Vive Pro

[DFmadasafish]

So far so good, on a 1080ti  (I7 7700K oc ) got mine last week, I've been in Kuban career mode a lot, same performance as my old Vive, I would even say a bit better,

as I had SS set to 2.0 on the old Vive, now on the Vive pro don't need any SS, the res makes a very slight screen door effect it makes every thing look a lot more crisp and clean not like the old Vive's screen door. Makes a big difference having those extra pixels, spotting things I never seen before in the old Vive, (only ever played BOX in VR)

Getting 90 fps up in the air, drops down when landing and heavy fighting getting around 70 to 60 fps, One thing though apart from the price is the sound quality is crap with its headphones.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by DFmadasafish
there is firmware bug (bad sound quality) there working on a fix

[HunDread]

13 hours ago, moosya said:

 

vive has the "reprojection" in the developer settings, I have to have it on in MP. Without it the game is simply unplayable, just jitters like crazy.

 

Did you have to run ASW all the time in MP when you were using the Rift?

[=ILS=_ppph]

I am currently running on I5-7600K OC to 4.4GHZ, 16GB RAM, 1080TI  I have to say that with SS=1, the VIVE PRO is more or less still making the game legible, but maybe it is my problem that I still can not get it as smooth as VIVE 1,  4 vs 4 in a quick game, the frame rate in the middle and high air around 75+, 80ish, and it drops downs to around 50ish around ground level. I already switched off most of the graphic effects in chasing for the frame counts, I do not have direct comparison to the VIVE 1 in the same circumstance, I can only say that the frame count is quite constant I did not encounter much ghosting while getting in close with enemy. 

 

I believe that the SS set to equal or more than 1.3 would greatly help withe IDing the enemy planes, but I am not sure how much performance hit it would suffer. I will try to find out....

[TWHYata_PL]

Guys , I have a lots exp. with ViVe , so in steam vr app , developer menu please mark  „always reprojection” on ( provide balance between CPU and GPU),  interleaved reprojection off,  and async reprojection on, 

try also supersampling 3.0 with shadow off.

Edited April 8, 2018 by TWHYata_PL

[ICDP]

Check from 35 minute mark for preview of Vive Pro compared to Samsung Odyssey screens and optics.  Basically this guy clarifies what logic already indicates should be true, namely that the HTC Vive Pro and Samsung Odyssey have identical IQ and in fact he feels the Odyssey has reduced God Rays.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPCEqzoxwdA

[=ILS=_ppph]

I have tried the game with ss=1,ss=1.3,  and ss=2, there is no major difference between frame counts in the game, I would believe that the bottleneck would be something else other than graphic card. still around 50ish on the ground, once it gets in the air, it gets much better.

[TWHYata_PL]

yes I have the same on my ViVe, I dont see munch diffrence in FPS between SS 2.0 up to 3.2, maybe revive or drivers are not optimal for this game...

[Guest deleted@134347]

On 4/7/2018 at 3:47 PM, II./JG77_motoadve said:

And with reprojection ON do you get propeller artifacts?

 

nope, not at all. With RIFT aws would distort it like crazy, however with Vive - no such thing.

[SCG_motoadve]

Is it possible to force Vive at 45FPS?

[TWHYata_PL]

4 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Is it possible to force Vive at 45FPS?

 why do you want force at 45 FPS? Asynchronous reprojection in vive drops frame by frame and its working fine ( no disortion) it’s  not like in Oculus.

Edited April 9, 2018 by TWHYata_PL

[Guest deleted@134347]

4 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Is it possible to force Vive at 45FPS?

honestly I haven't seen a single setting in steamvr that calls out 45fps. I think it's more of a back-end processing result rather than anything specific.

[chiliwili69]

4 hours ago, moosya said:

nope, not at all. With RIFT aws would distort it like crazy, however with Vive - no such thing.

 

Not a guru of this but SteamVR (ie Vive) has not implemented the ASW technique yet. So you will not see those propeller artifacts.

The Oculus ATW technique is equivalent to the Asyncronous Reprojection of Steam VR.

 

The ASW technique "invents" fake intermediate frames when fps are below 90. This invention process is not perfect for fast moving objects. ASW is exclusive of Oculus.

[Guest deleted@134347]

Just now, chiliwili69 said:

 

Not a guru of this but SteamVR (ie Vive) has not implemented the ASW technique yet. So you will not see those propeller artifacts.

The Oculus ATW technique is equivalent to the Asyncronous Reprojection of Steam VR.

 

The ASW technique "invents" fake intermediate frames when fps are below 90. This invention process is not perfect for fast moving objects. ASW is exclusive of Oculus.

 

thank you, that actually makes a lot of sense!

[chiliwili69]

On 7/4/2018 at 1:00 AM, dburne said:

I would have to beg to differ a little, there is currently no hardware that is more than fine for VR in what we do ( combat flight simming).

And no doubt the Vive Pro will be even a little more demanding on the hardware.

 

When I said "more than fine" I was referring to the 1080Ti with regard the Rift/Vive versus VivePro/Odyssey.

The 1080Ti is more than fine for IL-2 VR if you would have an infinite power on the CPU.

 

Again, the real problem is on the CPU, not in GPU. That´s why this first reports of the VivePro see almost no impact in fps for SS values (SteamVR) below 2.0.

 

If a VivePro user would like to run the VR IL-2 benchmark we can see the results Vive vs VivePro or Rift Vs VivePro.

Wit Oculus Mirror (for Rift) or with SteamVR Display Mirror (Vive, VivePro, Odyssey) the user is able to display what it is seen on the display.

 

If there is anybody here with VivePro (or Odyssey) you can make a screencapture of the same scene to get an idea of the better resolution of a plane or cockpit interior. So we can really compare the Rift/Vive versus VivePro/Odyssey.

 

something similar to this:

 

[dburne]

1 hour ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

When I said "more than fine" I was referring to the 1080Ti with regard the Rift/Vive versus VivePro/Odyssey.

The 1080Ti is more than fine for IL-2 VR if you would have an infinite power on the CPU.

 

Again, the real problem is on the CPU, not in GPU. That´s why this first reports of the VivePro see almost no impact in fps for SS values (SteamVR) below 2.0.

 

 

Not really, it is more of striking a balance with the two. Otherwise one can get into bottlenecks.

While the 1080 Ti is good - the best really at this time - undoubtedly the next generation, say an 1180 Ti  for comparison should bring better results.

Heck even after I went from an EVGA 1080 FTW, to an EVGA 1080 Ti  FTW3 I got a fairly significant boost in VR performance.

And this on my 4+ year old cpu.

I am talking real world in game performance, not running a benchmark. I don't care about a benchmark, I care about the experience I am seeing in the games I play.

 

I would imagine the consistency in performance between say a Vive versus a Vive Pro likely has more to do with differences in SS settings of the user between the two.

We tend to SS a fair bit with our Rifts and Vives, whereas with the Vive Pro it is not so much needed.

I don't think there has been enough reports in yet on the Vive Pro to truly differentiate and get a good picture of performance comparisons yet.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by dburne

[BeastyBaiter]

I still have to disagree with that chiliwili69. The game definitely looks better with 1.7+ PD with the Rift but I run it at 1.3 because my 1080 TI simply cannot handle 1.7 PD and still do 90 fps.

Edited April 9, 2018 by BeastyBaiter

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

But you are blaming the card when it is likely your cpu that is causing that decrease in performance 

 

 

Vive pro arrived yesterday here . Really impressed with weight and comfort and obviously res. Disappointed with audio. Somehow they've gone backwards from the deluxe audio strap in sound quality 

 

Performance wise it's solid 90 when not using ss.  Which is quite acceptable now at native res . Slight reduction in frames on ground 130% ss . Approx 75 fps busy ground on mp.

 

On original vive I ran 1.6 ss and got 50 -65 fps in same scenarios 

 

Haven't done the math but I'm guessing my pro at 1.3 ss is far higher than the vive 1 at 1.6 ss 

And is outperforming it And then  factor in no screendoor as well

 

Running a 1080ti and an i7 4.8ghz

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by =IL2AU=chappyj

[WIS-Redcoat]

I believe I read the crappy audio is a bug they are working on.  

 

How do I set my SS to 1.0 now with the new steam VR?  Is it “100%” on the slider?

Edited April 10, 2018 by WIS-Redcoat

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

1 hour ago, WIS-Redcoat said:

I believe I read the crappy audio is a bug they are working on.  

 

How do I set my SS to 1.0 now with the new steam VR?  Is it “100%” on the slider?

Yeah that's my understanding . Be aware there's now an applications tab and you can set ss  per app which is a great addition 

 

Got a reference 're the audio being a bug ?

Edit nevermind found a comment from a rep to that effect. Hope it comes soon 

Edited April 10, 2018 by =IL2AU=chappyj

[chiliwili69]

11 hours ago, dburne said:

While the 1080 Ti is good - the best really at this time - undoubtedly the next generation, say an 1180 Ti  for comparison should bring better results.

 

For IL-2 VR with SS=1.7 (in SteamVR) it is not certainly true. I upgraded from a 1070 to a 1080Ti and I obtained zero gain in fps (in game and in benchmark).

You only need to look at the load of your GPU while you are playing. You will see that with SS=1.7 (1.3 in OTT) you never hit 100%.

11 hours ago, dburne said:

Heck even after I went from an EVGA 1080 FTW, to an EVGA 1080 Ti  FTW3 I got a fairly significant boost in VR performance.

And this on my 4+ year old cpu.

I am talking real world in game performance, not running a benchmark. I don't care about a benchmark, I care about the experience I am seeing in the games I play.

 

The problem with "personal" experience is that it can not be reproduced by others. That´s why you will see benchmarks for everything. It is difficult to build some science if the experiment is not reproducible by the community. Otherwise you would sink in the placebo world and obscurantism...

You can not image how good is your brain to demonstrate exactly what you actually believe (have you hear about homeopathy, Feng Shui, Ouija, telepathy, etc, etc)

12 hours ago, dburne said:

We tend to SS a fair bit with our Rifts and Vives, whereas with the Vive Pro it is not so much needed

 

Who said VivePro doesn´t need SS? Who have taken screenshoots with VivePro with SS=1 and SS=2.0 for comparison? 

Until we will arrive to retina resolution we will always benefit from SS. In the same way you benefit from SS with the Rift or SS with the DK2.

12 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

The game definitely looks better with 1.7+ PD with the Rift but I run it at 1.3 because my 1080 TI simply cannot handle 1.7 PD and still do 90 fps.

 

Is SS in SteamVR or SS in OTT/ODT?

4 hours ago, =IL2AU=chappyj said:

Haven't done the math but I'm guessing my pro at 1.3 ss is far higher than the vive 1 at 1.6 ss

 

I can do the math, but you will to tell me the reported resolution with Vive and VivePro in SteamVR when the SS=100% (1.0) and also SS=200%(2.0)

Edited April 10, 2018 by chiliwili69

[dburne]

2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

The problem with "personal" experience is that it can not be reproduced by others. That´s why you will see benchmarks for everything. It is difficult to build some science if the experiment is not reproducible by the community. Otherwise you would sink in the placebo world and obscurantism...

You can not image how good is your brain to demonstrate exactly what you actually believe (have you hear about homeopathy, Feng Shui, Ouija, telepathy, etc, etc)

 

 

Personal experience is what it is all about for me.

I could care less about benchmarks, I don't play benchmarks -  they are not always consistent either. And they can be flawed.

 

If I am getting good performance, decent framerates and a good overall experience, that is not a placebo. It is all that matters to me.

 

2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

For IL-2 VR with SS=1.7 (in SteamVR) it is not certainly true. I upgraded from a 1070 to a 1080Ti and I obtained zero gain in fps (in game and in benchmark).

You only need to look at the load of your GPU while you are playing. You will see that with SS=1.7 (1.3 in OTT) you never hit 100%.

 

 

It certainly is true for me. I saw a decent boost going to the 1080 Ti in my game performance.

2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Who said VivePro doesn´t need SS? Who have taken screenshoots with VivePro with SS=1 and SS=2.0 for comparison? 

Until we will arrive to retina resolution we will always benefit from SS. In the same way you benefit from SS with the Rift or SS with the DK2.

 

 

I would certainly hope a higher resolution device would not need as much SS as a lower resolution device.

[dburne]

In depth review of the Vive Pro:

 

https://www.roadtovr.com/htc-vive-pro-headset-review-welcomed-improvements-overshadowed-by-steep-price/

[Guest deleted@134347]

1 hour ago, dburne said:

In depth review of the Vive Pro:

 

https://www.roadtovr.com/htc-vive-pro-headset-review-welcomed-improvements-overshadowed-by-steep-price/

 

this is where it comes thru for IL2:

***

Another place where the Vive Pro’s new resolution really shines is on highly optimized and well textured content. I was tempted back into Valve’s The Lab (2016) and felt like I was looking at some of the game’s subtle details with brand new eyes, like the wall of gauges in ‘Aperture Science Robot Repair’ (next to the drawers) and the birds flying high over ‘Vesper Peak’.

***

 

in MP I no longer need 3dmigoto x5/x10 zoom for dogfights. The built-in x2 zoom is enough, or even that sometimes isn't needed.

And by far the coolest moment in game was in "Action dogfights and tanks" server, during the winter of Stalingrad map. At dusk, very very late dusk, all there was just a shimmer of orange light coming from a set sun. The green instrument lights were on. The moon light reflected from the snow below. And you're surrounded by the burning planes dropping from the sky, the galore of tracers dancing up and down, left and right. The destroyed planes looked like the slowed down glowing meteors raining from the heavens. I uttered "Wow" in May 2017 when I first jumped in to Il2 VR. Then in April 2018 I uttered "Wow" again.. didn't think it'd happen again so soon.

 

And as far as SS vs. no SS for vivepro - I honestly didn't see the difference between 130/150% vs 100% in game. However, I did see a major difference between HDR being on or off. With On it's simply crystal clear, whereas without it feels like you had 3 shots of vodka and decided to try your fate in a war world two bird.

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by moosya

[scrapmetal]

How's the contrast ratio compared to the original Vive? It was pretty bad through the Vive when flying at night.

[Guest deleted@134347]

38 minutes ago, scrapmetal said:

How's the contrast ratio compared to the original Vive? It was pretty bad through the Vive when flying at night.

 

sorry, mate, I flew on Rift before so can't compare...

[BeastyBaiter]

11 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Is SS in SteamVR or SS in OTT/ODT?

 

SteamVR, I do not have OTT installed. I should point out that the graphics settings I use look absolutely nothing like what is used in the benchmark track. They are vastly higher but with less SS (high clouds, high shadows...).

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

17 hours ago, moosya said:

 

this is where it comes thru for IL2:

***

Another place where the Vive Pro’s new resolution really shines is on highly optimized and well textured content. I was tempted back into Valve’s The Lab (2016) and felt like I was looking at some of the game’s subtle details with brand new eyes, like the wall of gauges in ‘Aperture Science Robot Repair’ (next to the drawers) and the birds flying high over ‘Vesper Peak’.

***

 

in MP I no longer need 3dmigoto x5/x10 zoom for dogfights. The built-in x2 zoom is enough, or even that sometimes isn't needed.

And by far the coolest moment in game was in "Action dogfights and tanks" server, during the winter of Stalingrad map. At dusk, very very late dusk, all there was just a shimmer of orange light coming from a set sun. The green instrument lights were on. The moon light reflected from the snow below. And you're surrounded by the burning planes dropping from the sky, the galore of tracers dancing up and down, left and right. The destroyed planes looked like the slowed down glowing meteors raining from the heavens. I uttered "Wow" in May 2017 when I first jumped in to Il2 VR. Then in April 2018 I uttered "Wow" again.. didn't think it'd happen again so soon.

 

And as far as SS vs. no SS for vivepro - I honestly didn't see the difference between 130/150% vs 100% in game. However, I did see a major difference between HDR being on or off. With On it's simply crystal clear, whereas without it feels like you had 3 shots of vodka and decided to try your fate in a war world two bird.

 

i agree HDR is probably the most valuable adjustment to make in Pro, and if it means running lower or no SS for good frames then do it. only bother upping SS once HDR is on and until you start to dip below 75 FPS

@chiliwili69

SS counts from steam vr 

100% - 2299x 2554

130%  2621x  2912

200% - 3251 x 3612

 

each eye it says

Edited April 11, 2018 by =IL2AU=chappyj

[ICDP]

What is HDR?

[chiliwili69]

On 11/4/2018 at 7:58 AM, =IL2AU=chappyj said:

SS counts from steam vr 

100% - 2299x 2554

130%  2621x  2912

200% - 3251 x 3612

 Thanks chappy for reporting this.

After doing the maths now I understand why VivePro users don´t need SS at all. It is not because the improved physical display resolution but also to the default internal SS that the VivePro apply when SS is 1.0 (ie 100%).

 

EDITED 23-4-2018 after testing with my own VivePro:

Chappyj, my numbers are different:

100% 2016x2240

130% 2299x2554

200% 2851x3168

 

Let me explain:

 

The     Rift   physical display has 2.592Million pixels and when SS=1.0 you render  4.300Million pixels, which is 66% more than native display.(1.66 absolute SS) ratio)

The Odyssey physical display has 4.608Million pixels and when SS=1.0 you render  5.075Million pixels, which is 10% more than native display. (1.1 absolute SS ratio)

The VivePro physical display has 4.608Million pixels and when SS=1.0 (100%) you render 9.031Million pixels, which is 96% more than native display. (1.96 absolute ratio)

 

The following table shows all numbers:

 

Since I have not a Vive (not Vive Pro) I don´t know what was the internal SS ratio that was applying before for standard Vive. In the past I assumed that Vive and Rift used the same internal ratio but this might not be true. This will mean that SS will depend on every device. So, to compare SS between devices we should look at the total number of pixels being rendered and the number of pixels of the physical display. This gives the more practical Absolute SS ratio

 

On 10/4/2018 at 2:54 PM, moosya said:

And as far as SS vs. no SS for vivepro - I honestly didn't see the difference between 130/150% vs 100% in game

 

Now this is quite well explained knowing the internal SS ratio used by VivePro.

 

As demonstrated in another post analyzing image quality with the Rift at SS=1, SS=1.7, SS=2.3, SS=2.9 and SS=4, there were a big boost in clarity going from 1.0 to 1.7, beyond that the increment in quality were lower and lower. (images with SS=2.9 were very similar to the SS=4.0).

 

Using SS=1.7 (SteamVR) with Rift has an absolute SS ratio of 2.82. We could say that going for an absolute SS ratio bigger than that, the differences are hard to see with a simple eyesight.

 

Using SS=1 (SteamVR) with VivePro has an absolute SS ratio of 1.96, which is already a high SS number. So that´s why you didn´t notice improvement when going to 130% and 150%

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by chiliwili69

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

1 hour ago, chiliwili69 said:

 Thanks chappy for reporting this.

After doing the maths now I understand why VivePro users don´t need SS at all. It is not because the improved physical display resolution but also to the default internal SS that the VivePro apply when SS is 1.0 (ie 100%).

 

Let me explain:

 

The     Rift   physical display has 2.592Million pixels and when SS=1.0 you render  4.300Million pixels, which is 66% more than native display.(1.66 absolute SS) ratio)

The Odyssey physical display has 4.608Million pixels and when SS=1.0 you render  5.075Million pixels, which is 10% more than native display. (1.1 absolute SS ratio)

The VivePro physical display has 4.608Million pixels and when SS=1.0 you render 11.743Million pixels, which is 155% more than native display. (2.55 absolute ratio)

 

The following table shows all numbers:

 

Since I have not a Vive (not Vive Pro) I don´t know what was the internal SS ratio that was applying before for standard Vive. In the past I assumed that Vive and Rift used the same internal ratio but this might not be true. This will mean that SS will depend on every device. So, to compare SS between devices we should look at the total number of pixels being rendered and the number of pixels of the physical display. This gives the more practical Absolute SS ratio

 

 

Now this is quite well explained knowing the internal SS ratio used by VivePro.

 

As demonstrated in another post analyzing image quality with the Rift at SS=1, SS=1.7, SS=2.3, SS=2.9 and SS=4, there were a big boost in clarity going from 1.0 to 1.7, beyond that the increment in quality were lower and lower. (images with SS=2.9 were very similar to the SS=4.0).

 

Using SS=1.7 (SteamVR) with Rift has an absolute SS ratio of 2.82. We could say that going for an absolute SS ratio bigger than that, the differences are hard to see with a simple eyesight.

 

Using SS=1 (SteamVR) with VivePro has an absolute SS ratio of 2.55, which is already a high SS number. So that´s why you didn´t notice improvement when going to 130% and 150%

 

 

 

Interesting stats there . I honestly wonder if it really is each eye. It says so in the app under the slider but it seems to be such a massive amount it's almost unbelievable they would supersample to that degree as their 100% value

[BeastyBaiter]

Review of Vive Pro compared to original Vive and Samsung Odyssey.

 

 

[scrapmetal]

To answer my question. The contrast and black levels are very much improved. The mura effect is much less. Everything looks much more realistic. The 140km view distance is much more meaningful. Except...  nighttime. This is my biggest complaint about IL-2. The diameter of the sun, moon and stars look twice the size than they should be. It's even more obvious with the Pro. DCS has this spot on.

Edited April 12, 2018 by scrapmetal

[Wolf8312]

On 11/04/2018 at 4:45 PM, chiliwili69 said:

 Thanks chappy for reporting this.

After doing the maths now I understand why VivePro users don´t need SS at all. It is not because the improved physical display resolution but also to the default internal SS that the VivePro apply when SS is 1.0 (ie 100%).

 

Let me explain:

 

The     Rift   physical display has 2.592Million pixels and when SS=1.0 you render  4.300Million pixels, which is 66% more than native display.(1.66 absolute SS) ratio)

The Odyssey physical display has 4.608Million pixels and when SS=1.0 you render  5.075Million pixels, which is 10% more than native display. (1.1 absolute SS ratio)

The VivePro physical display has 4.608Million pixels and when SS=1.0 you render 11.743Million pixels, which is 155% more than native display. (2.55 absolute ratio)

 

The following table shows all numbers:

 

Since I have not a Vive (not Vive Pro) I don´t know what was the internal SS ratio that was applying before for standard Vive. In the past I assumed that Vive and Rift used the same internal ratio but this might not be true. This will mean that SS will depend on every device. So, to compare SS between devices we should look at the total number of pixels being rendered and the number of pixels of the physical display. This gives the more practical Absolute SS ratio

 

 

Now this is quite well explained knowing the internal SS ratio used by VivePro.

 

As demonstrated in another post analyzing image quality with the Rift at SS=1, SS=1.7, SS=2.3, SS=2.9 and SS=4, there were a big boost in clarity going from 1.0 to 1.7, beyond that the increment in quality were lower and lower. (images with SS=2.9 were very similar to the SS=4.0).

 

Using SS=1.7 (SteamVR) with Rift has an absolute SS ratio of 2.82. We could say that going for an absolute SS ratio bigger than that, the differences are hard to see with a simple eyesight.

 

Using SS=1 (SteamVR) with VivePro has an absolute SS ratio of 2.55, which is already a high SS number. So that´s why you didn´t notice improvement when going to 130% and 150%

 

 

 

 

So is vive pro basically running at a performance cost of 2.55 SS? Cause I have to say, if I run that amount of SS on my rig the performance is significantly degraded. I was getting interested in the VIVE pro but I cant see how it couldnt reduce performance in a game for which we are fighting for every frame as it already is. Sure it's playable on 2.55 and steams recommended settings, but not nearly as fluid as with a lower SS setting, dropping to the 70's whereas on my settings (1.4-5) it's mostly 90 (88-89) with dips only really when massive battles occur. I dont think logically theres any way you could upgrade the headsets resolution without also degrading the performance right?

 

Unless theres something I'm missing! Visuals for me are only important up to a point, and as long as the game is not distractingly shimmery, I will choose performance evey time over a better resolution.

 

Next thing I buy will probably be a volta Ti. Hopefully that will push me up to the elusive constant 90, though I kinda doubt it somehow! Trouble with flight sims and VR is they cannot really be judged on general performance, and your system/settings is only as good as the game itself at its most demanding moment.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Wolf8312

[coconut]

Could it be that HTC raised the 1.0 SS factor in order to avoid negative reports when people compare the smoothness of original Vive with high SS to smoothness of Vive Pro with a lesser SS? If so one might be able to use the Vive Pro with SS less than 1.0 and still get good results with high enough framerates.

[scrapmetal]

Has anyone with a Vive Pro got different brightness levels for each screen in very dark scenes? I don't know how normal this is, but the top half of my left screen is totally black, whilst the rest is a dark grey. It's not a comfortable feeling. I don't think my original Vive is perfect, but it's not as bad as the Pro.

[Guest deleted@134347]

28 minutes ago, scrapmetal said:

Has anyone with a Vive Pro got different brightness levels for each screen in very dark scenes? I don't know how normal this is, but the top half of my left screen is totally black, whilst the rest is a dark grey. It's not a comfortable feeling. I don't think my original Vive is perfect, but it's not as bad as the Pro.

 

nope.. mine is universally lit.

[scrapmetal]

One of the tests was in the Void environment in Bigscreen Beta. A dark environment that rarely occurs.  I'm going to have to do some real tests to see if there's any situation where this has an actual impact. It doesn't in IL-2, as the night scenes are a simulated night, a dark blue like on a film set, not black black. One other thing. There's less FOV than the original Vive. I can see 'black bars'. But I'm using a thin replacement gasket.

[Guest deleted@134347]

3 minutes ago, scrapmetal said:

One of the tests was in the Void environment in Bigscreen Beta. A dark environment that rarely occurs.  I'm going to have to do some real tests to see if there's any situation where this has an actual impact. It doesn't in IL-2, as the night scenes are a simulated night, a dark blue like on a film set, not black black. One other thing. There's less FOV than the original Vive. I can see 'black bars'. But I'm using a thin replacement gasket.

 

I like how you're testing it for the sake of testing it.

 

I just use it to play Il2  hah.. silly me..

[scrapmetal]

14 minutes ago, moosya said:

 

I like how you're testing it for the sake of testing it.

 

I just use it to play Il2  hah.. silly me..

Very sensible. And it's a beautiful thing to behold in the Pro.

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

2 hours ago, scrapmetal said:

One of the tests was in the Void environment in Bigscreen Beta. A dark environment that rarely occurs.  I'm going to have to do some real tests to see if there's any situation where this has an actual impact. It doesn't in IL-2, as the night scenes are a simulated night, a dark blue like on a film set, not black black. One other thing. There's less FOV than the original Vive. I can see 'black bars'. But I'm using a thin replacement gasket.

The fov is the same . I don't have black bars 

Check for firmware and make sure you have latest steam vr app perhaps.  

Otherwise combined with your lack of uniform  dark contrast consider an rmt 

4 hours ago, coconut said:

Could it be that HTC raised the 1.0 SS factor in order to avoid negative reports when people compare the smoothness of original Vive with high SS to smoothness of Vive Pro with a lesser SS? If so one might be able to use the Vive Pro with SS less than 1.0 and still get good results with high enough framerates.

You can run ss at levels lower than 100% via the app  although I've  not tried it and  I personally didn't see a performance hit going from vive to vive pro and using 100% ss.  I had been using 1.6ss  on vive 1 and had a boost in performance in the pro at 100% 

But I do think a good rule of thumb for potential upgraders is to only consider pro if your rig is already running a gen one with ss 1.5 + smoothly