even while I'm a HUGE VR fan(and G2 fan too). I'm not trying to avoid people to try lesser cards, I just share my honest opinion about it. I always encourage VR over pancake but it's simply (in my opinion) very demanding to get it running nicely without troubles. With slow cards the sacrifices are simply huge/to big for me.

But you missed one thing here in this discussion: there is a bug or design flaw going on with the 7900 AMD card. The performance is absolutely horrible in VR and AMD didn't comment on this yet. Just Google for the VR benchmarks of their 7000 series and you'll see what I'm talking about. The card is simply not an option to any VR user at this moment for this reason.

 

[GeekyDeaks]

It's all subjective in the end. If it was up to me then I couldn't handle it; a 1080Ti with a G1 in sim racing. I'm glad for you that you enjoyed either strong motion reprojection, low Hz, low resolution/settings, low framerate.

Reading the past comments about both headsets in various threads, I suspect there is something about the G1 that means you get to the point of diminishing returns a lot quicker than the G2. I agree it's very subjective, but similar to @anton_Chez I had been running my G1 at its optimum res (120% - I think it's about 2200x2200 IIRC) in AC and iRacing at 90fps with no performance issues on a 2070S, and that was with details settings at the point where I could hardly notice the difference a level above. I upgraded earlier in the year to allow for weather effects in AMS2, but I'm kinda ambivalent about that aspect after a few months now and in hindsight I'd probably have happily continued racing in clear weather and put the money towards my tactile project. I don't play ACC though....

 

[ciavattas]

Thanks @gamma123152 and @Rebel_488 for the fast response! I feared that I have to go for Nvidia 4080 or even 4090 - unfortunately they do not fit in my case (leaving the budget topic aside).

I'm in the same situation.
I recently build a fresh rig after being away from simracing for a while.
It's a 12600k/32gigs DDR4 with a 3060TI and a G2.

After playing ACC for the first time I immediately understood I need a faster GPU.

I then did all the OpenXR/WMR optimizations and got to a level of 90fps playability (frame times in the 11/12ms), but that's just too compromising on the eye candy side of things to me.

So as I don't want to upgrade case and PSU (corsair 750w gold atm) I ditched 4080/90 out of the equation and I was set on a 3080 to keep the ball running until the 50x0 cards will show up, but now I'm looking at the 4070TI that should go up on sale in less than a week.

It's allegedly a 3090 card with half the vram, smaller size, lower tdp and an msrp of 800usd, although no Founder's Edition planned, so maybe it'll end up with a 900usd street price (hope to find one for under 1000€ here in EU)

That could be the sweetspot between inflated secondhand prices of 3080/3090 cards and the hassle/costs of the top tier 40s.

Or maybe after it launches we could afford to buy used 3080s at reasonable prices.

Sorry for the long post but I'm a bit frustrated to have just discovered the marvel of VR Racing, but also understood its quirks about hardware needs.

Another take on all that could be to see it the other way round and put aside ACC for more optimized VR sims, like iRacing, that as far as I understood it's on a different level even without an expensive pc build

 

[gamma123152]

Reading the past comments about both headsets in various threads, I suspect there is something about the G1 that means you get to the point of diminishing returns a lot quicker than the G2. I agree it's very subjective, but similar to @anton_Chez I had been running my G1 at its optimum res (120% - I think it's about 2200x2200 IIRC) in AC and iRacing at 90fps with no performance issues on a 2070S, and that was with details settings at the point where I could hardly notice the difference a level above. I upgraded earlier in the year to allow for weather effects in AMS2, but I'm kinda ambivalent about that aspect after a few months now and in hindsight I'd probably have happily continued racing in clear weather and put the money towards my tactile project. I don't play ACC though....

Please correct me if I'm wrong since I didn't own the G1. But from what I've understood the G2 is around 50 percent more demanding than the G1 due to it's distortion profile (it has to render that much extra because of it). With the reverb G2 you render around 3400*3300 or something to reach 120 percent native resolution. So that's a huge difference.

iRacing and AC are both very lightweight in VR compared to ACC.

 

[anton_Chez]

Some common misconceptions:

ACC is not harder to run than any other game. The issue lies in the engine used (UE4) and its inherent blurry image without sacrifices made to increase the supersample value more than other sims require for equal visuals. There are definitely compromises to help achieve this without losing a lot of the visual goodness (ACC looks pretty good even at low graphics settings and in VR it's even less noticeable that you're running lower settings). The game runs just fine, it just does not look sharp enough in VR at standard SS values. Hence the need for higher SS and thus higher GPU horsepower.

The G1 and G2 are supposed to share the same lenses. How HP created a device then, that requires DOUBLE the pixels to run "correctly" is absolutely mind blowing to me. Put the G2 at 50% supersampling in SteamVR/OpenXR and actually enjoy being able to use it at a decent frame rate. It's like a car manufacturer creating an updated version of an earlier model, that's supposed to have exactly the same fuel economy (kilometers per tank) and maybe a few extras like heated seats and a sunroof, but then you take it home and find out it has a fuel tank that's double the size. The reason everyone says that the G2 looks absolutely better than any other headset is because it's running at bloody double the pixel count than it's predecessor. Put them at the same pixel count and they should look very similar. Except for the fact that the G1 destroys the G2 in sweet spot.

 

[RCHeliguy]

I'm not alone in thinking the G2 is not the best looking headset. I think a headset choice heavily depends on your needs.

Fortunately there are many to pick from.

 

[gamma123152]

Some common misconceptions:

ACC is not harder to run than any other game. The issue lies in the engine used (UE4) and its inherent blurry image without sacrifices made to increase the supersample value more than other sims require for equal visuals. There are definitely compromises to help achieve this without losing a lot of the visual goodness (ACC looks pretty good even at low graphics settings and in VR it's even less noticeable that you're running lower settings). The game runs just fine, it just does not look sharp enough in VR at standard SS values. Hence the need for higher SS and thus higher GPU horsepower.

The G1 and G2 are supposed to share the same lenses. How HP created a device then, that requires DOUBLE the pixels to run "correctly" is absolutely mind blowing to me. Put the G2 at 50% supersampling in SteamVR/OpenXR and actually enjoy being able to use it at a decent frame rate. It's like a car manufacturer creating an updated version of an earlier model, that's supposed to have exactly the same fuel economy (kilometers per tank) and maybe a few extras like heated seats and a sunroof, but then you take it home and find out it has a fuel tank that's double the size. The reason everyone says that the G2 looks absolutely better than any other headset is because it's running at bloody double the pixel count than it's predecessor. Put them at the same pixel count and they should look very similar. Except for the fact that the G1 destroys the G2 in sweet spot.

I don't get your point about ACC, what are you trying to say? To get ACC working in VR with equal visual clarity/sharpness/resolution/fps as AC/iRacing/AMS2 etc. you simply need an insane amount of GPU power. Almost double as the other titles is my raw guess. Everyone knows that.

Yes you're right that the reason is the engine choice (it's actually the rendering of the engine (deferred instead of forward rendering)) that makes it to run difficult in VR. But in the first line you write that it isn't harder to run as other sim racing titles??? It simply is harder to run in VR you just wrote it in the end yourself: to get equal sharpness/resolution in distance you simply need more GPU power.... So I don't understand your point, I read it 3 times but you came to the same conclusion yourself. So I don't think that there's a misconception going on. You simply sound confused.

I never had the G1 so I don't know about that. This is the first time that I've read that the G1 was and still is the pinnacle of VR gaming. I always understood that the G2 was better. Do you actually say this out of your gut feelings or do you have both headsets and do you have a GPU to run both at full visual capabilities?

 

[gamma123152]

I've just looked it up. You're just writing everything here just from your gut feelings:

The G1 and G2 are supposed to share the same lenses.

We asked HP about the differences between the G1 and the G2. They replied (and we quote):

G2 is a massive upgrade over G1, given how big of an improvement it is at the same price we no longer sell the G1 so ideally they focus on G2. I can guarantee they wont want to use the G1 after trying G2.

Improvements over G1:​

• • New Valve designed lenses
  • Mechanical IPD
  • Updated WMR optical calibration methods for new lenses
  • New LCD panels (brighter, lower persistence, reduced mura, better contrast and colors)
  • New controllers with better ergonomics and industry standard button layout
  • Longer and thinner cable, now 6 meters long
  • New HMD ergonomic design with magnetically removable facemask
  • 4 camera WMR tracking, provides vastly superior controller tracking volume for natural inputs
  • Off ear BMR driver headphones from the Valve Index

 

[gamma123152]

And just to keep this thread objective:

There is no reason a 7900XT/X will not give you a good VR experience

 

[gamma123152]

I'm not alone in thinking the G2 is not the best looking headset. I think a headset choice heavily depends on your needs.

Fortunately there are many to pick from.

It's all subjective. If you're a pure FoV guy go for the 8Kx. If you're all for high Hz/fps/smoothest tracking in all light scenarios and don't care much about resolution, go for the Index. If you want maximal sharpness/resolution in the center, great colors but accept a small sweetspot and mediocre FoV get the G2. If you want Index FoV with Aero resolution with close to OLED blacks and the best contrast and clarity wait and buy the Crystal or a similar future device. There is no one size fits all indeed.

 

[RCHeliguy]

I found the G2 lacking in stereocopic vision. I was able to judge distance better with the Index. The G2 felt more 2D than the Index. Pretty picture but it lacked immersion.

Not caring about resolution is pushing it. I had a Rift and while it worked well, the screen door effect was noticeable.

The Index does well with the resolution it has. I went back and forth between the Index and G2 multiple times and it just felt like the G2 was missing something. In the end I only preferred the G2 for my RC flight simulator. I expected to want it for DCS, but in the end didn't.

 

[gamma123152]

I found the G2 lacking in stereocopic vision. I was able to judge distance better with the Index. The G2 felt more 2D than the Index. Pretty picture but it lacked immersion.

Not caring about resolution is pushing it. I had a Rift and while it worked well, the screen door effect was noticeable.

The Index does well with the resolution it has. I went back and forth between the Index and G2 multiple times and it just felt like the G2 was missing something. In the end I only preferred the G2 for my RC flight simulator. I expected to want it for DCS, but in the end didn't.

Weird I never had that issue with the G2 and I've read a lot about it over the years but I never heard of "lack in stereoscopic vision". Are you sure that it's not just the FoV that's lacking and that that's causing a "less 3D effect"? The G2's stereo overlap (which is important for a good stereoscopic effect, the Aero was terrible in this regard (saw literally a black spot between my eyes)) is exactly the same as the Index: https://risa2000.github.io/hmdgdb/

EDIT: Did you have the V2 model of the G2 or the original? And did you have the FoV mod installed or not?

The original without the FoV mod is indeed lacking FoV massively and that felt indeed way more 2D from what I remember now. I wasn't happy with the G2 until I had the FoV mod...