Yeah exactly @Axacuatl this is not a headset for the visitors of this forum. Maybe if you’re into VRChat that it might offer something but other than that it’s nog a gamer headset but more geared at social collaboration in business environments.
3 Likes
Yes that is what he means. Quite a poor offering. A decrease of 32 pixels per eye. Quest 2 has 1832×1920 vs 1800×1920 in the pro. The pro currently listed as only having 90hz vs Q2 has 72 to 120
It seems there charging a premium for doubling the ram, upgraded xr2+ and bundled accessories.
Underwhelming fits.
2 Likes
The lesson here is embracing Opensource. Closed ecosystems are limiting and hinders forward momentum.
If pimax would put more effort into opensource as originally planned. Things like a linux driver could be a reality along with interfaces like pimax XP with specific tailoring where desired for kiosk pimaxvr experiences.
3 Likes
Quest Pro is very disappointing. For 3 times the money, we got the same resolution and the same LCD.
The improvement is over chipset, tracking and RAM, but those things are not important for regular users.
If anything Pimax has proven in the past 7 years, that is people like headsets with wider FOV and higher resolution, and people will be willing to pay those for a premium.
Now Meta is trying to sell a visually similar headset for 3 times the price ? I can only say good luck with that. The head of marketing department should be fired. If this is Zuckerberg’s idea, then he will step down from the CEO position, because it’s so clear that this Quest Pro will be a failure.
I don’t think companies will really buy this kind of headset to promote remote working. We already have so many remote collaboration software. Don’t another one that demands putting a headset on your head. Maybe Zuck will find it fun to do it with his employees, but definitely not for any others.
Remember the craze about Pokemon ? It was so popular that I once saw tens of people playing it around a park square. Meta just need another free and fun game like Pokemon to sell their headsets.
Quest 2 was a great step forward, but now Quest Pro might just have undone it. I hope Meta’s next headset will not be this bad.
1 Like
Guys, you are misinterpreting the intent of the Q Pro: it is not aimed at consumers - it is not supposed to replace your Quest 2.
And if you are criticizing the price: it is common knowledge that Meta subsidized their hardware sales heavily to boost adaptation. So the commercial price to get some profit out of the sales would have surely been somewhere near 800-900$. And now add new pancake lenses, eye- & face-tracking plus the better passthrough camera, and on the controllers each have their own SoC and camera’s for better tracking, and better haptics. Ah yes, and then there‘s the charging dock. There’s your higher cost and thus price.
So it likely is a fair price for what it is being offered if you look at it from the cost perspective. That we as consumers, gamers are not too enthusiastic about this headset is okay - we‘re supposed to wait for Quest 3 which is said to come in at 300-500$.
2 Likes
If you take a deeper look as what @Axacuatl has said this is not targetted a regular VR users.
The Res is actually mildly decreased by 32 per eye.
Now do I think the price is over inflated? Sure but we would need to see what other goodies are being offered. Just keep in mind the goodies will be targetting professional use vs. Average or gamer vr user.
Meta is taking a risk though if competitors like Pico can offer similar for less.
I agree with that. But I don’t see what business cases it fulfills either. That is, I see business cases that AR could fulfill, but the specs of the Quest Pro don’t seem adequate to them.
For instance, Meta likes to show this idea of multiple virtual desktop screens hovering in the air for productivity. That’s a great use case that the Quest Pro doesn’t actually have sufficient PPD to pull off.
What business use cases are there which the Quest Pro can actually do effectively? And of those, which are not better served by some other VR or AR headset?
2 Likes
This is what I addressed in the previous to that post:
It is not for productive use yet, it is to learn how to make software for such use with future, more capable AR & MR devices.
1 Like
Quest pro would be awesome for learning piano . Other than that there is no use case
1 Like
Puzzling Places, Vermillion, Eleven Table Tennis, Cubism, Demeo, etc. etc.
Lots of really nice applications which already exist and just need to be MR enabled (some of them already have announced such) to allow playing these while feeling connected and surrounded by the real world.
It‘s just far too expensive for me to consider buying it mainly for such use, that‘s the main „criticism“ I have. Although I believe that the price is fair considering the estimated cost of production.
I see some pretty amazing uses for a good, wearable, AR device. The possibilities for helping those with disabilities alone are fantastic. Or just the aging (imagine, once small enough, a set of AR glasses that would help those with cognitive decline, or allow persons with poor night-vision to continue driving and enjoying other night activities, etc.)
So, this particular version; with the low FOV and not enough resolution plus the high price may not interest me, but if such technologies continue to evolve there will be many legit real-world uses.
2 Likes
Yep there was a fellow years ago that was using a pimax 4k with a camera and iirc rasberry pi creating a driver to use the hmd for folks with vision sensitivities(?)
Here is the topic @mirage335 might also be interested maybe.
They were successful in making it work on linux with some workarounds.
1 Like
Just for the record, thanks to Oscar (@knob2001), I could update the HMDGDB with Quest Pro geometry (Oculus Meta Quest Pro (72Hz) | HMD Geometry Database).
The name of the headset is a bit convoluted, but this is what the LibOVR reports, so I left it there.
1 Like
Through the lens video comparison between Quest Pro and Quest 2.
I think this video is particularly interesting from the perspective of expectations for the Pimax 12K. There has been much concern that modern GPUs wouldn’t be able to run 2x6K panels, and therefore the 12K will be useless until [insert random future nVidia series here] GPUs are available. But one of my points has been that even if you were to run the 12K at exactly the same rendering resolution as you’ve been running the 8KX, it’s going to look substantially better.
This video demonstrates part of what I mean by that. The Quest Pro and Quest 2 have the same resolution. Yet behold how the better lenses in the Quest Pro significantly improve clarity without a resolution increase. I expect to see a similar effect with the improved lenses in the Pimax 12K vs the 8KX.
Plus the higher resolution panels and local dimming can be expected to contribute significantly to the clarity of the 12K, too. All without increasing the rendering resolution by a single pixel over whatever you’ve been running on your 8KX.
2 Likes
Got the Quest pro last night and its honestly the ONLY headset that i’ve used that could replace my 8kx. Specs aside, in use this thing is pretty sick. Also I had forgotten that you are supposed to have eye strain in vr.
Price is steep but at least it actually exist (*cough,crystal, cough) and if it had launched at say 799 or 899 , it would be the best, period.
I am not sure I would say it looks substantially better from what I saw in the video. It‘s the effect you have when you have a slightly blurry picture and use the sharpening filter in Photoshop, it works out the edges more articulated, but the picture doesn‘t necessarily create a better overall impression.
Probably I would tend to prefer the Quest Pro look at the end, but it‘s a pretty narrow margin, because the Quest 2 footage looks smoother, more natural on the other hand.
But - better lenses not causing any blurring generally are a step in the right direction, agreed.
1 Like
You have that backwards. It’s not applying a sharpening filter to the Quest 2’s image, but rather applying a blurring filter to the Quest Pro’s image. Sharpening filters can’t actually recreate the lost detail. They create only the impression of sharpness, but the actual fidelity of the image is not increased or restored. Whereas the original image before a blur is applied actually has greater fidelity.
This isn’t a matter of aesthetic taste. Clarity can be objectively measured. Among the comparisons in the video is an eye chart, and you can see that smaller text can be read on the Quest Pro image than on the Quest 2 image. This has meaningful utility.
This video is just an example of how clarity can be increased even while resolution remains the same. There should be even more difference in clarity between the 12K and the 8KX because there are additional factors besides just the better lenses.
I didn‘t mean to say it is sharpening filter being applied but it looks comparably to the effect you achieve when applying such a filter.
Looking at the comparison in the video I hardly like the Q Pro look better than the Q2 look. Backwards, forwards, sideways and up&down, all the same… 
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.