Could be. That would mean Pimax would definitely have to deliver all the foams to every 8kX owner. And probably think about physical lens-eye adaption for their next headsets, like Valve does it.
2 Likes
I still have the 5k+ and the FoV of the 8kX is about the same as for the 5k+ for me (for the same settings).
6 Likes
Thank you NoamLoop that’s reassuring to hear 
2 Likes
After watching your video, I decided to use the ROV test to compare my StarVR One with the Index. Here are the results:
https://community.openmr.ai/t/rov-comparison-test-starvr-one-vs-valve-index/29938
Tl;dr:
IPD between 64 to 65
Valve Index Max 106°/130°
StarVR One 172°/116°
9 Likes
Indeed @john2910 and @Genesis both had to switch out the comfort kits with og Face Masks. Wnile I think it was @Yen was it? That needed to increase the foam thickness on the comfort kit.
A proper adjustment would likely improve things for sure.
Doc-ok did a great research paper on FoV with regards to pupil to lens distance.
4 Likes
Makes sense. Could also imagine that the bigger the FoV, the more precise the eye placement has to be in all three dimensions relative to the lenses. Otherwise it’s probably more or less hit or miss.
2 Likes
Thanks for measuring! I’d wait with the conclusion until the verification of Sebastian tomorrow though.
2 Likes
have not seen the english version but in the german one he explicitly states that values very likely differ with other ipds.
Him having an average ipd should be a broad representative reference though.
Interesting extrem higher ipd people seem to see less fov.
I conclude that with very small ipd you get a wider fov?
So somebody with 58 ipd may actually get the full 160 degrees?
2 Likes
Why?
Because 140 FOV in large has never been reported before by anyone in the 2 years plus, Pimax have made these big FOV headsets.
So it’s logical either someone is being dishonest OR the testing isn’t performed correctly (my hunch) because literally no one else in the world has the same findings as MRTV, therefore it’s important the reason behind the anomolous finding is discovered.
Having said that I just read a post saying this is a pre production model (which isn’t in the video title), so there might be a manufacturing defect and the finding may never be replicated.
I’ve got a brand new still boxed up 8K-X myself so an ideal opportunity is available to repeat the ‘experiment’ to see if MRTV’s findings are replicable. However, it looks very technical to attempt to measure it and I’d want to be completely sure that what I measure was accurate, which I imagine wouldn’t be the case for a total novice.
Hopefully others with production ready 8K-X’s can repeat MRTV’s interesting experiment/video.
4 Likes
My IPD is 64mm, so 1mm less than Sebastian. Also have set 64mm as hardware IPD and (as written above a software IPD offset of 0).
1 Like
There is a method using a pic for FoV using Virtual Desktop. A member here during the last Pimax Game experience contest used it I believe it is in Spotlight reviews as I had reposted some of them not long ago. Will see if I can find it.
1 Like
Okay this one is not the one I was thinking. But pretty technical @VTS can likely explain if needed.
https://community.openmr.ai/t/spring-2019-reviews-5k-og-8k/29611/2?u=heliosurge
The other one is in r/pimax something about the Artisan FoV not being 140 wide.
1 Like
Ah, but, if we’re doing possible: If one posit remaining on Earth, shouldn’t you be able to achieve some 1270-ish miles eye-to-lens distance? (EDIT: …albeit with some speck of dust in the way…) 
???
Even disregarding his “large” FOV number for p8kX seems to be 20 degrees short of the expected, his numbers list 108 for Index (matches my own sighting), and 140 for p8kX, which is a difference of 32 - not 10. What am I missing here?
2 Likes
Huh?
All points of which have been mentioned before (the fact it’s not a final X, the fact that it might be a mistake) yet you started throwing around as the first conclusion that people are being dishonest… that’s why! But don’t forget to remove your tinfoil hat when testing your x, might screw with your results and someone might call you dishonest!
4 Likes
Apologist types need not worry about ending up on my “dishonest people” list - they are already chiselled into a stone tablet of their own.
Thanks for the very informative comparison.
1 Like
Pimax large FoV renders 160 Horizontal as established by his tool and many FoV testing methods.
Dstar said in Normal FoV he perceives 150 in Normal where as the FoV is rendered at 140 Horizontal. See link to VTS review I posted as he also measured 160 Large 140 Normal and 120 Small.
The tool is acurate, but I find a 158º-160º of horizontal FOV on Large (Pimax 8K) with the same tool.
Normal is 140º of horizontal FOV.
1 Like
Yeah, That was my fault I thought he had a FOV of 130 Horizontal not Vertical. My mistake on that one, 108 makes more sense now with the difference I see.
Might be an idea to try increasing the pupil to lens to simulate the comfort kit. Maybe a thicker face foam and velcro layers maybe?
I do recall if mem serves in the early days using the og rov tool (steam enviroment) pretty much all testers came up between 160 and 165 with an expected potential subjective margin with original face gasket on og 8k.