Varjo for all

[Hartigan]

Ahead of an announcement this Thursday, high-end headset maker Varjo is teasing the message ‘Varjo For All’.

 

ttps://uploadvr.com/varjo-for-all-teaser/

 

 

[dburne]

Should be very interesting. I would love to see Varjo release a consumer device sans subscription costs.

They obviously have some pretty good tech. 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Perrrrkele, that is incredibly interrrresting. 

[dburne]

Oh man - just saw Sebastian's vid discussing the new Varjo unit.

Looking pretty sweet!

Not that I need a new headset yet, but may have to give it a try.

Decisions decisions...

 

Edit: Important note - currently only Nvidia GPU's are supported.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by dburne

[firdimigdi]

 

[kissTheSky]

I received the pre order link early this morning. Specs looks great, especially active cooling, auto IPD adjustment  and eye tracking for future foveated rendering, but $1990 price tag plus base station(s) costs are a bit hard to swallow. 
 

ps: they’re doing a side by side with the G2 at the live event right now. ?

Edited October 21, 2021 by kissTheSky

[DBCOOPER011]

The website says a 3-4 month delivery wait once ordered..

[Hoss]

How much would you pay for a top end OLED TV? it's like the video card I just got..... expensive........... Start saving your money, and you won't miss it once you are using the system

[dburne]

 

Order placed.

Yeah deliver is showing 3-4 months, I anticipate the latter at least. Supposedly the card is not charged until it is ready to ship.

I will advise if that is not the case.

Edited October 21, 2021 by dburne

[chiliwili69]

Here are review of RoadtoVR:

https://www.roadtovr.com/varjo-aero-review-vr-simmers-vr/

 

I would not mind to pay that for a perfect VR headset, but that FOV will kill me.

 

[dburne]

So Aero seems  to be between ReverbG2 and Vive Pro 2 in FOV.

As I have both I am ok with that. Vertical FOV is not that important to me.

But also I am one that prefers image quality over FOV. Nice to have both, but I would take image quality first.

Edited October 21, 2021 by dburne

[kissTheSky]

I keep going back and forth between “order now!”, and “no, no wait, it’s too soon.” 
 

Picard’s experience between the marketed VR3 specs and what he could (not) achieve once he received it is the reason  keeping me from ordering mostly.

Edited October 21, 2021 by kissTheSky

[Drum]

2 hours ago, dburne said:

So Aero seems  to be between ReverbG2 and Vive Pro 2 in FOV.

As I have both I am ok with that. Vertical FOV is not that important to me.

But also I am one that prefers image quality over FOV. Nice to have both, but I would take image quality first.

My feelings, as well.  I think with the reported near edge to edge clarity of the Aero, the FOV won't be missed by me either when you consider the reclaimed area of clarity gained back from within the blurry area of the G2 lenses.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Drum

[dburne]

28 minutes ago, Drum said:

My feelings, as well.  I think with the reported near edge to edge clarity of the Aero, the FOV won't be missed by me either when you consider the reclaimed area of clarity gained back from within the blurry area the G2 lenses.

 

Yeah same with Vive Pro 2, it is slightly better than G2 in that regard but not by much.

 

[WIS-Redcoat]

Did you guys get an email confirmation?  I have an order and a charge, but no email confirmation.

[SCG_Redcloud111]

Glad @dburne you are getting one. I hope @SCG_Fenris_Wolf does as well and let’s us know how it is. I am not happy about the FOV. I think I could get used to minor lense distortion, which never bothered me on the Pimax. But, regarding FOV, with no way to move the lenses closer to the eyes, the Aero might drive me crazy with something closer to the very first headsets I bought. Now, if IL2 implemented dynamic foveated rendering to increase performance …

[Charlo-VRde]

Agree about FOV - for $2,000 I’d expect more FOV, but can also understand that Aero’s higher edge-to-edge clarity might cause me to not notice it’s slightly shorter vertical FOV compared to my excellent Reverb G2. 
 

Based on the videos and written review shared above in this thread, I am concerned that my glasses won’t fit, and I don’t quite see how prescription lens adapters designed for the Aero would snap on or grip the edges around the Aero lenses. I may need to wait until someone like WIDMOvr offers Aero lens adapters before I commit. ?

Edited October 22, 2021 by Charlo-VR

[Drum]

I have these on order, hoping to get them soon: https://vr-lens-lab.com/product/vr-frames-virtual-reality-glasses/

 

Just had my eyes retested so chose to go this route from here on in, should work well with the Aero.

[chiliwili69]

9 hours ago, kissTheSky said:

I keep going back and forth between “order now!”, and “no, no wait, it’s too soon.” 
 

Picard’s experience between the marketed VR3 specs and what he could (not) achieve once he received it is the reason  keeping me from ordering mostly.

 

Normally I buy every new PC-VR headset that arrive to the market to compare it with the one I have and keep just one.

In this case, after reading the reviews and videos I will pass.

 

Why?

 

1. small FOV, vertical and horizontal compared to Index

2. Expected Index 2 in the next 6 months (Valve Deckard)

3. Performance: It has not other frequency modes of 72Hz or 80Hz, and that huge resolution is gogin to be challenging

4. Picard review of VR-3: 

5. Price: Although I can easily afford it, it is a bit obscene price.

 

But if you doubt the best way to check it for yourself is get the device and test it.

 

I am sure many pleople will be pleased with that amazing resolution and will keep the device. 

For the people who buy it, we will be glad to know how it goes with IL-2.

 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

5 hours ago, SCG_Redcloud111 said:

Glad @dburne you are getting one. I hope @SCG_Fenris_Wolf does as well and let’s us know how it is. I am not happy about the FOV. I think I could get used to minor lense distortion, which never bothered me on the Pimax. But, regarding FOV, with no way to move the lenses closer to the eyes, the Aero might drive me crazy with something closer to the very first headsets I bought. Now, if IL2 implemented dynamic foveated rendering to increase performance …

 

Firstly, guys: I hate to crash the party.

 

Secondly: I will also consider taking a look at it, but the main obstacle will be IL-2.

 

IL-2 has been (until recently, because it is bugged) my primary game, but the fact they have to manually put in every headset before it properly works is a large red flag regarding the Varjo with its new dimensions.

 

 

 

Guys, do you really believe 1CGS will buy a $2000 Varjo headset so that 5 customers can use it in IL-2?

 

 

 

I'd wait for a statement by Jason that they would fix IL-2's OpenVR integration - and wait out the actual patch. Or that the headset, by sheer luck, is close enough in geometry to the default values (Rift CV1) IL-2 calls in such cases. Somebody has to try it. Let a European try it, we have an unconditional right to return.

 

 

Remember:

It took more than 18+ months until we had no need for parallel projection and/or proper zoom in the Pimax headsets, with the first 12 we were using 3dmigoto mod (thanks to lefuneste) to even have a zoom at all.

It has been 4 months since the release of the VP2 now and IL-2 is still the only game that is bugged with it.

Edited October 22, 2021 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[dburne]

5 hours ago, Charlo-VR said:

Agree about FOV - for $2,000 I’d expect more FOV, but can also understand that Aero’s higher edge-to-edge clarity might cause me to not notice it’s slightly shorter vertical FOV compared to my excellent Reverb G2. 
 

Based on the videos and written review shared above in this thread, I am concerned that my glasses won’t fit, and I don’t quite see how prescription lens adapters designed for the Aero would snap on or grip the edges around the Aero lenses. I may need to wait until someone like WIDMOvr offers Aero lens adapters before I commit. ?

 

Horizontal FOV is slightly better than Reverb G2, or close to the same really.

While I have a little better horizontal FOV with the Vive Pro 2, the Reverb G2's did not really bother me that much.

But I have to add a disclaimer, my natural FOV is already much smaller than an average person due to partial blindness.

But yeah for that kind of money having more FOV would have been nice.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Does anyone have an idea about the eyetracking + foveated rendering? Does this work natively with Steam VR, or does every application have to have this built into the engine? If this would work with Il2 (and other simulations) the performance matter would be dealt with once and for all, at least regarding the graphics card.

[dburne]

1 minute ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Does anyone have an idea about the eyetracking + foveated rendering? Does this work natively with Steam VR, or does every application have to have this built into the engine? If this would work with Il2 (and other simulations) the performance matter would be dealt with once and for all, at least regarding the graphics card.

 

I "think" the application would need to support it.

[kissTheSky]

2 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Does anyone have an idea about the eyetracking + foveated rendering? Does this work natively with Steam VR, or does every application have to have this built into the engine? If this would work with Il2 (and other simulations) the performance matter would be dealt with once and for all, at least regarding the graphics card.

During the launch event, and the Q/A following it, they said there is nothing the developers need to do, and foveated rendering is being handled by Varjo’s base software if I remember correctly. Though there were people coming in and out of the office so I may have missed the whole explanation. 

[TCW_Brzi_Joe]

20 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Does anyone have an idea about the eyetracking + foveated rendering?

Pimax has excellent foveated rendering in pimax driver level. I was using fixed foveated, as I have no eye tracking. It was working in all games out of the box, except IL-2. I guess it is because of 1 pixel long spotting feature.

Second example is FidelityFX, it has kind of foveated rendering too; I am using it in IL-2 without problems, just benefit is not as large as with Pimax solution.

Active foveated is similar, and easy to implement when fixed works.

 

edit; varjo may work generaly, but not in Il-2, this is my guess

 

edit 2: I meat above varjo foveated, varjo without foveated will sure work. sorry for confusion

Edited October 23, 2021 by TCW_Brzi_Joe
confusion

[firdimigdi]

1 hour ago, TCW_Brzi_Joe said:

It was working in all games out of the box, except IL-2.

 

Probably because IL2 seems to render both eyes to one texture and sends it to the HMD instead of sending two separate textures; while efficient it needs extra tinkering engine-side for new features. This is also probably part of the woes that befall the game's VR community whenever a new headset is introduced.

[SunCup]

VR3 seems working with IL2, why aero couln't ?

 

 

[dburne]

53 minutes ago, SunCup said:

VR3 seems working with IL2, why aero couln't ?

 

 

Sounds somewhat promising.

[chiliwili69]

Here some through the lens captures of the Tyrel video below comparing Aero, G2 and Index.

 

It seems that G2 is superior in terms of visual quality, but as Tyrel said, VR headset are made for eyes not for cameras. Therefore the user experience is what it would count.

 

 

The Chroma aberration has been mentioned in the reviews, but I think this could be solvable via software

 

 

 

[dburne]

The headset is not released yet, they are still 3-4 months out.

Probably then would be better time to compare to those that are already out there.

IMHO the better comparison would be it to Reverb G2 and Vive Pro 2. For this kind of money the image quality of the Aero should be considerably better than those two headsets. But I would not compare the Aero in it's current state, as it is not fully baked yet I don't think.

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by dburne

[dburne]

Interesting bit of info here:
https://varjo.com/press-release/varjo-introduces-varjo-aero-headset-to-bring-the-highest-fidelity-virtual-reality-for-professionals-and-leading-edge-vr-users-alike/

 

In particular:

"In addition, its built-in eye tracking powers not just interaction and analytics, but also foveated rendering that further reduces compute requirements and enables a crystal clear resolution. The lower PC hardware requirements of Varjo Aero enable more scalable deployments and various multi-user experiences, including flight and racing simulations, enterprise training scenarios, design and creative use-cases, as well as delivering immersive experiences in showrooms, museums, and virtual arcades."

[firdimigdi]

15 hours ago, SunCup said:

VR3 seems working with IL2, why aero couln't ?

 

 

I think the question was about foveated rendering specifically, not so much general functionality.

[TCW_Brzi_Joe]

Yes, sorry for confusion, I was talking about "varjo foveated", but I wrote something else.

Anyway, Varjo will work with IL-2 for sure. Only it is questonable if "Varjo with foveating rendering" will work with IL-2 (in multiplayer, without mods), as Pimax does not work with foveated.

[dburne]

Q & A Session with MRTV on Aero:

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

Where are the Aeros manufactured and what is the warranty length? Without having any idea how these units will be supported once they are "in the wild" seems too risky a proposition.

[dburne]

10 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Where are the Aeros manufactured and what is the warranty length? Without having any idea how these units will be supported once they are "in the wild" seems too risky a proposition.

 

Not sure where they are manufactured, I believe the company is based out of Finland.

Published warranty states 1 year. Might be different depending on country though.

 

 

Also of note the Varjo Aero uses variable resolution as well.

See below image for example of what it will be using.

 

 

Quote

The Varjo Aero features a cutting-edge optical design that propels users to a new level of visual fidelity, pushing the pixels tighter together directly in front of you. The variable resolution lenses create an ultra-sharp peak resolution of 35 PPD, right at the centre of focus where it matters most – mimicking the way the human eye works. Alternative commercially available headsets max out closer to 20 PPD.

 

Edited October 24, 2021 by dburne

[dburne]

Not sure if this has been posted - from VR Flight Sim Guy - pretty exiting stuff:

 

 

 

 

[Drum]

14 hours ago, dburne said:

 

Not sure where they are manufactured, I believe the company is based out of Finland.

Published warranty states 1 year. Might be different depending on country though.

 

 

Also of note the Varjo Aero uses variable resolution as well.

See below image for example of what it will be using.

 

 

 

Interesting, I've read the Reverb G2's PPD in the sweet spot is 23-24;  if true, then the outer 20% of the Aero's lenses are even slightly better.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

On 10/23/2021 at 11:29 AM, TCW_Brzi_Joe said:

Yes, sorry for confusion, I was talking about "varjo foveated", but I wrote something else.

Anyway, Varjo will work with IL-2 for sure. Only it is questonable if "Varjo with foveating rendering" will work with IL-2 (in multiplayer, without mods), as Pimax does not work with foveated.

Eye-tracking or dynamic foveated rendering can't work, the engine is Dx11 with a pipeline using deferred shade rendering. Fixed foveated may work, but with aspheric lenses you'll notice the drop-off as if a horse kicked you in the face. 

 

We'll see how fixed foveated will perform. It seems VR Flightsim Guy is about to make a video on IL-2 and how it works with Eye-Tracking, any perceivable warp, and foveated rendering (?) 

[SCG_Redcloud111]

@SCG_Fenris_Wolf Yeah, my only experience with fixed foveated rendering is with Pimax's implementation, which was not good. You could definitely see the degradation of the image around the center. I was hoping dynamic would be an option for the Aero. But maybe their implementation will be smoother and less obtrusive because of eye tracking (or will that not matter at all because of the inherent limitations?).

Edited October 25, 2021 by SCG_Redcloud111