As I mentioned in my OP, the higher PPI and pixels per degree really makes the difference in Clarity. It's like comparing a 55" 4K TV with a 32" 4K, the pixels are going to be smaller on the latter.The screenshots look great. We all know the resolution is not ground breaking but sometimes it's not all about specs on a sheet, this is 1 of those times, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I think the same about the Quest 2.
Yeah, it is pricey, at a reduced price of say £999 I'm sure many people would jump on it. But the technology on the HMD is why it has a premium.I'm still waiting for a headset to replace my Index. I was hoping Quest Pro would be it, but it's just too expensive unfortunately.
I couldn't say, as I don't have a Quest 2 to do side by side comparisons.Colours and contrast look really good. Am interested if there’s been a change to the video encoding over USB/wireless compared to Quest 2. Difficult to see in the photos if distance objects are fuzzy and compressed looking such as trees and end of the track in ACC. Could be an upgrade to my G2 for PCVR sims stuff
I couldn't say, all I know from owning a Quest 2 in the past, is the Quest Pro looks Amazing.Better processor in theory can decode more information in the same time. I don't know if it actually does, just makes sense to me.
You always have a 14day return window, just pick a company to buy from that doesn't quibbly over the return. Main factor is how comfortable it feels, as everyones head is different...To be honest if my work bonus comes through I might be tempted.
The biggest issues I have with Quest 2 are the FOV, the IPD leaving screen edges visible and the visible compression on PCVR.
What's the FOV like on the Pro?
As I mentioned in my OP, it is not just about Resolution, but the PPI and pixels per degree makes the biggest difference.just been comparing the specs to the likes of pico 4, and the resolution per eye is lower, which surprised me
It sure does! I was shocked, as I was convinced from owning a Quest 2 in the past, that USBC compression for PCVR sucks compared to DP. Quest Pro shows that is not really the case.that looks amazing getting lost in reality in reality.
I don't have that game for VR unfortunalty.The proof in the pudding for me will be how it looks in a modded Skyrim VR.
On Quest 2 even with the link cable this can look pretty muddy and compressed.
You're welcome.OP thanks for the summary, much appreciated.
Couple of questions:
- Do you suffer from lag spikes when playing PCVR via the USB-C cable connection? I had some of those with the Pico4 and found them MUCH more jarring and annoying than say a lag spike into my Rift S via DP connection
- I see that you have MS FS2020. Have you tried foveated rendering? My understanding is that it now works, and as your headset supports eye tracking, I assume that you can enable dynamic foveated rendering. If you've got it running, what kind of frame rate improvement did you get?
In FS2020, I got DLSS running with DX11, might be worth a try. I found that DLSS with DLAA seemed to work really well.
One other question. Are you using the Oculus Tool? If so, what data rate are you running with?
DLSS is not showing up in MSFS at all, only AMD FSR 2 when you enable DX12. Reverting back to DX11, I still don't have that option.No idea on the data rate, just have a play.
Ref DLSS, it's not an option within OpenXR tool. Don't use either NIS or FSR with the OpenXR tool. Enable DLSS and DLAA within FS2020 itself.
tbh the through the lens shots look similar to what I see in a Vive Pro 2 but without the godrays & flair from the fresnel lenses so better yes but not by much imho.... possibly a larger sweet spot too though as you say that could be a camera lens vs human eye thing
I haven't owned one of those to compare it. But in the video that @ShiWarrior linked, there is a comment from someone who owns both.tbh the through the lens shots look similar to what I see in a Vive Pro 2 but without the godrays & flair from the fresnel lenses so better yes but not by much imho.... possibly a larger sweet spot too though as you say that could be a camera lens vs human eye thing
I have the Quest Pro and am upgrading from a Vive Pro 2 and Reverb G2. I have to say the Pro, despite being my seventh VR headset is the first one since the original Rift CV1 that has actually fully impressed me, and finally feels like a truly next generation device.tbh the through the lens shots look similar to what I see in a Vive Pro 2 but without the godrays & flair from the fresnel lenses so better yes but not by much imho.... possibly a larger sweet spot too though as you say that could be a camera lens vs human eye thing
I haven't owned one of those to compare it. But in the video that @ShiWarrior linked, there is a comment from someone who owns both.
The sweet spot on the Quest Pro is almost the entire lense, it is that clear.
One major factor to the Quest Pro, with or without the side blinkers, it doesn't steam up, and you don't feel hot wearing i
Welcome to the forum @Kjaye767 - I am glad to read that you have experienced what I have with the Quest Pro. It is a great HMD for PCVR when you crank the resolution rendering up.
I think a lot of the usually VR YouTubers bashed on the Quest Pro due it's price point.
So their review negatively reflexed on that, especially when the Pico 4 just launched too.
What I have noticed in the comparisons of the likes of MRTV, they use Virtual Desktop and set the Pico 4 at God-Mode, and test the Quest Pro at it's 1x resolution render from the Oculus Desktop app.
Now if they set the Quest Pro to 1.7x render resolution, as to the maxed VD mode -God-Mode, the Quest Pro would trump the Pico 4 in picture quality and clarity. They didn't do that, and I feel they have manipulated their viewers in thinking the Pico 4 is superior.
Now to compare Apples to Apples, they should be using the native apps, which at current the Pico 4 looks like trash with the native PCVR HD render setting.
Thanks! I only joined to comment on this thread! To be honest Sebastian's content and some of the other Youtubers really grates me, they genuinely have people thinking the Pico 4 is better than the Quest Pro which is mental. The problem is that Meta are not liked, and are so monolithic that they are subjected to a far greater scrutiny than anyone else. It's just easy to hate on them. The irony though is that they placed into our hands probably the best consumer headset released so far. It's absolutely magnificant for PCVR, I have had it since launch day and it still wows me everytime I put the headset on. I loaded up Lone Echo today to compare the visuals to MRTV's through the lenses and oh my god it looks incredible, her spacesuit if perfectly orange, not red like in his videos, and the overall image absolutely blows away how its looked on any of my other headsets. It somehow looks more 3D and lifelike. Your own through the lens footage does a better job of conveying what its like, and especially your photos.
I do experience disappointing binocular overlap and yes the glare can be strong in certain scenes but depth perception and edge to edge clarity is decent for me it looks like the Quest Pro videos. Is that a face head shape thing, an IPD/vision thing, bad design or simply quality issues on a defective unit? Impossible to say as a consumer...Despite having a relatively low resolution of 1800 x 1920 per eye, it makes my Vive Pro 2, with 2448 x 2448 per eye look like absolute trash. Now I should preface this by saying I have never liked the Vive Pro 2, I found its lack of binocular overlap, startling absence of depth perceptions and incorrect stereopsis along with the glare, godrays and tiny edge to edge clarity to make it the most disappointing headset I've ever bought, and the only one I've returned. So it's fair to say that for me, that headset didn't work out at all and your experience might be very different with a different head and eye shape, IDP etc.