Ive been reading reviews on the 8KX and Reverb G2 and I see one pretty consistent pattern.
The fov on the Reverb G2 is too low
The refresh rate of the 8KX is too low
The SDE on the 8KX isn’t as good as the G2.
So of course it will take 2-4 years for better GPUs like Lovelace and hopper which should improve 70-80% in each generation according to reported cuda core counts in Lovelace and the extra tile and cache sequencer architecture of MCM designs, to be able to run even higher resolutions and refresh rates than the 8KX, but
What if there was a headset with 160 fov (between 5K+ normal and large mode so bigger than Artisan large mode), with 2k resolution vertical 3k horizontal. Surely such display could be 90hz native without upscaling and have better or equal PPD to the Reverb G2 and have equal or better fov compared to 5K+'s normal fov mode.
With greater panel utilisation you get better PPD as seen in the Reverb G2 and 8KX compared to the 8K original. So this new headset should have 100% panel utilisation and moveable displays and lenses when adjusting IPD in the same housing.
6KX Super Artisan features
160 fov large mode
3k X 3k or 3k X 2k displays per eye
90hz or 120hz without upscaling
100% panel utilisation for less SDE than reverb G2
But before you release it make sure you get the following Pimax.
Better service, shipping times, and better communication to customers. Send tracking information as soon as customers purchase products.
Find good panels like the Reverb G2, as the 8KX has more washed out/grey panels compared to the Reverb G2 yet they both are LCD panels.
Make sure to find manufacturer who can eliminate mura and differences in mura between screens.
Make sure newer lenses have a large sweet spot with no lens blur as Reverb G2 improved over Reverb G1.
Add these steps in the Quality Testing process, and you will have a lot less RMA requests in the future.
Test for backlight bleed on top edges of screen from defective displays before shipping headset
Test light bleed from chevron being visible in dark scenes before shipping headset, if defective fix the housing and light bleed issue before shipping.
Test for defects in lenses between the same headset models, before shipping headsets.
Test for mura and noticeable mura in panels in Q&A before shipping headsets.
We could run this headset now and not have to wait years for GPUs that can run the 8KX at 120hz in native mode.
What do you think would you buy a 6KX if it had less SDE than the 8KX or even Reverb G2, with faster refresh rates than both just sacrificing 10-20 degrees of fov?
5k+ Large mode is 160° FOV, Normal is 140°, Small is 120°. I am not sure which FOV are you proposing.
Concerning the displays, I am not aware of any 3k x 3k or 3k x 2k displays for any refresh (not to mention 90 Hz).
Do you know what is PPD of Reverb G2? Regardless that, you cannot have higher PPD than Reverb, if you want also higher FOV than Reverb (or at the least the same at least vertically).
All I want is a Pimax 8KX with better lenses and a sweetspot that covers the entire FOV. After experiencing 4K resolution, anything below that sucks for immersion. Future headsets need to be 4K or higher. That is where VR is headed. Lets try to get a Pimax 12KX or 16KX.
Think it’s too early for 2x8K, GPUs aren’t there yet.
The next best thing would imho be an 8kX with better lenses (imho 140° would be enough if it helps with optics*), higher refresh rate (making use of HDMI 2.1 or waiting for DP2) and mechanical eye relief, so people can dial in the optimal eye lense distance for their head.
*: 140° instead of 160° could also be used for better clarity (ppd) without driving the GPU demands through the roof
So 140/150 fov and 90-120hz, 2k vertical so the same PPD as the Reverb but with full panel utilisation so the same perceptible SDE as the G2.
It should be possible to do this on the 8KX if the 8KX rendered higher HZ into normal fov mode, but I was thinking you could get greater PPD horizontally by using a smaller 3k X 2k display or both horizontally and vertically by using a smaller 3k X 3k display over 150 degrees of fov (so halfway between normal and large modes on the 8KX, with the entire panel being used to render the image.)
If 3kx3k or 3kx2k panels around 3.5-4 inches exist they would definitely have greater PPD than both the 8KX and the G2 if they were small enough around that size, if more of the panel can be utilised and seen in the lenses. Probably not the G2 unless there’s a 3kx3k, but definitely the 8KX, 3kx2k should have the same PPD as the G2.
Pimax would of course have to develop a mechanism to move the displays with the lenses when the IPD is adjusted, they should also make an eye relief mechanism whilst they’re at it too.
How much less perceptible is the SDE on the G2 compared to the 8KX and can you see the SDE on either? Some people say they see no SDE at all do you agree?
If there is no displays at the moment, Pimax should just refresh the 8KX with better lenses which have a far larger sweet spot in the entire fov and not a tiny sweet spot and lens blur everywhere else, an eye relief mechanism, extreme ipd mod for lower hardware IPD values down to 55mm, and an IPD adjustment which moves displays and lenses to give a bit more panel utilisation without making black bars of the display edges visible at the closest viewing distance with eyelashes touching the lenses, and it should be able to run at 90-120hz in Normal mode if 80hz is working in beta Pitools in Large fov mode at the moment right?
It would be cheaper for the company to develop a new set of lenses for the 8K-X that is optimized for its lower field of view modes, with distortion profiles likewise optimized for the lower FOV modes (to use more of the screen with lenses that have lower magnification.)
@Troz I suggested interchangeable lenses years ago optimized for variable FOV around the time of the KS campaign. I think it would save them money.