I mean, I’m OK with their design.
But we hear a lot of opinions about just keeping it PCVR.
It’d get rid of the need for battery etc, and I guess people surmise a greater FoV would automatically come with it.
Certainly I’m not against that idea, but it’s clearly not the way PIMAX went.
I mean for me, I just hope there’s some truth to a greater FoV lens for the Crystal that could be a preferred choice in particular for those games where it’s useful (like Flight Sims).
This was just weird…
Indeed. Welcome to pimax. 
Weird and quirky… all part of the Pimax charm for me. I’ll take them over meta any day.
And Mark Zuckerberg ISN’T weird and quirky enough for you? Or maybe it’s weird and creepy. hehe
No one likes the Borg, they’re trying to assimilate us all into the Metaverse.
Without the Borg, STNG would have been almost as bad as Voyager. 
Or maybe I should say Entreprise?
Hmm How many more Aliens in a holodeck dressed up like German WW2 military do we need in Star Trek? haha
Hi,
So two Monday’s have passed so far since you’ve made the above statement.
Where are we?
Thanks…
We’re now in May - Mayhem, dismay, maybe.
Mod yo run pimax 8kX and Crystal. lol no…
Also includes question to testers on black levels.
Meta is Weird in a Orwellian 1984 big brother sense, and as creepy as a window peeper. I’ll take Pimax.
I do in fact like the borg ^^ But not "meta ;))
Yeah, Check out Low-Fi again it got a few updates
Awesome thanks been awhile since have checked it out.
Hi Heliosurge, thanks for quoting me.
After almost 5 years since I suggested it, Pimax has finally decided to put in several interchangeable aspherical lenses to achieve different degrees of FOV and sharpness.
I quote some gems from the past (2018):
“1. Supply two types of interchangeable lenses, one with a large horizontal FOV of 170 (the current lenses) and the other with a horizontal FOV of 140 (the lenses I have explained above, with a sharp visible area of 75-80% of each screen and a peripheral FOV of 20-25%). These lenses would have adapters/holders of various heights, because the 170 lenses need to be closer to the screen and the 140 lenses need to be further away, due to their different magnifications and focal lengths (the 140 FOV lenses need 50% less magnification).”
“5. In addition, Pimax is committed to developing better lenses during the first and second year with different interchangeable horizontal FOVs (170, 160, 150, 140, 130, 120) and selling them at prices between $25 and $50 with shipping included for the users themselves to change them. Each lens can be specialized. For example, 120 FOV lenses would be specialized and ideal for watching movies (for example, they would be aespherical instead of fresnel to avoid God’s rays). The system for attaching to the headset and changing the lenses/holders must be easy, fast and resistant, without tools. The transparent film prevents dust from entering the screen area.”
“Actually, all the merits are Heliosurge’s because he was the one who proposed to create new improved lenses and that we backers pay a little money for them, in private tester forum. At first I resisted the idea, because it would cost 6,000 backers, but then I understood that it was the best option.”
But now I think they should have used pancake lenses instead of aspherical lenses now. The Quest Pro pancake lenses are exceptional (the Pico 4 lenses are good but not as good).
The advantages of pancake lenses over aspherical lenses are many but the main ones are that pancake lenses have a much larger sweet spot and that pacake lenses allow for much more compact headsets because lenses can be much closer to the screens.
Unfortunately Pimax are late again.
Cheers,
Neo
By “sweet spot” do you mean an eye box, or “an angular range in focus”?
The current disadvantage of the pancake lenses is light transmission. At a guess it might nullify the hdr. I will see if I can find the Article. While it would not in this configuration reduce size they could still offer pancakes later on.
Here is @mmorselli 's topic inquiring on pimax’s statement on why not pancake reason.
Plus pimax in this hmd were not concerned with making a smaller hmd as there using this frame in the 12k. So a lot of dead space in the Crystal.
The actual credit would go to @VRGIMP27 whom proposed interchangeable lenses for FoV and had presented an hmd that had something like that. With 1 set being designed for cinema viewing long before the m1 and iirc may have been pre Kickstarter.
I reintroduced the idea in the test group as your evaluation of the current lenses limitations and experiments that also involved the p4k lenses had a lot of merit. However I understood pimax’s reaction of not wanting to scrap the current lenses after already spending over 250k in lens iterations as it would add considerable more time and expense.
So a swappable upgrade path made perfect sense as they could release the product and later offer a modular lens upgrade. This would also have benefit multi user vr center environments whom could simply stock extra lenses reducing to even eliminating downtime.
I suspect the p4k lenses minimally have been used to base the new Crystal lenses as they were quite advanced and your tests confirmed in a different configuration could yield a much larger FoV than was possible on the p4k and much easier to build an edge to edge clarity.
If my hypothesis is correct it demonstrates a smart move by pimax.
@drowhunter has posted his eval so far.