Well what do you expect? It’s an old preview model from the road show.
As for the Fov, you never know where Pimax is measuring from. End of the lens, beginning of the eye, definitely not the optic nerve. The FOV of the 5k and 8k are so whimsical too. XTAL also. 180 marketing, 150 reality… so what.
so they sending old preview models to all these beta testers specifically youtubers to showcase the issue and youre asking me what do i expect?a working product i expect with the advertised field of view and a damn working cable not their bs lies.
Yes, but that hasn’t been a secret for weeks now.
also i looked it up,xtal for the older 8k i could only find voodoo measure of its horizontal,nowhere i could find where xtal advertised that as 180 horizontal specifically maybe the old diagonal?pimax says specifically horizontal 125.
and for the latest xtal 3 or how its called they do advertise 180 horizontal but ive yet to find a measurement by anyone and neither is on risa.
all of them lie about a few degrees that doesnt make it right anyway but by 22 degrees is something special,if you come up with excuses that they measured it from inside their eye balls and minds and only true pimaxians with 3 eyes see the true 125 fov,they should say so on the store page.
well, rendered and subjective are still different things.
The current example is the Pico 4. Advertises with 104, also renders 104, but only gives you 90 degrees optically.
The Crystal may render 103, but the eyes close to the lens can subjectively be also 10 degrees more.
It is difficult, as long as there is no standard for this, the HMD manufacturer can name the value that suits him best.
Valve got it right… just saying, a little bigger than many others.
Otherwise, with two square panels I personally never expected more FOV. Kevin said in evry interview similary the Index, and that appears to be true.
you can glue that eye ball to the lense and get 103 because thats whats rendered maximum.
i got 102 with pico 4,it could never give me more than 104 rendered,nobody is arguing that it cant give you less.
The closer you get to the panel with your eye, the wider the visible area becomes. Subjective has ZER to do with the rendered value. This is optic. It’s not 100% correct geometrically, but it’s a question of whether your brain notices it.
and how did they concluded that that is indeed 125 horizontal?what they used to measure that?they removed the lenses and their eye balls and put them in the headset,thats what it sounds like then,il make sure to do that like a true pimaxian,using this logic wonder why they stopped only at 125 horizontal,might as well go for 200.
tho flash news the headset still renders just 103.
Pimax has always had weird measurements. But so do all other manufacturers. Personally, I actually only know Samsungs Odyssey, which was really close to the advertised values from the factory.
Maybe someone at Pimax looks through the headset, spreads their arms, someone outside measures the angle, and then they say “that’s it” 
who knows … as I said, there is no standard procedure yet.
Here, that was the biggest laugh for me. 97 advertised, actually it was 78 degrees. (not rendered, subjectiv visible)
they could actually advertise their true fov just like pico 4 wich most likely used the rendered values,like all logic points to and not some mystical way only pimax employers can pull out of their bum.
As I said, there is a lot going wrong in marketing. I heard Kevin FOV and that made sense to me. near the index.
It doesn’t matter until you test it yourself. Then it is decided whether it is enough for me or not.
i get youre trying hard to find some other headset with this whataboutism but im sure you wont find any company to beat pimax at bs maybe only older pimax headsets.
i cant find the rendered fov of that headset anywhere,but the description of rendered fov is great and that is why it should be used as the value of the headset,there aint no going over it.
anyway whatever im fine with 103,all i hope is they fix that cable because its damn stupid to send youtube reviewers headsets with 8kx cables,everyone is gonna see these first,even months after it is fixed or so to say,if.
Honestly, the rendered value can easily be bent by software. Then the manufacturers pretend to us 130 rendered degrees. Everything is a bit smaller than in reality, but we still only see 90 through the lens. 
im sure its better than whatever hole they got the 125 from thats for sure.
Yes, they should delete the values. The ones for the 42ppd would be correct at the 35ppd. The other lenses will have a maximum of 80h in my eyes. And that is ok for movies and desktop work.
For all manufacturers, the statement might be optimal: XXX rendered FOV +/-10% Subjectiv. Then nobody would be confused anymore.
But looks like this guy and others so far are beyond a 10% deviation when it comes to FoV result checks with the Crystal…
You are aware that Thomas has very deep-set eyes and always has the smallest FOV in all HMDs anyway? 
It’s pointless to discuss it. The angle doesn’t get any bigger. Test it an then say yes or no.
Valve claimed to be 20 degrees better than the Vive. That would be a claim of 130 degrees hfov- if the Vive’s claimed hfov was actually accurate at 110. It’s not, and the index isn’t.
