Quest3 vs. Crystal Light: Through the lens pictures

[chiliwili69]

I just wanted to put some objectivity in my subjetive feelings.

More feelings here:  https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/88156-pimax-crystal-light/?do=findComment&comment=1318933

 

 

QuestLink settings: 72Hz, SteamVR at 180%SS, this is 2768x3004 per eye, so 16.6 Million pixels. This is the limit to mantain 72fps in a 3080.

Pimax Crystal Light: 72Hz, with two settings:

16Mpx: This is PimaxPlay Balanced resolution (it is 0.75) with SteamVR at 66%SS, this is 2644x3128 per eye, so 16.5 Million pixels. so the same pixels rendered than Quest3 at 180%.

44Mpx: This is PimaxPlay maximun resolution (it is 1.0) with SteamVR at 100%SS, this is 4332x5124 per eye, so 44.4 Million pixels. So, 2.7 times more GPU power than the required for Quest3.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2024 by chiliwili69

[chiliwili69]

This is Quest3

 

And this is Crystal with 16Mpx

then Crytal 44Mpx

 

 

The raw images can be downloaded from here:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-P7_Vjvham8K-g8wurpf_GtyzC8HSQwR/view?usp=sharing

Edited June 14, 2024 by chiliwili69

[c19580]

Wow! There’s a big difference with the 44 Mpx!

 

can’t wait to receive my crystal light

[BOO]

Ignorant question @chiliwili69 from a non VR user (currently). Are we saying that for any significant step up in image quality from the Q3, someone would need to be using a 4090 or even more? 

[chiliwili69]

3 hours ago, BOO said:

Are we saying that for any significant step up in image quality from the Q3, someone would need to be using a 4090 or even more

 

What the above images shows is that the Quest3 has currently the best ratio for Image_quality/GPU_requirement of all existing devices.

 

Of coure, the 44Mpx image of the Crystal is better than Quest3 but at the cost of rendering 44Mpx.

 

Main reason for that is that while the Quest3 only needs a factor of 1.01 to correct the lens distortion, the Crystal Light is needing a factor of 2.65.

So it means that to fully benefit from the Crystal 2880x2880 physical panel you need to render 2.65 times the pixels of the physical panel.

 

 

So yes, for the Crystal you will need a 4080/4090, otherwise you will be under-utilizing your device.

 

Of course, there are then tools like the OpenXR Toolkit (from an external developer) which will help you to improve the Image_quality/GPU_requirement ratio but I have not experience on that.

 

Note that the Crystal Light has not Eye tracking, and this thing could really solve the renderd pixel requirement.

 

The Fixed-Foveated-Rendering (FFR) of the Crystal Light doesn´t work with IL-2 using SteamVR, it just crash. I have not tested it with OpenXR.

 

Note: the table above is in this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gJmnz_nVxI6_dG_UYNCCpZVK2-f8NBy-y1gia77Hu_k  in the tab "SS per Device"

Edited June 15, 2024 by chiliwili69

[dgiatr]

22 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

What the above images shows is that the Quest3 has currently the best ratio for Image_quality/GPU_requirement of all existing devices.

 

Of coure, the 44Mpx image of the Crystal is better than Quest3 but at the cost of rendering 44Mpx.

 

Main reason for that is that while the Quest3 only needs a factor of 1.01 to correct the lens distortion, the Crystal Light is needing a factor of 2.65.

So it means that to fully benefit from the Crystal 2880x2880 physical panel you need to render 2.65 times the pixels of the physical panel.

 

 

So yes, for the Crystal you will need a 4080/4090, otherwise you will be under-utilizing your device.

 

Of course, there are then tools like the OpenXR Toolkit (from an external developer) which will help you to improve the Image_quality/GPU_requirement ratio but I have not experience on that.

 

Note that the Crystal Light has not Eye tracking, and this thing could really solve the renderd pixel requirement.

 

The Fixed-Foveated-Rendering (FFR) of the Crystal Light doesn´t work with IL-2 using SteamVR, it just crash. I have not tested it with OpenXR.

 

Note: the table above is in this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gJmnz_nVxI6_dG_UYNCCpZVK2-f8NBy-y1gia77Hu_k  in the tab "SS per Device"

So I see that for relatively low resolutions Q3 works better ( better visuals ) for the same fps, than Pimax Crystal light but for higher resolutions I am not sure if Q3 can keep up due to probable latency issues ( wifi connection ) and/or distortion artifacts due to video compression for so many data. Can you compare both in higher resolutions and check vusuals at the same time?

Edited June 16, 2024 by dgiatr

[chiliwili69]

12 hours ago, dgiatr said:

So I see that for relatively low resolutions Q3 works better ( better visuals ) for the same fps, than Pimax Crystal light but for higher resolutions I am not sure if Q3 can keep up due to probable latency issues ( wifi connection ) and/or distortion artifacts due to video compression for so many data. Can you compare both in higher resolutions and check vusuals at the same time?

 

For the Q3 the maximun resolution I have used is 180%SS, so 16.6 Million pixels. This is the maximum resolution that I can have at 72Hz with my 3080 and be always below the 13.8 GPU frametimes. I don´t think the visuals will be much better, only a little bit better.

With 180%SS, either with QuesLink (USB cable) or AirLink (Wifi 6) there is no noticeable latencies and zero artifacts. All very smooth. Just with the default settings ( I have not touched Oculus Debug Tool (ODT) for tunning), just SteamVR with the Oculus XR runtime.

 

The video compression banwidth is independent of the amount of pixels rendered (SteamVR %SS). I really don´t know what are the default bandwith and compression methods of Quest3 since I have not touched the ODT tool.  I haev used deafault values and the image results are enough good.

 

With the Crystal Light, I have been only using the 72Hz mode (which is quite enough for me, and allows me higher margins on CPU&GPU frametimes).

When using it with 16.5 Mpx the experience was as smooth as with the quest3, the only issue was the lose of tracking from time to time.  (Been testing a variety of scenarios)

But with 44Mpx, the fps droped to 36 fps all time since my GPU could not handle it. But this is perfectly normal, I knew that. The images above were only to see how the images would look like if I had a 4090 or using Eyetracking (something not available in the Crystal Light but in the normal Crystal)

[chiliwili69]

I also analyzed the spotting ability of the Quest3 and Crystal with both 16Mpx and 44Mpx resolutions and also compared it with a 4K monitor (doing pictures with a camera and also taking screenshot).

Although the images in VR are shown a bit blurried the bombers at 9.5 Km were clearly spotted with my eyes with both headsets and both resolutions. I can not say which one is better, perhaps the low resolution modes a bit easier but very small difference.

 

[chiliwili69]

The previous above images (no the spotting) with the Quest3 were done only for the 16Mpx (180% SS) of the Quest3.

But I also wondered how much it will improve the image of the Quest3 if I raise the render to 480% SS to reach the 44Mpx as well.

I also added the a 4K monitor to compare.

And these are the results:

 

 

Edited June 20, 2024 by chiliwili69

[chiliwili69]

[SvAF/F16_RedChrille]

I own a Hp reverb G1 and pretty happy with it, however and not sure what to buy now. Quest 3 or Crystal light?

[Aapje]

If you are happy with the G1, perhaps wait a little to see how the Crystal Light owners are getting on?

[chiliwili69]

[SvAF/F16_RedChrille]

12 minutes ago, Aapje said:

If you are happy with the G1, perhaps wait a little to see how the Crystal Light owners are getting on?

Yes that is a good advice, right now the quest 3 seems to be a better choice.

[[CPT]Crunch]

The last close up shots of the heinkel are most impressive, they aren't that far off from the 4K screenshot.  I think the 50% more actual pixels being generated in the Crystal light's screens give it an edge in future proofing, there's probably more that can be done with that through the software end of things.  Have to wait till August to see for myself.

[dgiatr]

I think that for low resolutions Quest3 has sharper image but for the higher resolutions Crystal shows better image.

 

Edited June 21, 2024 by dgiatr

[eggbornson]

Thanks for sharing these chiliwili69

 

I had the Oculus Quest 2 and it did far better than it should have, the compression technology across the official link cable seemed like some form of black magic. I never noticed any real problems with compression artefacts. I also had the Reverb G2 which looked great but not being able to move my eyes to glance at the gauges was a major frustration. Also it got very hot, I couldn't really use the smaller V2 gasket especially in summer, a real immersion killer. I sold the Quest 2 the day the Quest 3 launched and the Reverb the day they announced the demise of WMR and actually made my money back before the prices tanked!

 

I had planned to buy the original Crystal but didn't have the funds so was stuck in 2D for a while. I was about to pull the trigger on a Quest 3 when I found out about the Crystal Light announcement which seemed to be the best compromise for PCVR. I came into some funds in the same week they started taking orders and could have bought the original Crystal if it wasn't out of stock so it made it easy to buy the Crystal. And then starts the anxiety...

 

As I impatiently wait for my address confirmation email from Pimax, this threads photos and the commentary on the other thread are tiding me over. The Quest 3 has come a long way in a short time and honestly, looking at these photos I would have been very happy with it had I bought it. And knowing that we are comparing a relatively mature Q3 to a newborn Light (even if it is based on the mature Crystal) makes me comfortable with my purchase decision while I wait

 

Hopefully the PCL will also get dramatic improvements over the next six months. And if I can resist spending the leftover money I saved from not getting the original Crystal, I will hopefully be halfway to a GPU upgrade when the RTX 50 series comes out later this year (currently have a 3080 12GB) to brute force the loss of eye tracking and DFR optimizations. It know it doesn't really effect IL2 at the moment but maybe its coming with the new Korea engine?

[chiliwili69]

4 hours ago, eggbornson said:

And knowing that we are comparing a relatively mature Q3 to a newborn Light (even if it is based on the mature Crystal) makes me comfortable with my purchase decision while I wait

 

I think you will be happy with the Crystal Light after you invest in the confort kit (Studioform), alternative sound and a proper GPU.

My major concern on the Pimax was the small Eye-box and the issue I had with the view of the objects. I am 54 an 24 years ago I LASIK my eyes to correct miopy.

The vision in the right eye is totally perfect, but my left eye is not totally perfect (like 0.25 diopt, but depends on the day). I don´t know if this small difference make me to feel not fine with the PCL, but with the Quest3 I was always fine. If I would keep the PCL I would have tried a 0.25 diopt lens but since the improvement on the visual was not from another world with respect to the Quest3, I decided to keep the Quest3.

[ZachariasX]

The Quest3 seems to be a sweet spot in terms of bang for the buck then. I guess I might get one to get started with VR after getting a new 7950X3D/4090 rig.

[firdimigdi]

10 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

I am 54 an 24 years ago I LASIK my eyes to correct miopy.

The vision in the right eye is totally perfect, but my left eye is not totally perfect (like 0.25 diopt, but depends on the day). I don´t know if this small difference make me to feel not fine with the PCL, but with the Quest3 I was always fine.

 

Any signs of presbyopia? If so then it could it be the PCL has a different focal distance to the Quest 3 - I recall reading some time ago were people had a similar issue with the focal distance of the G2 vs Quest 2 (I believe it was on the MSFS forums) and pinned it on presbyopia and different focal distances (IIRC the G2's was shorter than the Quest's).

[eggbornson]

21 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

I think you will be happy with the Crystal Light after you invest in the confort kit (Studioform), alternative sound and a proper GPU.

My major concern on the Pimax was the small Eye-box and the issue I had with the view of the objects. I am 54 an 24 years ago I LASIK my eyes to correct miopy.

The vision in the right eye is totally perfect, but my left eye is not totally perfect (like 0.25 diopt, but depends on the day). I don´t know if this small difference make me to feel not fine with the PCL, but with the Quest3 I was always fine. If I would keep the PCL I would have tried a 0.25 diopt lens but since the improvement on the visual was not from another world with respect to the Quest3, I decided to keep the Quest3.

 

Yes I bought the studioform yesterday after reading so many recommendations. It was cheap so better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it.

 

My eyes do weird things in VR. Good weird. I am nearly blind in my right eye and tunnel visioned in my left eye from cataracts. I also can't easily focus on things closer than 90cm. Yet somehow in VR my vision is magically corrected, without prescription lenses. I see better than in the real world with good 3D stereoscopic vision and can focus on objects touching my nose.

 

Hopefully I will be able to get surgery at some point in the next 12 months, getting my specialist referral tomorrow. I wonder how that will change my VR experiences. The ability to focus up close is probably all about diopters work and that we are focusing on a panel at a set focal distance. And I'm guessing the improved eyesight is down to the lower brightness in the headset (compared to IRL), opening up the pupil and letting more information in around the cataracts but thats just a guess.

 

Will see what the optician thinks tomorrow. To be honest I booked the appointment as much to get an accurate IPD measurement and prescription information for VR as it was about getting the cataracts sorted!

[chiliwili69]

On 6/28/2024 at 6:06 AM, firdimigdi said:

Any signs of presbyopia? If so then it could it be the PCL has a different focal distance to the Quest 3 - I recall reading some time ago were people had a similar issue with the focal distance of the G2 vs Quest 2 (I believe it was on the MSFS forums) and pinned it on presbyopia and different focal distances (IIRC the G2's was shorter than the Quest's).

 

Yes, I need reading glasses for short distances shorter than 80 cm, but no more, I mean at 80cm I read very well. I assume that both headsets has a focal distance larger than 1 meter (Quest2 has a focal distance of 1.3) but there are no official numbers about it as far as I know.

 

I think the problem is more with my left eye which sometimes depending on light and moment it doesn´t give the perfect definition of the right eye.

When I driving on highway I am always checking the definition of each eye by closing one or the other. Sometimes both are perfect, but sometimes the left eye is not at the level of of the right eye.

 

I went to the ophthalmologist one year ago he told my eyes were perfectly fine and I don´t need any lenses. I think I need to go again to see exactly what I have. 

[firdimigdi]

4 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

Yes, I need reading glasses for short distances shorter than 80 cm, but no more, I mean at 80cm I read very well. I assume that both headsets has a focal distance larger than 1 meter (Quest2 has a focal distance of 1.3) but there are no official numbers about it as far as I know.

 

The Crystal's is 1 meter according to the above post from their official account.

[chiliwili69]

2 minutes ago, firdimigdi said:

The Crystal's is 1 meter according to the above post from their official account.

Thanks, I dind´t know.

In that case, my problem with PCL was not then the focal distance, but something related to my left eye.

[eggbornson]

7 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

I think the problem is more with my left eye which sometimes depending on light and moment it doesn´t give the perfect definition of the right eye.

When I driving on highway I am always checking the definition of each eye by closing one or the other. Sometimes both are perfect, but sometimes the left eye is not at the level of of the right eye.

 

That sounds like cataracts, what I have. The closing each eye thing is the giveaway. My uncle saw me doing that and told me to get checked for cataracts and that's how I found out. He had had his fixed after someone saw him covering each eye like I was and told him to go get checked out. They grow slowly so you can take the time to make sure your health insurance coverage is in place and waiting period expired before you get the formal diagnosis. That way they can't do you for pre-existing condition. It's a quick and safe operation I've seen it done.

 

It can take a while to notice because your brain can fix the binocular image. Initially you only really notice by covering one eye, which gives the brain less information to correct the image. In the early stages you might find the eye with the cataracts is more reactive and blinded quicker by car headlights or the sun than the other eye. In the medium stage the normal vision may become milky or low contrast like the difference between a non-dimming LED screen vs OLED/QLED with dimming 😜 and then later will turn cloudy and obstruct vision like a shower curtain.

 

My optician gave me an accurate IPD measurement of 60.9mm. She was impressed, compared to my own measurement of 61mm made in the mirror with a vernier.

[chiliwili69]

1 hour ago, eggbornson said:

That sounds like cataracts, what I have.

 

Thank you for your input. It might be well the case since I am in the perfect age to start having them, in the early stage of my left eye.

I will need to visit the doctor for that.

In general I have lose contrast when driving at night and needing my phone lantern when reading the menu in restaurants with low light. But I thought this was just a question of age.

[eggbornson]

Yeah that's exactly the things I first noticed and I also put it down to normal aging. But its an easy if mildly expensive fix ($6-10k per eye in Australia if done privately without insurance) with a 99% chance you'll see as good or better than when you were a teenager. My uncle doesn't even wear glasses anymore. It's free here on public health here but the waiting list is long as it isn't essential surgery. So I'm updating my private health cover and should be able to get both eyes done in 3 months for around $1000. The missus has said she might even get me some real flying lessons towards getting my real world RPL after I get my eyes fixed!

 

VR, the one gaming topic where discussion about eye surgery is a legit subject lol

[chiliwili69]

On 7/10/2024 at 5:59 PM, eggbornson said:

That sounds like cataracts, what I have.

Sorry if off-topic, but just to finalize the story.

This morning I went to the eye doctor and he told me that I have cataracts in a very early stage.

In fact in both eyes, in the left eye it affect the vision very little, and in the right eye it doesn´t affect the perfect vision yet.

My innsurance covers the standard surgery (intra-ocular lens), but there are extra cost for trifocal-cuatrifocal lenses which eliminate the need of any glass for short or long distances.

 

He recommend me to wait some years to see how it evolves since he said that I see very well currently.

 

So, at some point I will need to do it. Many thanks for your feedback, now I know what I have! and there is nothing I can do to see better except surgery. So any glasses will improve my current vision.

[eggbornson]

Glad I could help. Knowing is half the battle. You won't have to waste any more time cleaning your glasses and wondering why it doesn't help!

 

Then one day you'll notice someone covering one eye and then the other with a slightly confused look on their face and say "hey bud, you got cataracts go see an eye doctor"

[chiliwili69]

I forgot to publish these crops of the above wing spot images: