Jump to content

Pimax 8k / 5k VR headsets coming to Kickstarter this month!


Bullets
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yep, that`s what I did, too. But you have to add additional 10$ for shipping. ;) You will get a survey from the developers at the end of the campaign, where you can choose from what to do with your additional pledge amount. From their Q&A section:

Well, that’s new for me... when I did it, I didn’t have to put another 10$ for shipping... is that EU shipping?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_Stick-95

So what is the minimum amount needed for seated 8K VR with 6DoF without hand controllers?  The headset and one base station ($499 + $75 + shipping)?

 

If the base station is $75 extra but there is a $100 discount coupon included since reaching the $2 million KS mark, does this mean the base station will be $175 retail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forum.pimaxvr.com/t/version-3-prototype-review/3822

 

This is a review of someone who has tried V2 and V3 of the Pimax 8K.  It's a good read and does outline some concerns, especially the 75Hz limit on the prototypes.  I am hopeful the final version will have 90Hz enabled.

 

Overall I am happy to keep my pledge, especially now that the $3M stretch goal with the free Eye tracking has been reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is the minimum amount needed for seated 8K VR with 6DoF without hand controllers?  The headset and one base station ($499 + $75 + shipping)?

 

If the base station is $75 extra but there is a $100 discount coupon included since reaching the $2 million KS mark, does this mean the base station will be $175 retail?

 

At the moment it would be $499 for the HMD, $30 shipping and $85 for the lighthouse + shipping.  So $615 all in and lets not forget you may get import taxes added.  I personally just bought a new unused Vive V1 lighthouse on ebay for $65.  So I'm ready for the HMD when it comes.

 

Though for that you get

 

Pimax 8K HMD

 

And the bonus stretch goals

  • Additional face cushion
  • Headstrap with built in headphones
  • Customised prescription frame
  • Cooling fan module.
  • $100 coupon for wireless transmission (for when it becomes available)
  • 3x pieces of selected equipment (not detailed what) but I assume you can get these via their store when available.
  • Free Eye Tracking module (when it becomes available).

Obviously this is a serious amount of money to pledge on the asumption that it will be delivered.  After all it is a kickstarter project but after all that's how Oculus CV1 started.

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cause its not Free like The above?

Unlikely the reason since they have been testing several other titles which are not free. They may not have tested it because they are simply unaware of it, or perhaps no one on their forum has asked them to test with it. Matt Wagner has posted on the DCS forum that they are in contact with Pimax which could hopefully mean even better integration of VR with their respective products.

 

Madmatt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pimax are aware of BOX, I have asked one of the Pimax reps via PM (on their forum) and it was confirmed they are in touch with 1C/777.  I'm not sure exactly what this means but the truth is if something runs in SteamVR it will run in Pimax 8K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I´m sure BoX will run on the Pimax. Thing is, will we have support of eye tracking for the game? I´m still not sure, if eye tracking is a matter of the game to support it, or will it be sufficient to have the Pimax drivers for foveated rendering and it will run for all games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SvAF/F16_radek

Pimax are aware of BOX, I have asked one of the Pimax reps via PM (on their forum) and it was confirmed they are in touch with 1C/777. I'm not sure exactly what this means but the truth is if something runs in SteamVR it will run in Pimax 8K.

Thank you for sharing ICDP. Good to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Pimax are aware of BOX, I have asked one of the Pimax reps via PM (on their forum) and it was confirmed they are in touch with 1C/777.

Many thanks for contacting Pimax for this. I think they like flight simulators according to what they bought:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30766-new-moving-platform-pimax-8k-24k/

 

If Pimax works well with BoX (and it seems it will) it will be a must to migrate to Pimax 8K 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Oculus and HTC have clarified they won't be releasing upgraded versions of CV1, or Vive until mid 2019 at the earliest.

 

https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-rift-cv1-superseded-new-version-least-two-years-rift-2-cv2/

 

Pimax 8K (non X) is going to have a decent increase in resolution and a reduction of SDE, coupled with a massive FOV increase.  For VR sim enthusiasts it will make Pimax 8K a noticeable upgrade in image quality and immersion over Rift and Vive.  If it makes a January release (i'm expecting March to be fair), then I would estimate it will be at the forefront of VR tech for at least 18 months.

 

I know it is a risk to back using Kickstarter, but at least I can report back here with my findings before the consumer release.

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is "old" news from May, pimax KS had not skyrocketed yet at that time.

 

Now if pimax sales remain very limited it may just touch one ball without making the other one move and those big players like oculus and htc won't change their current plan.

 

About the pimax 8K, yes it will be a significant gain on FOV and SDE but not that much for pixel per degree. I expect the "perceived" image quality to be much improved BUT the level of details won't improve in the same proportion (I mean the distance at which you are able to identify a plane and its orientation, for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading this review (in spanish) from people I trust:

 

https://www.realovirtual.com/articulos/5084/nuestra-prueba-pimax-8k-v2-v3-nueva-york/3/sabado-28-octubre-dia-del-v3

 

I decided to change my KickStarter back from 50$ (just donation) to the 8K, since the KS is finishing this Friday. It seems all current Rift limitations are gone. My only caveat is GPU power, but this is something I want to experience myself.

 

Since Oculus didn´t announce nothing for PC in the last OC4, I can not wait another 18 months to have something better. It seems that Oculus has forgotten their founders (PC users) and now it is focused in the mass market to just make money (Oculus Go, SantaCruz prototype, Facebook spaces,...). Nothing to complaint about that (at the end of the day companies want make money) but I don´t need all that, it is not my train.

 

The current BoS experience with Rift is awesome, but it is really bad that Oculus didn´t even announce nothing new to the PC users in two years! They lost the PC train (at least for 18 months). 

Edited by chiliwili69
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_Stick-95

I guess the bottom line question is (assuming you can get everything else working properly) how will spotting be in mp?  My WAG is that is will be pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SvAF/F16_radek

Spotting is fine as it is with the rift. When I fly online with Tir-folks and their hires screens, I'm usually the one that calls out contacts. When I've clearly seen 3 contacts in close formation on the horizon it takes another while for Tir users too see them and even then they only see one of them at first.

 

Identification is the big issue. When those on hd screens can distinguish a peshka from a 110, that is when I start seeing if it's a one or two engined craft.

 

Often the situation helps with identification. As what color tracers is that dot shooting? Is my aa reacting to it? And so on.

 

I'm very much hoping the pomax will improve things here. Perhaps it's a good thing a a smaller company will cater to us hi-end gamers as they would need to rely more on making just us, that small slice of the VR-market very happy. Rather than aiming at something that fits all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is "old" news from May, pimax KS had not skyrocketed yet at that time.

 

Now if pimax sales remain very limited it may just touch one ball without making the other one move and those big players like oculus and htc won't change their current plan.

 

About the pimax 8K, yes it will be a significant gain on FOV and SDE but not that much for pixel per degree. I expect the "perceived" image quality to be much improved BUT the level of details won't improve in the same proportion (I mean the distance at which you are able to identify a plane and its orientation, for example).

 

Pretty much every person who has tried Pimax 8K have said the resolution and detail is much improved over Rift/Vive.

 

Pixels Per Inch

Rift/Vive PPI: 461

Pimax 5K PPI: ~530

Pimax 8K PPI: 806

 

 

Resolution per eye

Pimax 5K - 2560x1440

Pimax 8K - 2560x1440 (up-scaled to 3840x2160)

Rift/Vive 1080x1200

 

Even stretched over the increased FOV, Pimax 8k is going to have ~30% higher PPD.  Coupled with reduced SDE it will be possible to resolve targets far easier.

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much every person who has tried Pimax 8K have said the resolution and detail is much improved over Rift/Vive.

 

Pixels Per Inch

Rift/Vive PPI: 461

Pimax 5K PPI: ~530

Pimax 8K PPI: 806

 

 

Resolution per eye

Pimax 5K - 2560x1440

Pimax 8K - 2560x1440 (up-scaled to 3840x2160)

Rift/Vive 1080x1200

 

Even stretched over the increased FOV, Pimax 8k is going to have ~30% higher PPD.  Coupled with reduced SDE it will be possible to resolve targets far easier.

 

A cleaner image and increased details are not the same thing.

 

Less SDE makes the image cleaner but doesn't improve the level of details of what is displayed.

Less SDE may have a positive effect on "perceived" level of detail but what really increase the details is pixels per degree.

 

I know the numbers, PPI alone is misleading because of increased FOV and much lower input resolution.

 

When you consider both input resolution and increased FOV the increase of level of detail is only 20-25% (based on my own calculations) compared to a rift which is not that impressive.

 

Combined with much less SDE it will obviously increase the distance at which you can ID a plane and its orientation but I expect not as much as the hype from the demos could make you believe. I feel this reported "resolution gain" from the demos may be overrated due to the wow-effect from the much reduced SDE (and much wider sweet spot).

 

Atm we have no feedback with a pimax in a flightsim where the user would say he can ID planes from 2x further compared to a rift.

When such a test is done we'll know exactly how increased are the details with a pimax.

 

The other concern is gpu power, atm we have no data at all about framerate for simulation games in the pimax. We only have subjective feedbacks saying "its smooth for me" but the notion of perfect smoothness vary a lot from one user to another. Some are satisfied with 45fps.

 

Eye-tracking has not been demoed yet and we still have no clue at all if it will be efficient enough to allow foveated rendering (which would be a real game changer).

Even brainwarp, a core feature of the pimax, has not been demoed yet (pimax said yesterday it still need at least 1 month of work).

 

Pimax efforts are very welcome, but some areas still remain unanswered at the present time, and I don't think the sole feedbacks from the demos are enough to precisely scale the gain we can expect in term of level of details.

Edited by neelrocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SvAF/F16_radek

A cleaner image and increased details are not the same thing.

 

Less SDE makes the image cleaner but doesn't improve the level of details of what is displayed.

Less SDE may have a positive effect on "perceived" level of detail but what really increase the details is pixels per degree.

 

I know the numbers, PPI alone is misleading because of increased FOV and much lower input resolution.

 

When you consider both input resolution and increased FOV the increase of level of detail is only 20-25% (based on my own calculations) compared to a rift which is not that impressive.

 

Combined with much less SDE it will obviously increase the distance at which you can ID a plane and its orientation but I expect not as much as the hype from the demos could make you believe. I feel this reported "resolution gain" from the demos may be overrated due to the wow-effect from the much reduced SDE (and much wider sweet spot).

 

Atm we have no feedback with a pimax in a flightsim where the user would say he can ID planes from 2x further compared to a rift.

When such a test is done we'll know exactly how increased are the details with a pimax.

 

The other concern is gpu power, atm we have no data at all about framerate for simulation games in the pimax. We only have subjective feedbacks saying "its smooth for me" but the notion of perfect smoothness vary a lot from one user to another. Some are satisfied with 45fps.

 

Eye-tracking has not been demoed yet and we still have no clue at all if it will be efficient enough to allow foveated rendering (which would be a real game changer).

Even brainwarp, a core feature of the pimax, has not been demoed yet (pimax said yesterday it still need at least 1 month of work).

 

Pimax efforts are very welcome, but some areas still remain unanswered at the present time, and I don't think the sole feedbacks from the demos are enough to precisely scale the gain we can expect in term of level of details.

 

Neelrocker, 

 

I may just as well be disappointed once it's out, but a 20-25 increase in real and proper resolution does sound like a lot. I even find the difference between 1.0 and 1.5 in steam SS staggering. Difficult to compare of course but a 50% SS increase through a limited resolution display with a prominent Sde should reasonably not be as effective as a proper 20-25% resolution increase.

 

To put what I'm trying to explain in another context. If on a 2d monitor you go from 3k to 4k resolution the difference may not be that great. But if you start at a much lower resolution and increase 20-25%...

 

The much wider fov in itself will be very welcome. If it's true that we pickup a sense of speed mainly through our peripheral vision the feeling of sitting in a VR cockpit with a 200 fov would be on another level.

 

Only speculation of mine  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pledged for the 8K. I hesitated a bit, considered going for the 5K instead. They have the same input signal, so I would expect that they should have similar visual quality. Sadly, there is no comparison between the two, and as I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it, I went for the 8K instead.

 

Initially I was mostly interested by the higher resolution, but now I think the wider FOV is the main point. The 8K will be to the Rift what a triple-screen 1440p setup is to a single 1080p screen.

 

The turn of the year is going to be exciting. BOK release first, shortly followed by new headset.

 

At this point I'm not too worried about the technical risks of the Pimax kickstart. It looks like they know what they are doing. One thing to think of is health risks. Are there any? Is there safety regulation regarding the kind of LCD screen you can put a few cm from your eyes? I trust US and EU regulation to give consumers good protection there, and I trust Oculus to comply, but buying from a Chinese company could mean some risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@a_radek

 

Difficult to extrapolate from those numbers how it will translate into increased details without trying the HMD for real.

 

Now I often take this example: say at a given distance your plane (or any object, but let say a plane) is represented by a 4*4 pixels grid, if you add 25% (my calculations were about the vertical and horizontal gains separately) it will become a 5*5 grid (that's +56% pixels in  total).

 

+56% pixels sounds a lot at first glance, but when you consider it corresponds to a 4*4 pixels grid becoming 5*5 it sounds much less impressive.

 

Let say the plane takes 50% of the surface of that square, so this plane currently represented by 8px will now use 12.5px.

Will this dramatically improve your ability to understand its orientation in space ?

 

We can expand to higher numbers:

 

10px -> 15.5px

15px -> 23.5px

20px -> 31px

30px -> 47px

50px -> 78px

100px -> 156px

 

So yes there will be a gain for distant objects like we have in flightsims, but at the speeds we are flying a plane rapidly becomes represented by a very limited number of pixels. If we were doing the math I'm pretty sure it would outline how massive the pixel density increase should be to provide a significant details boost for objects (planes) considering the distances in play (several hundreds meters) and the relative speeds.

 

This is why I'm not that excited by this dramatically expanded FOV. Of course it is nice for the feel of speed (and immersion, of course), but considering how quickly we'll become gpu limited by increasing the rendered resolution and how this resolution would need a dramatical increase to result in a significant boost in term of "how further away we can understand/identify a plane", I would have prefered this resolution boost to be more allocated to boosting the details than expanding the FOV. If it was me I would even not change the FOV at all and have all the extra pixels increasing the level of details.

 

This certainly won't happen, I don't see any HMD manufacturer taking that route as VR users seem to largely promote increased FOV over increased details (unfortunately). I'm even a bit worried this pimax may establish this 200° FOV as the new standard because it will then make increasing the level of details much more difficult as it will be harder to sell a lower FOV hmd now. So I just hope foveated rendering quickly becomes a reality or we won't see a significant increase of level of details anytime soon (I mean the kind of increase that would make a real improvement in a flightsim).

 

edit: it may already have been posted in this forum but in case you never heard about "varjo" google about it.

 

Some nice pictures about their tech (just to illustrate the long route to significantly increase the level of details in VR. Have a look at what pixel density they use to obtain the results below):

 

SF-FINAL.jpg

 

varjo-1.jpg

Edited by neelrocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SvAF/F16_radek

Your absolutely right.

Measured in pixels only, even a 50% increase is not that exciting in regards to identifying. 

10 vs 15 pixel wide image displayed in the same size:

post-94190-0-30010100-1509705182_thumb.jpgpost-94190-0-21164300-1509705184_thumb.jpg
 

30 vs 45 pixel wide image displayed in the same size:

post-94190-0-21136400-1509705186_thumb.jpg post-94190-0-20933000-1509705188_thumb.jpg


 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your absolutely right.

 

Measured in pixels only, even a 50% increase is not that exciting in regards to identifying. 

 

10 vs 15 pixel wide image displayed in the same size:

 

attachicon.gif10.jpgattachicon.gif15.jpg

 

30 vs 45 pixel wide image displayed in the same size:

 

attachicon.gif30.jpg attachicon.gif45.jpg

 

 

 

In practice, the second image shows how easier it will be to identify at reasonable distances. You can distinguish shapes way better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comparison indeed. (I like the efforts in this forum to look deeper at things :) )

 

To be fair we would have to add some sde on top of the lower res versions.

 

But based on your images I'd expect the better image quality of the pimax will help a bit more at identifying sooner than at understanding the orientation.

 

I'm really impatient to read the feedbacks from people here who have decided to pledge for a 8K.

 

edit: although note that if what you did was increasing width by 50%, then your higher res images have +125% pixels of the lower res, which is more than twice what I calculated for the pimax vs rift (+56%, based on input resolution only + expanded FOV).

Edited by neelrocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have prefered this resolution boost to be more allocated to boosting the details than expanding the FOV. If it was me I would even not change the FOV at all and have all the extra pixels increasing the level of details

 

Yes, me too. For me 200FOV it too much, but I don´t know how it has been measured exactly (there are several ways). The guy who tried said it is about 180 or 190 (horizontally). The vertical FOV is a bit more than current Rift/Vive.

 

In any case, we are currently using SS (SteamVR) in the range of 1.5 to 3. So our current graphics cards are able to handle up to 300% (SS=3) more pixels than the required by the Rift, but this supersampled render has to be fitted in the Rift resolution. So we "waste" GPU power and the detail is lost in the downsampling to Rift resolution (but provides better images than with no SS)

 

In the case of the PIMAX, I don´t know the internal SS which is applied (like in Rift, per eye, physical is 1080x1200, but at SS=1 the render is at 1344x1600).

 

But assuming they don´t apply an internal SS, the render per eye will be 2560x1440 with is about 7.4Mpixels (two eyes), which is equivalent to using SS=1.7 in SteamVR with the Rift.

But the difference is that this image will be directly transported to the pimax display. 

 

Depending of the GPU we might need to apply SS below 1.0, but we will see.

I think a 1080Ti (with proper CPU) should be quite fine for Pimax with BOS. 

Edited by chiliwili69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

10 vs 15 pixel wide image displayed in the same size:   30 vs 45 pixel wide image displayed in the same size:

 

Very nice pictures! and much easier to understand that a long paragraph. An image is better than a thousand words.

 

When I will have time I want to analyze with the Rift the influence of SS and/or AA for ID and spotting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, we are currently using SS (SteamVR) in the range of 1.5 to 3. So our current graphics cards are able to handle up to 300% (SS=3) more pixels than the required by the Rift

 

I have been assuming since the beginning that the +185% pixels of the pimax input resolution would be equal to a rift driven at SS 2.8.

 

I just realize now this isn't true because rift SS does not scale linearly with the increase of number of pixels like steamVR does (steamVR SS = rift SS ² ).

 

In fact if a game run with a 1.7 SS (rift SS, not steamVR) it will indeed run the same (framerate) on the pimax with SS 1.

 

And if you were to run a given game at only 1.3 rift SS then it will require you run it at SS 0.6 (steamVR SS) on the pimax to keep the same framerate (doing so you will lose most of the extra pixel per degree of the input resolution of the pimax but keep the much reduced SDE, and extra FOV of course).

 

Rah, don't tempt me you demon !

Edited by neelrocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@a_radek

 

Difficult to extrapolate from those numbers how it will translate into increased details without trying the HMD for real.

 

Now I often take this example: say at a given distance your plane (or any object, but let say a plane) is represented by a 4*4 pixels grid, if you add 25% (my calculations were about the vertical and horizontal gains separately) it will become a 5*5 grid (that's +56% pixels in total).

 

+56% pixels sounds a lot at first glance, but when you consider it corresponds to a 4*4 pixels grid becoming 5*5 it sounds much less impressive.

 

Let say the plane takes 50% of the surface of that square, so this plane currently represented by 8px will now use 12.5px.

Will this dramatically improve your ability to understand its orientation in space ?

 

We can expand to higher numbers:

 

10px -> 15.5px

15px -> 23.5px

20px -> 31px

30px -> 47px

50px -> 78px

100px -> 156px

 

So yes there will be a gain for distant objects like we have in flightsims, but at the speeds we are flying a plane rapidly becomes represented by a very limited number of pixels. If we were doing the math I'm pretty sure it would outline how massive the pixel density increase should be to provide a significant details boost for objects (planes) considering the distances in play (several hundreds meters) and the relative speeds.

 

This is why I'm not that excited by this dramatically expanded FOV. Of course it is nice for the feel of speed (and immersion, of course), but considering how quickly we'll become gpu limited by increasing the rendered resolution and how this resolution would need a dramatical increase to result in a significant boost in term of "how further away we can understand/identify a plane", I would have prefered this resolution boost to be more allocated to boosting the details than expanding the FOV. If it was me I would even not change the FOV at all and have all the extra pixels increasing the level of details.

 

This certainly won't happen, I don't see any HMD manufacturer taking that route as VR users seem to largely promote increased FOV over increased details (unfortunately). I'm even a bit worried this pimax may establish this 200° FOV as the new standard because it will then make increasing the level of details much more difficult as it will be harder to sell a lower FOV hmd now. So I just hope foveated rendering quickly becomes a reality or we won't see a significant increase of level of details anytime soon (I mean the kind of increase that would make a real improvement in a flightsim).

 

edit: it may already have been posted in this forum but in case you never heard about "varjo" google about it.

 

Some nice pictures about their tech (just to illustrate the long route to significantly increase the level of details in VR. Have a look at what pixel density they use to obtain the results below):

 

SF-FINAL.jpg

 

varjo-1.jpg

Seems Vario is shipping its first headset Q4 2017. Yes 2017. But they are only aiming for professional market. They said they don't need regular consumers to make money. So much for us flight sim guys. Back to pimax for the next 10 years.... Edited by TunaEatsLion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SvAF/F16_radek

To be fair we would have to add some sde on top of the lower res versions.

 

edit: although note that if what you did was increasing width by 50%, then your higher res images have +125% pixels of the lower res, which is more than twice what I calculated

That's what I did. So it's not really a rift vs Pimax comparison by any means. Perhaps considering sde and the lack of it, the overall perceived clarity difference between the two is quite representative anyway? But then again current resolution Hmd's allow us to use generous amounts of ss,,, and so on and on with the variables. Edited by a_radek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SvAF/F16_radek

When I will have time I want to analyze with the Rift the influence of SS and/or AA for ID and spotting.

Been meaning to do just that as well. A while back I did do a quick test comparing 1.0 vs 1.7 steam ss. Didn't document anything.

 

Once the contact is far away enough to be only a dot with 1.0 ss. That's all it is, a smudged dot. At the same distance with 1.7 ss you can discern sharp lines representing wings (in this situation the target was following me) and a thicker lump in the middle representing the fuselage.

 

The suprising part is that, all in all, that smudged dot against a blue sky was slightly more prominent than the more defined and sharper silhouette 1.7ss gave. (Did not test with terrain as a backdrop)

 

I suspect the game scales distant Lod's in accordance to what resolution your running. So in VR how much ss you run will also be your trade of between spotting and identification ability. As I'm a multiplayer gamer 1.5 steam ss has worked well for me. For single player I'd go as high as I could for overall clarity.

 

In practice, and in my opinion overriding any kind of ss setting or even graphics setting - keeping 90 fps is the main trick to easier spotting and identification.

 

Edit: uh sorry this was way of topic.

Edited by a_radek
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...