Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So I'm currently planning an upgrade if my computer, primarily to play Il-2, DCS, and FS2020 in VR. Currently I'm using a Reverb G1 with a Ryzen 3800X and 1080 Ti.

 

Part of my goal is to be able to do a solid P-47 campaign with no icons, and, given the plane is a high altitude focused things, that means view distance is absolute king. (Nothing quite like trying to navigate by invisible cities, after all.) 

 

Here's the thing, my IPD is 71mm, my correction is on the order of -9.0, and my hat size is a 61, so fit is a bit of a challenge. I'd started out with the Rift CV1, and while that could handle a 71 IPD, the resolution was low, so I switched to the Reverb. Problem there, I've found is the 67mm IPD limit on that thing seems to cause me quite a bit of eye strain, even when I've got a good FPS in it, even after using the SteamVR IPD override to bump it up. 

 

I'm also go sing the cable to be a big of a hassle to set up. I finally put my controls kitty corner to my desk so I can leave the center stick step up and weighted all the time, but it's a thick and stiff cable to get positioned and looped back up so it doesn't get a chair sat on it. 

 

So I'm debating whether to go with a different headset or not, and if so, which one? The Occulus ones don't have IPDs that will fit me, and the Pimax headsets apparently don't have room for glasses. I've heard good things about the Index, though it's a lower resolution, and quite expensive. I've also read about the Decagear One, which is apparently a new company, that supposedly will have a 71mm IPD, and 2k by 2k eye resolution like the Reverb, but they're an unknown factor right now. 

 

I'm not quite sure which way to go with this at the moment. I'm realizing that I'm just not really flying much anymore because of the hassle getting set up and the general discomfort for longer play sessions, along with my relatively low PC performance with the Reverb G1. I'm thinking the new CPU/GPU will help improve frame rates whenever they're available, but I'm really wondering if the headset itself is just going to be sufficiently discomforting to use for long periods of time to make it still not viable? 

 

What are your all thoughts? Stick with the Reverb? Take a gamble on the Decagear thing? Crack the budget for the Index? Chose a fourth option? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick feedback:

 

PC upgrade: You could just replace your 3800X by a 5600X/5800X/5900X and get a nice boost. Also check your RAM.

GPU: This is very much related to the headset you finally get. For G1 or Index you can live with a 1080Ti (and adjusting properly settings). For G2 you need definetely need something better. For G1/Index you will also greatly enjoy better fps/graphics if you go to 3080/3090 as Alonzo nicely showed here.

 

DecaGear, I will forget this for now. They still need to demonstrate many things.

If you only want Index for IL-2 VR or seated experience you don´t need controllers. And one base station is enough. So price is just headset+1 basestation.

For me Index was better than G1 because FOV and better sweetspot.

At the end the best thing is to try things by yourself since VR is very personal. They can be returned or sold afterward if you don´t like them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

Just a quick feedback:

 

PC upgrade: You could just replace your 3800X by a 5600X/5800X/5900X and get a nice boost. Also check your RAM.

GPU: This is very much related to the headset you finally get. For G1 or Index you can live with a 1080Ti (and adjusting properly settings). For G2 you need definetely need something better. For G1/Index you will also greatly enjoy better fps/graphics if you go to 3080/3090 as Alonzo nicely showed here.

 

DecaGear, I will forget this for now. They still need to demonstrate many things.

If you only want Index for IL-2 VR or seated experience you don´t need controllers. And one base station is enough. So price is just headset+1 basestation.

For me Index was better than G1 because FOV and better sweetspot.

At the end the best thing is to try things by yourself since VR is very personal. They can be returned or sold afterward if you don´t like them.


I'm living very nicely with the G2 running off a GTX1080ti. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@chiliwili69 @JG51-Hetzer

 

What view ranges and SS are you typically running at on those? I recall in DCS some people are running the G2 at 50%, and I've found that graphics settings seem to vary depending on what you're doing. 

 

I suppose I've gotten down on the Reverb, because I found I basically needed to soak my eyes after a few hours under the hood, even with good frame rates (Elite Dangerous, at auto graphics settings). I really don't recall that being a thing with the Rift CV1, but the Rift adjusted out to 71mm IPD, so I'm wondering if that it the difference. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WIS-Redcoat said:

I find my "VR Fatigue" at an all time low with the G2.  It's simply easier on my eyes.

Do you know what your IPD is, and what other headsets is this in comparison with?

 

I'm suspecting the fatigue is from the IPD mismatch, and neither the Reverb G1 (67mm) not the G2 (68mm) has a large enough IPD to properly accomodate my eyes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Voyager said:

Do you know what your IPD is, and what other headsets is this in comparison with?

 

I'm suspecting the fatigue is from the IPD mismatch, and neither the Reverb G1 (67mm) not the G2 (68mm) has a large enough IPD to properly accomodate my eyes. 


Have you played with the game's own IPD gizmo?

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JG51-Hetzer said:


Have you played with the game's own IPD gizmo?

I've used the Steam adjuster but hadn't realized they had an in retreated one in Il-2 now. I'll give is a shot and see how it works. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Just a quick feedback:

 

PC upgrade: You could just replace your 3800X by a 5600X/5800X/5900X and get a nice boost. Also check your RAM.

GPU: This is very much related to the headset you finally get. For G1 or Index you can live with a 1080Ti (and adjusting properly settings). For G2 you need definetely need something better. For G1/Index you will also greatly enjoy better fps/graphics if you go to 3080/3090 as Alonzo nicely showed here.

 

DecaGear, I will forget this for now. They still need to demonstrate many things.

If you only want Index for IL-2 VR or seated experience you don´t need controllers. And one base station is enough. So price is just headset+1 basestation.

For me Index was better than G1 because FOV and better sweetspot.

At the end the best thing is to try things by yourself since VR is very personal. They can be returned or sold afterward if you don´t like them.

G1 and G2 have the same resolution and frame rate.  You can run a 1080ti with everything set to low, I used this setting with a G1 and it was pretty good.  With a 3080 you can run max view distances with low clouds and no anti aliasing.  I think the G2 has better adjustability than the G1 but I'm not sure if it will fit still.  The Index is really nice but it will be less clarity no question.  The G2 general build quality hasn't been the greatest, but it works and the screens are great.  Maybe you can find one of those VR cafes that will let you try?  I think my setup (below) has incredible view distance and clarity, I am very happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Voyager said:

What view ranges and SS are you typically running at on those?

 

I normally use this with my Index, but depending of clouds/scene I enter in the 60-80 fps because I am GPU limited.

 

Index 80Hz mode, 130SS% and MotionSmoothing OFF.

For IL-2 settings:

Preset: High settings

Shadows: High

Mirrors: Off

Distant landscape: x3

Canopy refl: Off

Horizon draw: 130Km

Landscape filter: Blurried

Terrain roughness: Off

Grass quality: Normal

Cloud: High

AA: FXAAx2

SSAO&HDR&DistantBuildings: OFF

Sharpen&4Ktextures: ON

1 hour ago, Bernard_IV said:

G1 and G2 have the same resolution and frame rate.

 

They have teh same panel resolution, but the G2 is more demanding in GPU terms. Why?

 

Well, this is because at 100% SS the G1 uses 9.5 million pixels but the G2 uses 19.5 million pixels.

This is how HP recommeded to run the headset. If you run lower than 100% you will start to lose definition specially around the edges.

The calcs are here:

Untitled.thumb.png.ca1aaa4e0ec9ccbbddc7d1c096b48d62.png

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

This is how HP recommeded to run the headset. If you run lower than 100% you will start to lose definition specially around the edges.

Do you have a quote for that? My settings in windows reality offer two alternatives: 2160 lines as best quality, or scale up for best performance. Last I saw in reddit, but that was a couple months ago, the overly large supersampling at 100% in steamvr wasn’t intended. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coconut said:

Do you have a quote for that? My settings in windows reality offer two alternatives: 2160 lines as best quality, or scale up for best performance. Last I saw in reddit, but that was a couple months ago, the overly large supersampling at 100% in steamvr wasn’t intended. 

 

Yeah been wondering the same as well.

I don't quite get as they billed the Reverb G2 as having same resolution as G1,, but now someone tell us it has much higher as native with a ton more pixels than G1.

Makes no sense to me.

Straight from the HP site for Reverb G2:

Immerse yourself in ultra sharp visuals with mura-free, 2160 x 2160 LCD panels per eye and full RGB stripe. At 9.3 million pixels, get 2.5x more pixels than Oculus Rift S.

 

https://www8.hp.com/us/en/vr/reverb-g2-vr-headset.html#:~:text=immersive spatial audio.-,Resolution,pixels than Oculus Rift S.

Edited by dburne
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have an IPD of 71mm. The G2's max is 68mm...

 

I would say go with the Valve Index, as it goes up to 70mm, but the question is whether you have gotten so used to the high-res panels that you'd want to go back. What is certain is that it would match your IPD the best and also give you a proper FOV, while the G2 will still be hard pressed and offer just reduced FOV due to the missing 3mm.

 

If you can try if it fits you, and will be able to return it afterwards (European Citizen for example), then by all means, try the Index too.

Edited by SCG_Fenris_Wolf
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, coconut said:

Do you have a quote for that? My settings in windows reality offer two alternatives: 2160 lines as best quality, or scale up for best performance. Last I saw in reddit, but that was a couple months ago, the overly large supersampling at 100% in steamvr wasn’t intended.

 

You can check that in this video minute 10:43, he talked with HP product managers.

 

 

Here another youtuber correcting his previous wrong advice and he also talked with HP:

 

 

20 hours ago, dburne said:

Straight from the HP site for Reverb G2:

Immerse yourself in ultra sharp visuals with mura-free, 2160 x 2160 LCD panels per eye and full RGB stripe. At 9.3 million pixels, get 2.5x more pixels than Oculus Rift S.

 

Here they were just describding the physical pixels of the panel. Nothing about the default target resolution.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

 

Here they were just describding the physical pixels of the panel. Nothing about the default target resolution.

 

9.3 Million Pixels is what they stated. Which is 2.5 times that of Rift S.

You say they are incorrect?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dburne said:

9.3 Million Pixels is what they stated. Which is 2.5 times that of Rift S.

You say they are incorrect?

 

I didn´t say they are incorrect, what I say is that they were referring just to the physical panel resolution.

 

If we compare the G2 and the Rift-S in terms of physical panel resolution we have:

 

Rift-S: 1280x1440x2=3.68 million pixels

G2: 2160x2160x2=9.33 million pixels

9.33/3.68 is 2.5, so they are referring just to the physical panel resolution.

 

If we compare the G2 and the Rift-S in terms of rendered pixels at default target resolution (1.0 PD or 100%SteamVR) then we have:

 

Rift-S: 1648x1776x2=5.85 million pixels

G2: 3162x3093x2=19.56 million pixels

19.56/5.85 is 3.34, so the G2 is needing to render 3.34 times the pixels of the Rift-S. If we discount the frequency of the panel then 3.34*80/90=2.96, so the G2 is needed almost 3 times the GPU power needed for the Rift-S.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

I didn´t say they are incorrect, what I say is that they were referring just to the physical panel resolution.

 

If we compare the G2 and the Rift-S in terms of physical panel resolution we have:

 

Rift-S: 1280x1440x2=3.68 million pixels

G2: 2160x2160x2=9.33 million pixels

9.33/3.68 is 2.5, so they are referring just to the physical panel resolution.

 

If we compare the G2 and the Rift-S in terms of rendered pixels at default target resolution (1.0 PD or 100%SteamVR) then we have:

 

Rift-S: 1648x1776x2=5.85 million pixels

G2: 3162x3093x2=19.56 million pixels

19.56/5.85 is 3.34, so the G2 is needing to render 3.34 times the pixels of the Rift-S. If we discount the frequency of the panel then 3.34*80/90=2.96, so the G2 is needed almost 3 times the GPU power needed for the Rift-S.

 

That is going on the assumption that the Steam VR setting of 100% for the Reverb G2 is correct no?

As I understand the G1 resolution in Steam VR of 100% is about the panel's native size of 2160x2160.

Is the Oculus default target resolution in Steam VR the same as what is set it Oculus software?

 

I am not saying they are not just trying to understand in my mind the differences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best way is to try both 20m pixels and 9.5m pixels and if you can't live without the 20m you use that if you don't see much difference you use the 9.5m. Or something in between. It doesn't really matter what HP or the random people on YT say.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, HunDread said:

I think the best way is to try both 20m pixels and 9.5m pixels and if you can't live without the 20m you use that if you don't see much difference you use the 9.5m. Or something in between. It doesn't really matter what HP or the random people on YT say.

 

I went from the Rift S to the Reverb G2 and the difference is night and day.

Don't get me wrong, the Rift S is a great headset for the money but the G2 is just so much better in every regard starting with resolution.

You don't need labels as enemies are perfectly visible even ground units.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dburne said:

That is going on the assumption that the Steam VR setting of 100% for the Reverb G2 is correct no?

As I understand the G1 resolution in Steam VR of 100% is about the panel's native size of 2160x2160.

Is the Oculus default target resolution in Steam VR the same as what is set it Oculus software?

 

According this post the HP position is that G2 was designed to run at 100% (it was not a bug). Obioussly it can run at 50% or lower, as in any headset  (you can put 50%, 100%, 150%).

 

Regarding the G1:

Physical panel: 2160x2160x2=9.33 million pixels

Rendered pixels with 100%SteamVR is 2205x2160x2=9.5 million pixels

 

Regarding your oculus question, yes. With Rift-S If you set PD=1 in Oculus software you get 1648x1776x2=5.85 million pixels, which is the same if you set 100% SS in SteamVR.

If you set PD=1.2 in oculus software is then equivalent to putting 144% in SteamVR. (1.2 is Square_root of 144/100)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

According this post the HP position is that G2 was designed to run at 100% (it was not a bug). Obioussly it can run at 50% or lower, as in any headset  (you can put 50%, 100%, 150%).

 

Regarding the G1:

Physical panel: 2160x2160x2=9.33 million pixels

Rendered pixels with 100%SteamVR is 2205x2160x2=9.5 million pixels

 

Regarding your oculus question, yes. With Rift-S If you set PD=1 in Oculus software you get 1648x1776x2=5.85 million pixels, which is the same if you set 100% SS in SteamVR.

If you set PD=1.2 in oculus software is then equivalent to putting 144% in SteamVR. (1.2 is Square_root of 144/100)

 

 

To my eyes, it doesn't matter what SS % the Steam VR shows... the G2 panels' resolution is 2160x2160, so anything above that is SuperSampling. I find that running my Oculus Rift using Steam VR 100%, it doesn't match the panels' native resolution and doesn't give smooth gameplay. If I use Open Composite and Oculus Tray Tool set to PD of 1.0, SS 100%, it runs IL-2 at my HMD's native resolution and gives better fps and smooth gameplay with less stutters.

 

Just my two pence worth...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steam - Use Legacy Reprojection Mode

 

Hi Folks,

 

Re the subject above, do you recommend on or off for IL-2 GB?

 

I have it turned on at the moment as I thought that might be the best option, but I must confess that I don't really understand how to make the best decision about it.

 

Your thoughts and recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

According this post the HP position is that G2 was designed to run at 100% (it was not a bug). Obioussly it can run at 50% or lower, as in any headset  (you can put 50%, 100%, 150%).

 

Regarding the G1:

Physical panel: 2160x2160x2=9.33 million pixels

Rendered pixels with 100%SteamVR is 2205x2160x2=9.5 million pixels

 

Regarding your oculus question, yes. With Rift-S If you set PD=1 in Oculus software you get 1648x1776x2=5.85 million pixels, which is the same if you set 100% SS in SteamVR.

If you set PD=1.2 in oculus software is then equivalent to putting 144% in SteamVR. (1.2 is Square_root of 144/100)

 

 

So what happens if one uses OpenXR for WMR. Does it use the same inflated 100% value that SteamVR does? Or does it use the actual panel native resolution like the G1?

I use OpenXR for WMR with MSFS 2020 and with SS set to 70% in OpenXR it runs pretty good at gorgeous graphics.

I find it a little hard to believe that if the G2 native resolution at 100% gave that much higher a pixel count over the G1 that HP did not capitalize on that advantage in their marketing.

But hey horses for courses.

 

As you can see here it is still advertised same as G1.

Edited by dburne
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Algy-Lacey said:

the G2 panels' resolution is 2160x2160, so anything above that is SuperSampling.

 

The term "supersampling" was created before VR. It was used in monitor mode. This is DSR. In a 1080p monitor you can do the render at 4K. The benefit is AA and also a bit more detailed image.

 

In VR, all devices apply a supersampling factor because lenses are used between your eye and the panel.  If you remove the lenses you will see that the image displayed in the panel is distorted to counter-act the effect of the lens.  In the center of the view there is almost no needed distorsion profile, but as you move to the edges you need more distorsion and more supersampling.

 

Look the SS factor needed for the HTC Vive in this article: http://doc-ok.org/?p=1694

ViveSampleHorizontal.thumb.png.8b71ef3e06e47d69bbeec5079dcc3cc5.pngViveSampleVertical.thumb.png.c810aac6af4cd4df5bff99c7bdb8066b.png

 

The G1 was not doing enough supersampling around the edges and that´s why it has a really poor sweet-spot.

 

With the G2 you can run it at 50% SS, and there will be minor deiferences in the center, but it the edges your image will degrade significantly.

 

Hey, but no worries. Everyone on their own.

 

 

2 hours ago, dburne said:

So what happens if one uses OpenXR for WMR. Does it use the same inflated 100% value that SteamVR does?

 

I don´t use OpenXR for WMR, so the question is for you. Do you know how many pixels is rendering with OpenXR at 70% or 100%?

2 hours ago, dburne said:

As you can see here it is still advertised same as G1.

 

Again, the webpage just refers to the physical panel.  :dash:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Algy-Lacey said:

To my eyes, it doesn't matter what SS % the Steam VR shows... the G2 panels' resolution is 2160x2160, so anything above that is SuperSampling. I find that running my Oculus Rift using Steam VR 100%, it doesn't match the panels' native resolution and doesn't give smooth gameplay. If I use Open Composite and Oculus Tray Tool set to PD of 1.0, SS 100%, it runs IL-2 at my HMD's native resolution and gives better fps and smooth gameplay with less stutters.

 

Chili has already responded, but the "native resolution" of any VR HMD is only a very coarse specification for the headset. If you have a single panel of a particular resolution and you use physical IPD adjustment, that moves the lenses along the single physical panel. If you have two separate physical panels per eye, they can move with the lens when you adjust IPD. So a single panel will 'waste' some of its pixels if it has physical IPD adjustment and will use a different number of pixels than another headset, even if the two apparently have the same physical pixels available.

 

That's just one example of how physical pixel count is a long way from telling you anything particularly useful. The other thing is that the lenses take a square image and warp them to fit your eyes, so the pixels are used in different ways during the warp. The headset designer knows the characteristics of the lens and the panel, and therefore how to communicate with the game to render a view that will (once it gets to the physical pixels on the panel and the light is bent by the lens) give you a perception of 3D. In every VR headset you need to render more than the physical number of pixels because they will be lost during this warping process.

 

It's actually more correct to say that running SteamVR at the resolution of the panels is always subsampling and you will need to run a higher render target to actually get closer to 1:1 or to supersample.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alonzo Thanks for the explaination. I think I understood. Shows what little I know! Are you saying that the SS 100% value in Steam VR has been chosen by the VR HMD manufacturer so as to display the best possible image, even if the number of pixels rendered is more than the number of pixels on the HMD screen? It's a lot more complex than I thought.

 

I still don't understand why rendering the number of pixels that the HMD has could be less than 100% SS?

 

When I set Oculus Tray Tool (And don't use Steam VR) SS to 100% it renders the same number of pixels as my Rift CV1 has on its' OLED display, correct? It runs smoother, I know that...

 

Interesting...

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Algy-Lacey said:

I still don't understand why rendering the number of pixels that the HMD has could be less than 100% SS?

 

It's counter-intuitive and it's a good question. The panels display a rectangular image, then the lens warps the image to actually give your eye a sense of an 'enclosing' image rather than a flat one. If you move your eyeball to look 'up' you are seeing light coming 'down' into your eye from the lens. If you imagine that happening all around the lens, you can think of some kind of circular/cylindrical/semi-spherical field of light coming to your eye. Because it's not uniform, the lens actually doesn't pick up light from all of the panel's pixels equally -- some pixels at the edges are 100% wasted, and some of the pixels in the middle are actually more important than their neighbors (typically the central pixels map most densely to the final result).

 

Here's a picture of the correction used for the Rift:

 

DCa4R.jpg

 

You can see wasted pixels around the edges (black). What's not shown here, but is in reality the way these things work, is the render canvas for the game is a little bigger than this to give some wiggle room on the way to the headset's pixels, which 'wastes' even more pixels.

 

All of this is complicated and depends on the headset, the lens, the driver software, and all sorts of other stuff. Suffice to say the 100% setting in SteamVR is at best an approximation and we need to do real-world testing to figure out whether any particular setting in SteamVR is 'right', 'wrong', 'sharp', 'soft' or anything else. For example Chili has extensively tested the Valve Index and says 130% is the point where you cease to see much improvement in picture quality. For the Reverb G2, Fenris is suggesting 60-70% as a balance between image quality and GPU horsepower required to drive it. For the Rift CV1, because it has fairly low resolution, you may see an improvement all the way up to 200% or more (but of course that will come with a performance tradeoff).

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2021 at 9:02 PM, chiliwili69 said:

The G1 was not doing enough supersampling around the edges and that´s why it has a really poor sweet-spot.

 

With the G2 you can run it at 50% SS, and there will be minor deiferences in the center, but it the edges your image will degrade significantly.

 

I'm pretty sure you got that reversed. The lenses unzoom the center, thus providing better angular resolution there (there's a figure in the page you linked that shows that). In order to take advantage of that, you need to provide "enough pixels" in the rendered picture. Without VRSS or similar techniques, that means increasing the resolution over the entire picture, which creates unnecessarily many pixels on the sides.

 

You do not need more pixels to get rid of low resolution on the sides, the sides are already getting more pixels than they need. That's what the curves you included in your post show. You need 1/0.875 supersampling on the Vive to retain a 1:1 ratio between the render buffer and the distortion-corrected image sent to the headset in the center. To retain that relation on the sides, you only need 1/4 supersampling (so undersampling, really).

Link to post
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
×
×
  • Create New...