I’d actually say it validates what was perceived bad in the RoV review. It was also tools provided by RoV that helped greatly until Pimax received their new optical tools.
This review is akin to lab measurements of tube vs transistor amps. On paper transistors have much less distortion and should sound 10x better than tubes but in practice it’s usually the other way around.
1 Like
I think we are missing the point of his dev review, 170 FOV is not a great success with the PIMAX headset it’s still and experiment and beyond reach of a perfect solution with current Gen1 tech.(aka StarVR one) If we had a new 8K LG 75" inch TV set and the last inch on both end had smearing and distortion would we gave it stellar review? Even if LG gave us a setting to black out those last inch?
But some of us will be happy with Normal FOV that give something better than what’s available on current headsets on the market. In this case a more balanced 150 degrees headset could have been a better development choice and this is debatable
Now Pimax is stuck with their 200 Degrees headset concept and unlikely to go back for marketing reason
7 Likes
Word… 
1 Like
As we’ve seen the large FOV mode’s usefulness is largely dependent on the application. I am happy they didn’t have the reaction you seem to suggest where they would simply remove the mode. It clearly is fine in certain circumstances.
As for your example on the 8K LG 75" - I disagree with that entirely. These TV’s have modes for everything that have SERIOUS drawbacks. Sports mode, gaming mode, movie mode and so on. Try the wrong usage scenario for a particular mode and you get tearing, bad colors, bad saturation, bad refresh rate and so on.
You are suggesting LG would have a “universal” mode that works wonderfully in all situations. They just don’t.
What Pimax has is no different than LG. The Large FOV is a mode that can have serious drawbacks.
I would also point out that when the first 100 people had the first LG 4K TV (i.e. similar to the fact only 100 people or so have a Pimax) that those people were in the same boat. It takes time to refine this stuff.
Drives me nuts when people try to compare extremely “mature” technologies to something new like a VR HMD.
2 Likes
I think as backers and a niche segment of the gaming market, we take for granted how willing we are to deal with tinkering and beta software. The “bad” reviews seem to repeatedly point out that the Pimax is more of a pain in the ass than most folks will be willing to tolerate (hell, I can’t get my GF to wear the Vive long enough to get the IPD adjusted). I read the “bad” reviews and think, “yeah, I expected to have to do a lot of tinkering and perhaps a bit of hacking to get this to work well for me” and move on…
3 Likes
my bad didn’t realize you were supporting a rabbit hole
Perhaps. It really comes down to how picky you are with settings to get the desired experience.
1 Like
Well the Dev is on the forum so he can elaborate @OlivierJT
2 Likes
Those emojis make it look like you were punched in the left eye and about to be punched in the right.
6 Likes
Yeah… Rough day… 
1 Like
I reserve my final judgement when after I received my headset but I would trade less FOV with distortion for more resolution at 150 degrees FOV.
My OLED LG 4k has a gorgeous image chose the right mode and it’s done. no comparison with the distortions on the 8K/5K+ anyway was just an example…
the FOV mode on the Pimax headsets although clever is an after-tough design to hide the limitation of the headsets Pimax will not obtain an engineering award for this…
The technologies Pimax is using when we talk about picture distortion is very mature it was invented in the 1800 century. This was foreseeable from the start so don’t be surprise if some technical reviews put the emphasis on this
For my part I’m very happy with what Pimax has done considering all this but I will not find qualities were they aren’t
2 Likes
The FoV option may have been used to improve distortion & compatability. However it eas suggested before the kickstarter & during for certain applications.
As for your TV it has other vid settings to appease the masses whom like to have different settings for different use senarios. I myself typically set it & forget it. Often a custom profile. Some on the other hand are always playing with settings to get their preference cause it ain’t ever right. Some of these types like messing with yoir TV when your in the bathroom. 
The TV example was to be taken at face value : a 5K$ TV set with jaggies on the last inchs beurk! not intended as philosophical argument
1 Like
All things are philosophical at the best of times with reviews. It just people reacting poorly when one seems out of place of the norm.
Kinda like those who may or may not be able to see a real difference between 60fps & 65fps.
But yeah $5k TV better be able to make me a 
.
Honestly if HTC would build a headset with such features don’t you think they would get much praised?
Like:
Super! they have included the last peripheral distortion field technologies and an FOV active photon suppressor
2 Likes
You should already know the answer by how aggravated folks were when they got OG vive home on release. Both Vive & Oculus had a bit of shitstorm over what was released & folks after the dust settled adapted & bought more.
Pimax is at least in a better frame than that & the Testers & backers whom have received the headsets are leaning heavy on the content to happy side of things.
Which is why some are appearing as Fan boys who haven’t recieved their headset yet when a review has the appearance of being negative.
The general consensus so far seems to be that the extra FOV going from Normal to Large (150 to 170 degrees) isn’t nearly as impactful as the switch from Vive/Rift to Normal (not sure about Small to Normal). It is an issue of diminishing returns due to the drop-off in vision-density on your periphery (it is more effective as a motion sensor than at providing vision).
EDIT: That being said, the time has long passed for making the changes you suggested. There are a lot of things Pimax could have done better but I can see why they didn’t. They set lofty goals for these headsets and have been struggling to meet them and the expectations of all of us.
A lot of their claims were obviously done for the hype and don’t hold up to closer scrutiny. Just look at the name… 8K. It isn’t 8K but rather 2x 4K… or rather 2x 4K/2 screens (unverified subpixel arrangement). All of that is just an upscaled display of a 2x 2K signal. The visual quality is roughly equal to the 5K+ and isn’t nearly what people imagine when they hear “8K”.
So they aren’t quite meeting one of their goals (visual fidelity) but they still have their other goal (FOV) and they try sticking to it as hard as they can. They go through iteration after iteration of the lenses (each costing $50,000 and about 2-3 weeks of delay) trying to solve all of their distortion issues… to no avail. So they compromise in the least contentious way possible by giving us different FOV modes.
- Large (170) for those who only care about FOV and don’t mind the major distortion/performance loss
- Normal (150) for those who want a substantial FOV/performance gain and don’t mind a little distortion
- Small (130?) for those who want no distortion/best performance and are still happy with the FOV jump.
If they had switched their focus from FOV to visual fidelity they could have sacrificed the Large FOV during their lens iterations and increased the PPI. They could have done any number of things to improve the headsets.
Ignoring all that, you can focus on the most important point. Pimax has released two quality headsets and is getting ready to release another (slightly lower quality but higher cost).
2 Likes
My personal focus would be more now on 5 things Pimax can provide :
1 : Multiple fix rate refresh
2 : Brightness adjustment
3 : Colors adjustment
4: Stable software between iteration
5: Stable hardware and low defect rate
1 Like
What no game play? 
Good list btw.