Quest 2.

[Panzerlang]

OMG, night and day difference over the Rift CV1. To the point I think more pixel density would be superfluous. Transformed it from a smudgy blurry mess to good monitor quality.

[kuk111]

Been messing around with mine also. Very solid in IL-2 with link cable. Using virtual desktop also looks great but can get it to run a smooth as link yet. Will keep poking at it and wait for updates.
 

now they just need to enable 90hz

Also this did wonders 

 

 

[kelemenlajos]

Are you using USB link or Wifi?

Could you please send some recordings from latency timing?

You can do this via Oculus Tray Tool:

 

 

This is from my CV1:

 

 

I think quest 2 should be around 3 frames, so 41ms (with 72Hz), and that should sink to 33ms (with 90Hz).

 

 

[Alonzo]

How's the field of view compared to the CV1 or Rift S?

[kuk111]

55 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

How's the field of view compared to the CV1 or Rift S?

Seems slightly bigger then my rift S

[Ribbon]

12 hours ago, kuk111 said:

Seems slightly bigger then my rift S

How much better image quality (pdi, res and clarity) is over Rift S?

[Alonzo]

8 hours ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

How much better image quality (pdi, res and clarity) is over Rift S?

 

From a review (and remember, Rift S already has RGB sub-pixels and 90hz, but the rest of the comparison is about right, I'd expect):

 

The leap in resolution and framerate are among Quest 2’s most meaningful improvements. Quest 2 has a per-eye resolution of 1,832 × 1,920 (3.5 megapixels) compared to the original’s 1,440 × 1,600 (2.3 megapixels). That’s a nice jump already, but there’s a bit of an extra boost because Quest 2’s LCD display has more sub-pixels—which fill in the ‘screen door effect’ even more—than Quest’s OLED display. On Quest 2, the screen door effect is basically invisible. Pixels are too small to be seen individually; you can still see evidence of the underlying pixel structure against flat colors, but it fades away against anything textured. The resolution difference is noticeable right away. Between the extra sharpness and the smoother motion of the 90Hz display, stepping up to the menu in Quest 2 feels a bit more real than with the original Quest.

 

 

[chiliwili69]

1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

From a review

 

The comments are more interesting than the adverticle.

 

It is better to contrast info with other sources:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/09/review-we-do-not-recommend-the-299-oculus-quest-2-as-your-next-vr-system/

 

They say Quest2 (over Quest1) have worse tracking, heavier controllers, less battery life, worse IPD adjust, worse strap, not OLED panels...

The guys from Tested also said that the weight and momentum issue is still not solved in Quest2.

 

One important thing that you can not compare a device using a USB cable with compression-descompresion video with a device with DP cable.

There is a video comparing G2, Index and Quest2. And the moving objects looks blurred/ghosted. Perhaps due to 60Hz.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/61880-hp-reverb-second-generation-2020/?do=findComment&comment=1005283

 

[dburne]

3 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

From a review (and remember, Rift S already has RGB sub-pixels and 90hz, but the rest of the comparison is about right, I'd expect):

 

The leap in resolution and framerate are among Quest 2’s most meaningful improvements. Quest 2 has a per-eye resolution of 1,832 × 1,920 (3.5 megapixels) compared to the original’s 1,440 × 1,600 (2.3 megapixels). That’s a nice jump already, but there’s a bit of an extra boost because Quest 2’s LCD display has more sub-pixels—which fill in the ‘screen door effect’ even more—than Quest’s OLED display. On Quest 2, the screen door effect is basically invisible. Pixels are too small to be seen individually; you can still see evidence of the underlying pixel structure against flat colors, but it fades away against anything textured. The resolution difference is noticeable right away. Between the extra sharpness and the smoother motion of the 90Hz display, stepping up to the menu in Quest 2 feels a bit more real than with the original Quest.

 

 

 

Just a point of clarification - Rift S is an 80 Hz device, not 90 Hz.

 

 

1 hour ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

The comments are more interesting than the adverticle.

 

It is better to contrast info with other sources:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/09/review-we-do-not-recommend-the-299-oculus-quest-2-as-your-next-vr-system/

 

They say Quest2 (over Quest1) have worse tracking, heavier controllers, less battery life, worse IPD adjust, worse strap, not OLED panels...

The guys from Tested also said that the weight and momentum issue is still not solved in Quest2.

 

One important thing that you can not compare a device using a USB cable with compression-descompresion video with a device with DP cable.

There is a video comparing G2, Index and Quest2. And the moving objects looks blurred/ghosted. Perhaps due to 60Hz.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/61880-hp-reverb-second-generation-2020/?do=findComment&comment=1005283

 

 

Not quite sure how it could have worse tracking, pretty sure it is the same Insight tracking Oculus used on the Quest and Rift S, both of which are very good.

I have heard battery life is not that great. Even plugged into PC with Link battery still drains sounds like.

 

Quest 2 I am pretty sure is a 72 Hz device like the first Quest. However the ability to up it to 90 Hz is there and I believe possible in the beta.

Edited October 15, 2020 by dburne

[kuk111]

Yeah tracking is still as good as previous iterations. You can’t get 90hz yet on link yet but can manually up the resolution in debug tool.

 

been playing around with link vs VD 

 

can say both are better looking then Rift S, VD might even have a edge over link at the moment. But I can’t seem to get VD to be happy with IL2.   You have to load it through steam and not even sure oculus home is involved. It just isn’t as smooth as link with OpenC. 
 

well we all know il2 can be a bit fussy

 

 

will keep tinkering 

 

 

[dburne]

2 minutes ago, kuk111 said:

Yeah tracking is still as good as previous iterations. You can’t get 90hz yet on link yet but can manually up the resolution in debug tool.

 

been playing around with link vs VD 

 

can say both are better looking then Rift S, VD might even have a edge over link at the moment. But I can’t seem to get VD to be happy with IL2.   You have to load it through steam and not even sure oculus home is involved. It just isn’t as smooth as link with OpenC. 
 

well we all know il2 can be a bit fussy

 

 

will keep tinkering 

 

 

 

Thanks for the reports!

[kuk111]

Oh I also saw this 

 

 And gave it a go.  Got it in between settings to accommodate my IPD of 66 and wow what a help.

[firdimigdi]

On 10/14/2020 at 11:04 PM, kuk111 said:

Seems slightly bigger then my rift S

 

And how is the black level representation in comparison to the Rift S? Night flights in the Rift S tend to take some getting used to with all the gray around.

[chiliwili69]

11 hours ago, dburne said:

Quest 2 I am pretty sure is a 72 Hz device like the first Quest. However the ability to up it to 90 Hz is there and I believe possible in the beta

 

Yes, you are right the Quest2 is 72Hz (default), altough it seems it can run also at 60Hz and 90Hz in beta.

When I was referring to the ghosting of the F1 due to the lower frequency of the Quest2 this is what I mean. Look the images below.

In IL-2 we have many fast moving objects around and it is important to have a good definition of them while they are moving. So higher frequency rates might help. Perhaps 72Hz (with the compression-decompresion through USB cable) is not too good for IL-2 VR. I don´t know at what frequency was running the index during the test.

He said that he was not applying SS to any of the devices.

 

 

 

[dburne]

2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

Yes, you are right the Quest2 is 72Hz (default), altough it seems it can run also at 60Hz and 90Hz in beta.

When I was referring to the ghosting of the F1 due to the lower frequency of the Quest2 this is what I mean. Look the images below.

In IL-2 we have many fast moving objects around and it is important to have a good definition of them while they are moving. So higher frequency rates might help. Perhaps 72Hz (with the compression-decompresion through USB cable) is not too good for IL-2 VR. I don´t know at what frequency was running the index during the test.

He said that he was not applying SS to any of the devices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have not seen where Quest 2 can run 60 Hz.

As it comes today it is 72 Hz and Oculus has plans to up that with a firmware update to 90 Hz eventually - maybe early next year.

 

One can however if they like experimenting enable the 90 Hz mode now.

https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-quest-2-tips-and-tricks-new-owners/

Just be aware this is not officially supported at this time and you do so at your own risk.

Also only affects Oculus Home and Menus, not games but eventually it will when Oculus makes the change.

 

As far as how it performs via Link, I have used it with the original Quest and it did very good for me in IL-2.

Not as good as native with the Rift S, but certainly good enough to be passable. I did not see any ghosting unless ASW were to kick in and it rarely did.  I believe we have a small handful of Quest owners in here that have been using it successfully.

Edited October 16, 2020 by dburne

[chiliwili69]

3 hours ago, dburne said:

I have not seen where Quest 2 can run 60 Hz.

Here: https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unreal/unreal-change-display-refresh-rate/?locale=es_ES

 

3 hours ago, dburne said:

Not as good as native with the Rift S

When you say not as good, is it in terms of resolution? or what else?

Since Quest 1 panel has more resolution than Rift S.

 

Another matter is the confort, I found the RiftS much more confortable than Quest 1 for long periods (more than 45 min). I think the Quest2, according to review, is still front heavy device (like Index as well).

[kuk111]

5 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

When I was referring to the ghosting of the F1 due to the lower frequency of the Quest2 this is what I mean. Look the images below.

Keep in mind these images are from a camera he has recording at a set frame rate. I know Tyriel talked about his setup but I can’t find it again. 72hz is a odd rate so doesn’t translate well into the recordings FPS 30 or 60. It’s like on TVs when you want 120hz because 24fps content divides nicely into it. As he says the tests aren’t a science. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by kuk111

[dburne]

3 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

Here: https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unreal/unreal-change-display-refresh-rate/?locale=es_ES

 

When you say not as good, is it in terms of resolution? or what else?

Since Quest 1 panel has more resolution than Rift S.

 

Another matter is the confort, I found the RiftS much more confortable than Quest 1 for long periods (more than 45 min). I think the Quest2, according to review, is still front heavy device (like Index as well).

 

From that developer article:

For Oculus Go or Quest, the return values may be:

Index 0 = 60 Hz

Index 1 = 72 Hz

Emphasis on the "maybe" part for Go and Quest. I have not seen any reports of a Quest user lowering their refresh rate from the stock 72 Hz.

 

My "not as good as Rift S" would apply to performance and clarity. Both just seemed better in the Rift S to me,  although Quest with Link was still pretty darn good, along with as you said comfort - big difference between original Quest and Rift S.

[kuk111]

2 minutes ago, dburne said:

Since Quest 1 panel has more resolution than Rift S.

Listed resolution is only one factor. The move from OLED to lcd allowed for more sub pixels in the rift S and the Quest 2. This produced a clearer picture and less (Rift S)to no screen door effect (quest2)

[dburne]

13 minutes ago, kuk111 said:

Listed resolution is only one factor. The move from OLED to lcd allowed for more sub pixels in the rift S and the Quest 2. This produced a clearer picture and less (Rift S)to no screen door effect (quest2)

 

That text you quoted was actually from Chili not me.

However both are accurate, the original Quest panel was a little higher resolution than Rift S, however as you say the LCD does allow more sub pixels.

[chiliwili69]

24 minutes ago, kuk111 said:

Keep in mind these images are from a camera he has recording at a set frame rate. I know Tyriel talked about his setup but I can’t find it again. 72hz is a odd rate so doesn’t translate well into the recordings FPS 30 or 60. It’s like on TVs when you want 120hz because 24fps content divides nicely into it. As he says the tests aren’t a science.

Yes, I know what Tyriel say about his recording, a camera is not our eyes.

The camera he uses is this:

 

I think it is a Panasonic Lumix GH5 with a wide angle thin lens. It can record 4K at 60fps.

 

There is another video where he also record the Rift-S (80Hz), Quest (72Hz) and Quest-2 (72Hz). They have also freqs which are not sincronized with the 60Hz.

And you can see there is less ghosting with the Rift-S than Quest 2. So I think the ghosting would be due to the high compression algorithm which needs to compress more for the Quest2 since it runs at higher resolution but the USB link cable bandwidth is the same.

 

 

1 hour ago, dburne said:

I have not seen any reports of a Quest user lowering their refresh rate from the stock 72 Hz

 

[dburne]

LOL well that is certainly news to me.

Perhaps I should just say I never heard of anyone running the Quest at 60 Hz. 72 Hz is about as low as I would want to go.

 

Edit: I think that is basically what I said.

Edited October 16, 2020 by dburne

[Alonzo]

57 minutes ago, dburne said:

Perhaps I should just say I never heard of anyone running the Quest at 60 Hz. 72 Hz is about as low as I would want to go.

 

Surely not? There's loads of people running their OG Reverb at 60hz and experiencing no feelings of VR sickness whatsoever. It's great, you should downclock your Quest and crank the supersample! It'll be great!

(that was sarcasm, for anyone who is confused by such things)

[AuburnAlumni]

I got a Quest 2 this week and I already own a CV1, Quest 1, and Rift S. 

 

to put it simply...it's a damn good headset and versatile as hell, being both mobile and able to be used as a PCVR headset.

 

If you use Oculus TrayTool it will automatically update the clarity and image settings based on your GPU in the Quest link settings and I'm sure these will be updated to Quest 2 specific soon as well.

 

Using the Quest 2 with both Link and Virtual Desktop..it's really impressive how well it works in both re: PCVR.  

 

I flew a sortie yesterday in IL2 using Link and it was very nice..Image was clear, etc.  Once the link comes out of Beta and improves to 90hz as standard..I'm sure it will get even better.  I used Virtual Desktop as well, which enables 90hz by default.  However, I felt the image quality was better through link and more stable (I have a solid 5ghz modem but even so, there were some stutters, etc. using VD.  It wasn't bad at all...just not as good as using link IMO.

 

Personally, I still plan on getting a Reverb G2 because I want the absolute best clarity I can for my sim games..but I'm very happy with my Quest 2 purchase.  At 300 bucks, it stands toe to toe with headsets 2 to 3x the price IMO and has the added benefit of the native Oculus library and interface which is very good.

 

If you can't afford a G2 or Index, I'd definitely say you won't be disappointed grabbing a Quest 2 and using it for PCVR.  

Edited October 16, 2020 by AuburnAlumni

[dburne]

Thanks for the report @AuburnAlumni much appreciated!!

 

It is tempting for me, but still gonna wait and see how the Reverb G2 and I get along.

Yeah even with Quest 1 Link did a pretty good job.

[AuburnAlumni]

Just now, dburne said:

Thanks for the report @AuburnAlumni much appreciated!!

 

It is tempting for me, but still gonna wait and see how the Reverb G2 and I get along.

Yeah even with Quest 1 Link did a pretty good job.

 

Well I'm getting both regardless so... lol.

 

Reverb will be my go to PCVR headset but I couldn't pass up 300 bucks for a great picture, fully mobile that also provides a very high quality PCVR experience.  I don't have any buyer's remorse over buying the Quest 2 for sure.

[kuk111]

5 minutes ago, AuburnAlumni said:

However, I felt the image quality was better through link and more stable (I have a solid 5ghz modem but even so, there were some stutters, etc. using VD.  It wasn't bad at all...just not as good as using link IMO.

Hey Auburn   I had  had the same choppy VD experience when I would load it from steam VR.

Just now I launched it from the VD games page with steam VR off and it was butter smooth and sharp as hell. Sharper then link!

 

was so impressed I tried to take a screen shot with my phone but I couldn’t do it justice

[AuburnAlumni]

3 minutes ago, kuk111 said:

Hey Auburn   I had  had the same choppy VD experience when I would load it from steam VR.

Just now I launched it from the VD games page with steam VR off and it was butter smooth and sharp as hell. Sharper then link!

 

was so impressed I tried to take a screen shot with my phone but I couldn’t do it justice

I'll have to try that.  So when you licked on IL2 it didn't start Steam by default??? Interesting.

 

I have to say....I am VERY impressed how far we've come in a short time from ALVR to what Virtual Desktop can do now.  I played Half Life Alyx, Pavlov, and IL-2 in Virtual Desktop and the clarity and lack of latency was super impressive.  It wasn't perfect..but damn...I'm sure it will be that much better even 6 months to a year from now.  And being completely untethered but able to play PCVR games is an awesome feeling.

Edited October 16, 2020 by AuburnAlumni

[kuk111]

2 minutes ago, AuburnAlumni said:

I played Half Life Alyx

yes! that was awesome not being tethered

4 minutes ago, AuburnAlumni said:

So when you licked on IL2 it didn't start Steam by default??? Interesting.

Steam will kick in eventually. But using the games tab gives VD time to do its magic apparently. I had to read that as I never used VD before.

 

also I tried licking it but saw no performance gains  

[chiliwili69]

1 hour ago, AuburnAlumni said:

At 300 bucks

 

Hey, it is 300 bucks plus being forced to be in Facebook.

When something is too cheeap or free the prodcut is you.

I would recomend to anyone tempted to buy an Oculus device watch this documental: https://www.netflix.com/es/title/81254224

 

 

1 hour ago, dburne said:

It is tempting for me,

 

You already have your oculus account and you said recently that you don´t want Facebook.

 

If you buy the Quest2, would you be forced to be in Facebook? (since it is a new device but old account)

[kuk111]

That is a must watch documentary for sure. I already had a FB account so eh whatever. Do you know how many times I have had creepy google experiences? Too many to count   All the big companies harvest us. it’s a sad truth of the world.

[dburne]

43 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

Hey, it is 300 bucks plus being forced to be in Facebook.

When something is too cheeap or free the prodcut is you.

I would recomend to anyone tempted to buy an Oculus device watch this documental: https://www.netflix.com/es/title/81254224

 

 

 

You already have your oculus account and you said recently that you don´t want Facebook.

 

If you buy the Quest2, would you be forced to be in Facebook? (since it is a new device but old account)

 

 

Yes any new Oculus device purchased requires a Facebook Account.  New Oculus accounts are no more.

My argument was not that it would force me to be in Facebook, it was that they were making one have Facebook as a requirement

for the device.

[AuburnAlumni]

3 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

Hey, it is 300 bucks plus being forced to be in Facebook.

When something is too cheeap or free the prodcut is you.

I would recomend to anyone tempted to buy an Oculus device watch this documental: https://www.netflix.com/es/title/81254224

 

 

 

You already have your oculus account and you said recently that you don´t want Facebook.

 

If you buy the Quest2, would you be forced to be in Facebook? (since it is a new device but old account)

Yes I'm fully aware.  Yes I watched the documentary.  Considering I'm not a spy or sharing nuclear warhead diagrams on oculus, it's not really a huge deal to me.  Its the age we live in and facebook is far from the only company using consumer data.  It's a great headset, as were the previous Oculus headsets and I've been pleased with all of them in the 3 years I've owned them.  

 

I plan on getting a G2 as well.  

3 hours ago, kuk111 said:

That is a must watch documentary for sure. I already had a FB account so eh whatever. Do you know how many times I have had creepy google experiences? Too many to count   All the big companies harvest us. it’s a sad truth of the world.

 

Exactly..and honestly... I'm not near important or exciting enough to even be bothered by it.  Oh no...FB knows that I like to play Pavlov and have a golden retriever.  

 

 

[kuk111]

18 minutes ago, AuburnAlumni said:

 

Exactly..and honestly... I'm not near important or exciting enough to even be bothered by it.  Oh no...FB knows that I like to play Pavlov and have a golden retriever.  

You let them know about your dog!! I always make sure my sweet lady Rottweiler is out of camera view ?

[Alonzo]

2 hours ago, AuburnAlumni said:

Yes I'm fully aware.  Yes I watched the documentary.  Considering I'm not a spy or sharing nuclear warhead diagrams on oculus, it's not really a huge deal to me.  Its the age we live in and facebook is far from the only company using consumer data.  It's a great headset, as were the previous Oculus headsets and I've been pleased with all of them in the 3 years I've owned them.  

 

I plan on getting a G2 as well.  

 

Exactly..and honestly... I'm not near important or exciting enough to even be bothered by it.  Oh no...FB knows that I like to play Pavlov and have a golden retriever. 

 

2 hours ago, kuk111 said:

You let them know about your dog!! I always make sure my sweet lady Rottweiler is out of camera view ?

 

I think more people should be scared witless that big social platforms like Facebook and Twitter can influence elections, decide what's free speech and what's censored, and know very intimate details about your digital life -- soon to include eyeball data from VR. Anyone saying there's no issue with the data collection must have missed the entire Cambridge Analytica scandal.

 

I mean yeah, knowing you have a golden retriever isn't an issue, but knowing you looked up details about heart disease and then visited a particular specialist doctor, that's much more of a problem.

[messsucher]

These things are such that it does not matter if someone does not use them because like 90% of people will use them. So anybody concerned does not make any difference. It is mob culture.

[kuk111]

Can we go back to talking about how great IL-2 looked over virtual desktop haha

[Pekka_Rayha]

What kind of specs would I need to run Q2 decently?

[Japsai]

CONFUSED.COM

Cant decide between Rift S and Quest 2/Link

Not interested in mobile VR.  Just seated flight sims, linked to PC.  Budget £400.

 

GPU i7-8700@3.2GHZ (boosting to 4.6)

CPU RTX2070

RAM 16GB

 

My current (uneducated) thinking is that reducing latency is very important for fast moving images on a flight sim.  Especially having your head on a quick swivel to check your 6. Motion sickness from higher latency?

 

A dedicated Displayport connection sending raw video date (as Rift S) must have lower latency than linked Quest 2 which involves your pc compressing video data, so it can be sent down a USB fibre optic, and then decompressing at the headset end.

 

Maybe if I had a Carlos Fandango super-fast PC spec with i9, RTX3070, 32GB the latency with compression/decompression wouldnt be noticeable, but with my spec i suspect it might  be.

 

My gut feel tells me that if I want a seated and linked VR experience, go with the purpose-built solution for this (Rift S), rather than a standalone where the link is being made to work as an add-on to the core role?

But like I say, CONFUSED.COM

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by 334th_Biffa

[Pekka_Rayha]

55 minutes ago, 334th_Biffa said:

CONFUSED.COM

Cant decide between Rift S and Quest 2/Link

Not interested in mobile VR.  Just seated flight sims, linked to PC.  Budget £400.

 

GPU i7-8700@3.2GHZ (boosting to 4.6)

CPU RTX2070

RAM 16GB

 

My current (uneducated) thinking is that reducing latency is very important for fast moving images on a flight sim.  Especially having your head on a quick swivel to check your 6. Motion sickness from higher latency?

 

A dedicated Displayport connection sending raw video date (as Rift S) must have lower latency than linked Quest 2 which involves your pc compressing video data, so it can be sent down a USB fibre optic, and then decompressing at the headset end.

 

Maybe if I had a Carlos Fandango super-fast PC spec with i9, RTX3070, 32GB the latency with compression/decompression wouldnt be noticeable, but with my spec i suspect it might  be.

 

My gut feel tells me that if I want a seated and linked VR experience, go with the purpose-built solution for this (Rift S), rather than a standalone where the link is being made to work as an add-on to the core role?

But like I say, CONFUSED.COM

 

I'm thinking this exact thing too. What I've gathered around the internet, everyone is recommendin Q2 over Rift S, even for seated tethered experiences like IL-2. And even for a little lower PC specs.

I don't know the right answer but I'm slowly drifting towards Q2. It's getting nice updates and if I don't like it after all, I think it's easier to sell and/or my family can get something out of it.