No, I don’t believe we announced giving up on this project before. When I have more information regarding this, I’ll make sure it’s available in a featured post.
1 Like
Not forgot to mention the specifications of the wFoV and 42ppd lenses. Unfortunately, I currently lack precise details (figures); but only a sample unit in hand. From what I understand, the engineers are still making refinements in this regard.
2 Likes
5 Likes
Ouch. That’s not good at all… Those new lenses are horrible. Damn. I feel bad for all those newbies who bought into the Pimax promises. Well lesson learned for them, next time they’ll know not to pre-order Pimax stuff anymore. You live and learn I guess. So happy I didn’t buy the Crystal. Now let’s HOPE that they’ll do a better job for the 12K.
6 Likes
We already knew this was likely due to the vp2 also using 1:1 panels. What it does mean with only +11 wide it is 2° less than vp2 wide. Abd of course pimax did not meet their target for the wider fov lenses.
That is horrible abd definitely a pimax product to boycott. The plus like when they copied the Vp strap. They messed it up.
This is highly probable as pimax had used that to verify their FoV claims on the original lenses.
Thing is: If they have shifted the position of the lenses medially, to take display panel real estate from the binos, and give to the perfs, and only gained 11° from this (…which is to say a mere 5.5° on each side), then how much do the lenses themselves add, really? Are we still close to the same PPD as the regular lenses, after all? -If these new lenses are radially symmetrical, and one had them in a slightly different frame, which aligns them the same as the regular lenses, would that have added less than 2.75° in each cardinal direction?
1 Like
Tallymouse is a but overzealous at times. I would say he is likely using the free Testhmd environment like pimax was that is known to be inaccurate and why Oscar discontinued development in favour of his Test suite.
Iirc Tally even haf a very poor concept comparing things in the cockpit view iirc in DCS plane that didn’t read well(Similar to pimax fov post)
I’m not sure to understand your first couple of sentences, maybe because I’m missing some data:
What is inaccurate?
Who is Oscar ?
What is imax?
pimax not imax. If you recall they had that ridiculous Clarifying pimax fov post. lol
Oscar created Testhmd the original steamvr environment(has numerous issues and pimax used it originally when validated their incorrect fov numbers). The standalone independent version he made is much more accurate with less likelihood of exaggerated values. It aligns better with hmdq.
2 Likes
Highly recommended Wimfov as there is no head movement in a virtual environment, so just what each eye can see using multiple rays making it very easy to set accurately and most importantly repeatable results.
The Dev (Boll) is highly experienced with VR going back many years.
1 Like
Have yoi used @risa2000 Hmdq program? 100%repeatable asit gets the info that the headset driver requests… No human er factor involved.b
Have to checkout wimfov definitely sounds good to get subjective values.
1 Like
Yes thats always the initial tool but scraping the headset driver doesn’t report what the human sees inside the headset due to craniofacial/optical variation.
The Risa hmd tool and database is gold standard for maximum rendered fov, but being an ergonomist I’m much more interested in user reported numbers
The Wimfov tool is excellent because it doesn’t require an environment relying on the user not moving about (our heads constantly make micromovement even when we think we are still) but whether you can see or not the light ray at each of 16 ray projection per eye
From his website
"At each eye I place a sphere that is only visible to that eye. This is a high resolution UV sphere, exported straight from Blender3D, which means the surface of the sphere’s UVs is mapped to a square grid. Displaying something half-way down the texture puts it exactly half-way down the sphere. I’ve validated this is the case inside the game engine as well.
On the inside of each sphere the flashing indicator and the other interface components are displayed, this is through a custom shader that among other parameters takes an angle as input which places the indicator so it extends from that angle and outwards. This way as soon as we cannot see the indicator anymore, we should have the maximum field of view for that point. The steps we move the indicator out are whole degrees, this means the final value will err between 0.0-1.0° in a single direction using this method."
1 Like
Wimfov looks like a tool which tries to do everything right and the approach it takes is sound. The only potential “errors” (not really a Wimfov problem, but of the human nature) are related to the pupil swim and the eye relief, which both determine the real pupil position, which may not match exactly the virtual eye pose.
The pupil swim can be mitigated to a good extent by looking rigorously at the center dot when doing the tests. The eye relief should not change the result much, if the spheres used for the measurement are of relatively large diameters (not sure what is the actual value).
2 Likes
It is why you need both. .One that establishes max possible and another tool for human testing to get the variances of min to max.
3 Likes
Pimax top strap.
1 Like
Great video and thoughts on comfort. This is my current solution to increase comfort on my Crystal (valve Index rear cushion mod).
Part 2 of my article for Skarredghost coming soon!
2 Likes
The top strap will help immensely for sure !
Can´t wait to order it.
2 Likes