You need to keep in mind it is only wider. So the ppd is similar to slightly less than the G2.
However it does have a much stronger vertical PPD.
Now on the last idea. In away Imho we are looking at PPD/SPPD a bit on the wrong side to compare headsets. What I mean by this is that we need the virtual screen size. For example a 3.5" display has a high pixel density; what we need to more know is what the magnified screen size is. What is the magnified projected screen size equivalent to? 100" maybe?
? If it truly is 117 h on the Pro 2 and that of the G2 is 99 (as per Risa), it would be pretty much the same PPD: 21,6 to 21,8. Why would that have to be visibly sharper ? I‘d rather suspect that the fact the FoV is larger requires more bending of light, i.e. the lens has to distort more - which has a downside, more blur on the individual pixel visible through it.
Honestly even if the vive pro 2 had the fov of pimax small mode its just too small imho.
I was able to get an 8kx on Ebay for an excellent price from a very trusted seller and great guy in the sim racing community i am so excited to try this.
Great step up from 5kplus i hope.
I must have checked ebay at the right time with everyone looking to get a vive pro 2.
I feel bad now as i hope the seller enjoys the vive pro 2 or maybe G2. Interesting to see conflicting results in these reviews so far.
Your only taking Horizontal resolution in consideration of of clarity.
The VP2 has a higher resolution than the G2 Vertically for a similar vertical FoV. So in that respect it should have better clarity having a higher vertical ppd.
@mixedrealityTV you posted results from hmdq for Vertical & Horizontal FoV values. Can you share Stereo overlap and hidden mask please?
I have to disagee with you there. Such… err… “skeumorphic” modes of communicating measurements are just too nebulous and context dependent. There are too many diagonals, and loose letters “k”, and megapixels, and other useless examples of imprecise language being thrown around as it is, creating this exact sorts of debates.
We just need PPD and FOV in both axes - preferrably in the form of a per-eye polar FOV diagram, with outlines plotting the median PPD in different regions, and perhaps accompanied by a twin that does the same for optical sharpness.
At that point all the context has been all worked out (…as in: physically measured) for us, and we don’t need to convey (…or wilfully omit, as tends to be the case) contexts necessary to put the picture together – screen dimensions, and optical trains, etc, across when communicating – we’ve got the result on the right hand side of the equals sign and needn’t concern ourselves with the equation that got us there. ¨
Something like the size of the screen, alone, says nothing about FOV – I’d suggest the optical elements involved have a liiiittle to do with the matter, and can, to exaggerate, reduce an IMAX screen to the size of a stamp, and vice versa.
I think at the end of the day whatever review you trust it’s between 96 and 117 H / 88 and 96 V. It’s FOV seems within the margin of error to be essentially identical to the original HTC Vive (except for the vertical fov which seems lower on all the tests).
So in the package you get in effect an evolutionary versions of all the parts in the HTC Pro. Sufficient to call it the “Pro 2” is up for debate but it seems to boil down to an relatively small evolutionary step over previous HTC models when each feature is compared.
Personally, I thought there would be more substantial improvements.
Really? Vive Pro with its SDE really feels outdated, just like the 5k+, I would never be able to go back to such headset (even though the Vive pro oled colors are just stunningly beautiful). So SDE/resolution wise this is really a big step up from the Vive Pro. Surely I had hoped for a bit more, but this headset is beating the 8k-X in terms of resolution/SDE it seems, so definitely a gen 2 headset. From what I’ve seen so far I’d easily take this even over the Valve index. So I’m keeping my pre-order in and will see in a few weeks if it was worth it.
Techrader is even calling it the best VR screen yet: HTC Vive Pro 2 review | TechRadar and says “But this headset still comes highly recommended – that screen is going to blow the minds of VR gamers that have only experienced virtual reality hardware of a generation or two ago. If HTC can address the other parts of the package, it’ll regain its position as the best-in-class VR manufacturer.”
But anyway, you (@PimaxUSA) haven’t used the words ‘big nothing burger’ yet (like you said about the G2) so coming from you, I’d say that’s really positive.
Fact is HTC made the bold claim these would be next gen devices that would take VR to the next level. With reviewers arguing over FOV measurements it’s clearly not the case. Just more of the same current tech
Anyway, it’s probably the wrong forum to post this at, but the G2 had already beaten the 8KX I had received, because the latter had bleak colors, grey blacks, no 3D-presence, the picture always felt slightly off, the clarity was average and most of the lens blurry so that the Index had more of that, low FPS (75Hz at the time), terrible sound (SMAS a joke, DMAS still a pipedream after years…still waiting!), stiff and short cable, native game support (even with the frustrum fixes there remained immersion breaking bugs like shadows popping, etc). The G2 has its own problems, but these are all factors in which the G2 dominated the 8KX. All the 8KX had going for itself was ruggedness and FOV in direct comparison, and that I had spend so many weeks setting it up I knew it inside out. After my glorious 5K+ I was really quite disappointed.
But I guess these forums are still mostly populated by Pimax fans, that’s alright. Was one as well once.
It’s really weird to see though, still, that people here basically seem to hope that the VP2 would be bad. So many posts converging to that.
The problem with very basic of FoV to ppd is we also need to know the real world equivalent of size. For example a 24" 4k TV will have a better picture vs a 48 4k TV due to higher pixel density (ppi).
So yes was a bit off track. Sppd and ppd are simple enough. But we nead the virtual screen size to compare ppi for clarity.
I personally am quite happy with 8kx even though it’s not perfect but neither are any of headsets out there. If vp2 was solid step up I would be interested.
All just opinions - including your own. Objectivity shouldn’t revolve around how much you like or dislike pimax but instead the actual performance of each device. I think Thomas has been brutally honest in all his evaluations positive and negative regarding Pimax.
I’m still waiting till somebody will finally compare EXTREME resolution and correctly set steamVR vs G2 and 8KX.
When I read that picture in index is better then it means somebody used UPSCALED mode and not NATIVE. And almost all youtube reviewers did this mistake.
I always thought i had my 5k+ dialed in perfectly to my liking but then i tried someones (red green & blue colour/contrast/backlight settings and i was blown away .
I wonder how many folks don’t have there 8kx dialed in correctly. Tho most folks know what there doing i am always late to the party i imagine lol
My 8KX colors were a bit weird at first, but -1 Red Contrast, +1 Blue brightness shows every shade on a LCD color band test. It definitely changes the immersion for me. However, the overall brightness could be better. At anything over 75% brightness, there’s a blurring of the picture when I move my head…so while the colors feel natural and darks are good, brightness is lacking.
Also, I measured my vertical FOV on a number of headsets today, manually using that SteamVR envrionment. The Index with ~ 108 Vertical was only usable at 100 degrees, since I have glasses, but also I see the edges of the screens when I dial the lenses in too much. 8KX felt huge, but it was also in the 90-100 range. Quest 2 was 90, and I didn’t mind that FOV at all, but with a horizontal of 88 using the 3rd IPD setting, it’s depressing, so if the Pro 2 FOV is 90 Vertical (maybe more with less padding) and wider than Index, I think most people will be fine. Maybe the proportion of vertical FOV above/vs below is a bit unusual for some? I noticed my lower vertical FOV was 55-60ish from 0, while higher vertical FOV was 35-40ish (so 90-100 combined). We’ll see.
Well, Pimax employees aside which you can hardly blame for publicly generally favouring their own headsets, there are varying views being presented here, aren‘t they? You will have noticed that most of the reviews out in the wild, especially those from more VR savvy folks, are not overly positive, right. There seem to be some aspects of genuine improvement and some others which should have been improved yet were not, or just catch up or slightly go beyond what the competition may already have to offer. In any case it doesn‘t seem to be a generational leap over the existing competition.
Problem is, Thomas seems to have operated the Vive Pro 2 in High settings during his review - which is a down-scaled setting for better performance on weaker systems. He should have used Ultra or Extreme to get an impression at native resolution. So I fear a number of observations by him have to be revisited once he receives the replacement unit and should be disregarded for the time being. Apart from that, his findings on FoV need to be understood in the context of his individual face shape and eye position - so rather use his relative comparison to other headsets and not the absolute values, which often seem to differ from the average user‘s experience.
To me the complaints about the vertical FoV feeling narrow are rooted in the shape of the lenses and not the actual FoV values. Their boxy shape introduces corners and a flat line at the top and bottom rather than an all around flowing round shape. I suppose that people view this upper and lower boundaries as being cut off, and that creates some irritation. Question is, will we accommodate to this and then everything is fine, or will it remain an irritation ?
. Just individual preferences based on physiology & related experiences.