Another reason for his findings may also be that he does not „count“ results in the distorted area, as he did with the cosmos I think.
So if re refers to the actual usuable FOV, this would very likely make up for the 20 degrees that some folks are missing here.
Just a hunch but somewhat logical.
Why should he guess in an area that is not visible clearly?
btw every test must have a set of rules, and he may have followed that set of rules accordingly.
If so, he might should have mentioned it more clearly but as he applied the same rules to another headset as well it should be clear to everybody.
I would not have published this measurement because it really differs greatly from all previous measurements. And over time, many independent sources really measured and roughly came to the same values. This published measurement error is damaging to the reputation of pimax.
It would be nice if those who have the 8KX measured the horizontal and vertical FOV perceived with the same tool, because as it is true that they take away 20º of horizontal FOV to hide the distortions that would be a full-blown scam, since the product was basically an 8K without rescaling.
What’s going on here, @PimaxVR, @PimaxUSA and @SweViver?
Other people have already measured it using the same tool and confirmed that they got around 160 for horizontal fov in the large fov setting on 8KX. Look at Mr.UU and Noamloop’s posts above in this thread. Nothing for Pimax to respond to on this. Seb just made a mistake and I’m sure he’ll clarify it once he has a chance to retest.
If I am not mistaken, MRTV’s Artisan has the comfort kit, too?
…in which case one can not point to it displacing the sweet spots away from the eyes as the likely cause, when using the p8kX, given he is perfectly happy with the Artisan.
-It has been a constant source of confusion that he is having a great time with the Artisan, and a, realitively speaking, bad one with the p8kX, given they have the exact same optical setup.
…but maybe there could be something to his having both devices, in prototype stage, and presumably also using alpha software: Pimax’s insistance on using the terms “large”, normal", and “small”, instead of cold hard numbers, leaves us with “large” meaning one thing with the Artisan, and another with the higher FOV models. Could it perhaps be that his PiTool serves him some values out of its Artisan data file, when he selects “large”, instead of reading in its p8kX one?
It is interesting that due to a single statement, the measurements are questioned by many others. Really typical of this forum. The Ciä uses similar procedures to overthrow governments.
At least it is not futile to note that every form of testing/comparisons relies on predefined set of rules.
Results may be especially surprising to those unaware of the set of rules, naturally.
From there I made assumptions of course…
But as he explicitly did not include range of blurred/morphed/distorted range of a non-Pimax HMDs as well, I think this assumption is based on the very logic basic idea „set of rules“
which he imho very likely applied, in order to rightfully offer a consistent approach.
It would make absolute sense to me.
Benefit of this alias is that in time Pimax can change an optimize to other values. Very apart from Apple philosophy : the best is to have both aka a sub field in degree and a label. but then people would argue that they don’t reach these values in ROV test… a never ending story
Well, as you may remember he has been very sensitive about some kind of distortion I have not found till today (I did find a convergence issue but that’s another story).
So perhaps itis the same issue again which he dislikes in the 8K+/X while the narrower FoV Artisan doesn’t show it. From the experience of the 5K+/8K I guess we can expect only a couple of users to experience the same issue as he does.
Can you explain what you mean by that ? So Seb made a mistake (he’s only human, it can happen), the 8KX Large FoV with other users is exactly as expected in the 160° range: and now you wish Pimax to make clear - what exactly ?!
I think it is perhaps as simple as the CES pre production model and/or the comfort kit vs og face gasket. Kevin and Marcin even said in the past there maybe issues with the sample he received.
Perhaps… but if the entire p8kX distortion (etc) he is griping about lies outside the max FOV of the Artisan, I would very much expect him to clearly qualify this vital condition.
At least if I were to make a comparison, I would compare degree for degree: “Is A distorted/blurry/whatever at 50 degrees from lens centre? -Is B likewise at 50 degrees from lens centre?” – that is the “obvious” “apples-to-apples” comparison, which one would expect from anybody.
Maybe that’s naiive… There is certainly no lack of prior examples of people being less discerning - by mistake or intent. :7
