Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About apollon01

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Good to hear. I just got a confirmation from one Belgian distributor that the Reverb in their stock is indeed the 2nd gen so I will go for it - also to replace my (well serving) O+. Btw - when replacing the O+ by the Reverb, do you just plug it in or you de-installed first the O+ software? Thanks. Milan
  2. Heads-up for European buyers: it seems the HP Reverb hit the shops also in Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands...). Just google 6KP43EA#ABB. I do hope it is the 2nd generation. Most likely I will pay a visit to the retailer here in Lux 😎 to enquire and check it out.
  3. I am happy for you. It is no longer available 😎 Could you please report back indicating whether it is indeed the 2nd edition? Btw for us Europeans - I found two German retailers listing the Reverb as available. No detail as to which version though. Milan
  4. I am happy to see the positive feedback on the Reverb. I hope it will serve you well. It is also in my spotlight (as a replacement of my O+). Given there is rather a high number of issues with this headset, would you please report any problems you might have? Thanks, Milan
  5. Last week I have seen one on display in a museum in Hermeskeil in Germany (go visit if you happen to be nearby). So I am also thinking about buying this cargo horse for my BoX. It could be fun and relax after all the combat sorties in fighters. I am also on SP only so I appreciate the info regarding the career and PWCG (which I do not know yet). Btw. they also have the He 111 in the museum. I was really surprised how small the plane was. Milan
  6. Original post completely re-edited (as of today 4 August 2019). Thank you all for contribution. Milan
  7. Well, in the end the difference might be explained by the rendered FOV vs visible FOV (hence the 114.1 vs 130 for the Index). So I can imagine updating the overview with correct rendered vertical and rendered horizontal FOVs however with the limitations that the comparison would not take into account: - panel utilization - different stereoscopic overlaps among HMDs - difference between rendered and visible FOVs (due to lenses "magic" and the optics staff in general). It is unlikely I would take it farther than that with the data, knowledge and time I have. I am grateful for your opinions. Milan
  8. Guys, let's keep the discussion civil and emotion-free. After all no one here has bad intentions. Above, I acknowledged that my table was not perfect and commited to correct it time and good data permitting. Therefore I appreciated chiliwili69's reply since it brought new data and evidence on the table. I will work with these (as I mentioned above). Before I make a new version, I just want to cross check the data. That's why I kindly asked @SCG_Fenris_Wolf about his opinion regarding the difference between the table referred to by chiliwili69 (that shows rendered FOV using coherent methodology across a number of HMDs). @SCG_Fenris_Wolf, would you mind to disclose your source / evidence that the Index has 130° diagonal FOV? The product page does not indicate any precise number and the rendered FOV table (which looks credible to mee) is not confirming your claims. On different fora I saw different (of course conflicting) claims including one saying that Index actually renders similar FOV to the Vive. The rest is done by the lenses. Thank you. Milan
  9. Hi @SCG_Fenris_Wolf and thanks for your contribution. I am already working on the new version taking into account your and @chiliwili69 comments. As a new source, I will use the table chiliwili69 quoted (and will try to work on diagonal dimension rather than on horizontal only - in order to capture "square degree" if you see what I mean). However… ...using that table, I am not able to reconcile your claims: Index seems to have diagonal FOV of 114.1°. Reverb is not included Odyssey has 97.4° horizontal FOV. There are many other HMDs with higher vertical FOV than Pimax and Index. Any insights why the table differs from your numbers? (I suppose - reading this post - that horizontal FOV is… well… horizontal FOV, whereas total hor. FOV is diagonal FOV) Thanks for comments. Milan PS: Keep the reaction the way you see fit. The aim of the post is not to collect reactions
  10. Hi @chiliwili69 and thanks for the feedback! There are many valid points in your post. I am aware it is not perfect and as I mentioned on the mudspike forum, it is not meant to be rocket science but a quick comparison. Sure, however the percieved FOV changes with variables like IPD or eye distance to the display. So even user measurements would have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Valuable source. Thanks for it. True for the whole display. However in my opinion the numbers are still comparable because this phenomenon is applicable to all of them (maybe in a different manner to Pimax HMDs…). Thanks for the comment. This is however Chinese for me With all my respect, I do not think so. The table is ment to be used as a relative comparison of the HMDs. So I suppose that even if all the above was actually taken into account, the relative ranking would not change too much. Again, it is not science. Just a quick comparison using rather a simple and understandable methodology. Thanks for your contribution in any case. Well appreciated. I will correct my table once I find a minute. Milan
  11. I am happy for you. It is pitty though that they did not go for more ambitious display resolution. Milan
  12. This post got significantly edited on 4 August 2019. The original version is kept below for reference only. Well, after reading through a number of discussions related to FOVs, PPDs, etc. I have to admit I have underestimated the complexity of this issue. Therefore this post is completely re-edited to reflect the most accurate data and methodology "out there". Notes to the methodology and sources: - All values and calculations are per one eye only (therefore the FOVs are not for the whole HMD but for one eye only). - The calculations are done for horizontal as well as vertical FOVs. - FOVs are rendered FOVs, so it is an upper limit of what can be seen (i.e. Valve Index's value is similar to Vive Pro's but the Index allows to see more of the rendered FOV than the Vive). - Rendered FOVs come from a function in OpenVR IVRSystem::GetProjectionRaw which returns the tangents of the angles of the left, right, bottom and top clipping planes for each eye projection. Refer to risa2000 post on pimax forum for further details. - Horizontal and vertical rendered FOVs values are sources from a table created by Durante using the OpenVR function above (reddit thread also here). HP Reverb values were sourced from one user on Mudspike forum. - I am aware of the ROV room in SteamVR that allows users to measure various qualities of their HMDs. After having read through many discussions and having tried it myself, I decided to disregard this method of assessing the visible FOV in favor of the rendered FOV methodology instead. - For Pimax, the vertical rendered FOVs is with parallel projection off. Known limitations: - Panel utilization factor not accounted for. - Image warping and optics effects not accounted for (check this thread for more details; nevertheless, the vertical PPD of the Pimax 5k+ in the thread is very close to the one in the table below; not so for the horizontal one though). And here is the resulting table: Please do read the discussion below for potential further limiting elements and full understanding of the changes made to the original post. I also recommend to read the discussions linked in this post for better understanding of the topic. Thanks all for contribution. I believe it led to a better result (=table). Milan ---------- Original post ---------- Since time to time there are topics about comparison of this HMD to that HMD etc, I made a little table comparing some of the attributes of the displays of the most used VR headsets (my subjective selection). The main goal was to compare PPD - pixels-per-degree of the displays. The table together with the methodology is published on Mudspike forum here: https://forums.mudspike.com/t/vr-headsets-display-comparison/8756 (There is a number of VR savvy guys there so it is well worth reading and checking once in a while) For your convenience and ease of reading, I also attach the table: For a short explanation of Pentile vs RGB arrangements, check this post here on Il2 forum: My intention is to keep the table up-to-date once new headset are released. I hope you find it useful Milan
  13. I would put nr2 disadvantage as nr4 advantage actually. TrackIR is cheating in comparison to VR 😀 And I would add as a disadvantage the following: Not having enough time to fly in VR. I want always more of it but it is not always possible. Milan
  14. I got mine a while ago when it was also at 300 USD. I live in Europe so getting it here was a pain financially and it took some to arrive too (it took over one week to depart San Francisco facility and to arrive to Los Angeles facility; I am surprised the courier in the US is not out of business yet). But yeah... I am happy with my O+ 👍 For the price tag there is hardly any competition for it till today. Milan
  • Create New...