Understanding FOV and its variations in Pimax headsets

General discussion
21

Wel they need to be not repeating mistakes. It makes them look bad.

1 Like
22

This is gaslighting. I’m actually very annoyed to see this having been posted after waiting for so long for an answer to the FOV concerns of the crystal, this comes across like “What is the best way we can twitch reality to get out of this”.

…go here: Pimax Crystal | Pimax

Click on “specs”

You’ll see:

image

I added some useful highlights in red just incase the non-diagonal measurement was missed.

Even if we take this misleading fluff at face value, there’s no way in any reality that 103x103 amounts to 140 diagonal.

Just give us a straight answer, and if necessary then update the specs to not be false advertising. It’s fine if the FOV is 103x103, crystal will be still amazing, which isn’t fine is false advertising and then trying to gaslight people weeks after concerns are raised.

Edit: Also, I would like to add that other sources (youtubers) have also confirmed that the FOV is indeed 103 rendered (with 102 being what they saw visually). So the numbers are confirmed.

If it’s a case that the advertised FOV is what Pimax are aiming for in the future (like how Varjo Aero got a big bump) then tell us that. If that’s not the case, then simply update the specs and stop falsely advertising. I want Pimax to succeed, breaking the law with false advertising is not going to help yous succeed.

3 Likes
23

Thanks for editing. :wink:

24

I’ll edit the Comparison chart to reflect 103 Horizontal.

25

Don’t know why Hammerhead_gal posted this. Everyone here should already understand the details about FOV, even dummies like me got the idea of how FOV works and what those numbers mean.
There is no one confused about FOV and its variations. We would have appreciated more if Pimax gave us the concrete numbers. The numbers that’s measured by optical instruments. So we can feel not in the dark any more. Lower number is not a problem. The real problem is that we all know the number is lower, but just not exactly how low.
Is it really that difficult to have someone using optical instrument to measure the real FOV? The FOV discussion has been around for months. How much longer Pimax want this to continue?

3 Likes
26

Atm we do know how low. Rendered FoV=Max that could be seen with ideal facial profile.

You can’t see more than what is there.

But agree it would be better if they just posted the current achievement than this misleading distraction post. That has some clear inaccuracies.

2 Likes
27

If her type-up provides some educational value overall regarding FoV, then It’s appreciated.
This for the benefit of newbies and those who have very little to no understanding of VR Tech, but are still interested in it and buying even their first HMD.

28

First off, it’s not educational as it’s not accurate. Secondly, this is clearly as a response to the push for answers on the crystal’s FOV being 103 rather than the advertised 125.

29

Thus I said “IF”

I agree, they should be able to concretely confirm DFOV as originally stated/advertised 125°, if that was indeed that case. If they cannot, and if it is not, then there needs to be sufficient clarification.

@hammerhead_gal

So is this accurate or not?

image
image733×212 10.2 KB

1 Like
30

DFOV is advertised at 140 btw, it’s horizontal that is advertised at 125.

So far literally everyone that has released any results on the FOV of the crystal has gotten about 103 max (which matches up with the rendered fov max) for horizontal. That’s a 22 degree difference, even if it was only the 140 and we went with what this post was say, it still wouldn’t be close to advertised.

This post being the only response after weeks all but confirms that they messed up. While unfortunate, it’s fine if they just change the marketing material and stop misleading people.

If it’s a case that it’s like when the Varjo Aero launched (it launched with a much smaller FOV than advertised but eventually reached closer to advertised through software) then that’s fine, just tell us that.

31

They are only slightly canted square panels. Personally, I never expected more than 105-108 degrees horizontally and about 125 degrees diagonally after the first show, which basically corresponds to the index. I also don’t understand where these 140 degrees suddenly come from. They weren’t advertised at all at first in my memory, or had I misheard it completely?

32

I just checked:

image
image1372×699 53 KB

It was in the announcement video… that they apparently called the “launch event” which was 5 months before another “launch event” which was 4 months ago and the headset still hasn’t been launched hahaha. I’m not trying to be mean, it’s just actually so bizarre looking back at the timeline.

Anyway, they advertised that FOV from day 1. My guess, and it’s actually not baseless, is that when they announced the crystal, and those specs, the headset was so early on in development that the FOV was just theorectical and they thought they could do it but the reality now is that they can’t. However, instead of correcting and updating the specs they instead are just ignoring it and then even try to confuse/gaslit people so they don’t need to change the marketing.

The crystal as it stands is already incredible and pretty much beats anything else, and it’s not even remotely close to being feature complete yet. They have something incredible, so there’s really no need to keep doing stuff like this. It’s better to be reserved with these things and blow people away, rather than over promise and then make what is incredible seem like a disappointment.

For example,if I told you an investment opportunity could bring you in 500 bucks, and you end up getting 1000 bucks then you’d be over the moon, you’d even be similarly happy with the 500! But If I told you the oppotunity will bring in 5000 but then you “just” get 2500…well that should have you even happier but the reality is the unrealistic expectation left you feeling disappointed at an amazing return! That’s what I feel like is happening here.

5 Likes
33

At Pimax I’m sometimes not sure if it’s the original videos :joy:. At least for me the main reason not to jump on the Crystal was that I no longer wanted to buy an HMD under 120h. However, based on the currently advertised data, she would have been a candidate. Scrolling back some of my posts from last year also I’m talking about 110 at 35ppd and 85-90 at 42ppd. Now I’m completely confused. :rofl::joy::rofl:

1 Like
34

I think this is a good guess of what happened.

Yup, the headset itself, even at this stage, is an incredible tech achievement already. It’s not really a negative or shame to announce the actual numbers. We all know, most of the times, the early numbers are not the final numbers.

1 Like
35

There is no reasonable way they could not have known about the main properties of the product they were developing, at that time. (EDIT: …unless their development procedure amounts to little more than banging rocks together.)

36

Absolutely, so I hope they just update the specs and explain that the development process led to a new specsheet but one they are confident the crystal will excel at. I have no issue with that personally, and better to rip that band aid off right now so when it does come out people can be wowed and talk about the strengths of the headset, rather than the specs it didn’t match.

37

Yeah. ok. 125° Diagonal (42PPD Lenses)

But yeah, anyways, the 140° degrees is what I bought in at, and EXPECT.

@hammerhead_gal

Since your website has this specification stated, and since there’s also a video previously regarding this, can you not clear up this 103° stuff?

I mean, right now, it seems PIMAX’s specs are just GUESSES…

1 Like
38

I can’t speak for everyone, but being a simmer and being biased towards the ‘immersion’ factor more than other things, such a difference in FOV(neg) is rather a big deal for me. One that may likely be a deal-breaker.

Then there’s the trust-factor. Which, inaccurate statements historically with PIMAX, further contribute towards deflating my interest in the product.

sigh… For me, if $1600 were inconsequential, then I’d probably be just collecting headsets just for the hell of it…

3 Likes
39

I remember when DK2 launched, and it had a marked decrease in FOV about 96 degrees instead of of the 110 horizontalal that DK1 had. I also remember customers assuming that CV1 might be 4k, because
Of lack of SDE. Oculus never said it was 4k, but never denied it at the time either.

Off course, none of that ended
Up being accurate.

With Pimax, marketing has proven similar.

100x103 FOV is a great spec, and Pimax should just say that out right and be proud of it.

We all remember
The “ballpark $300 “ from Palmer Luckey, and how full of BS that prediction was.

Crystal has had great reviews when expectations are kept in check

1 Like
40

We know Pimax have 3 measurement tools and we know they’ve used them all. We know they’ve already answered in detail why they dismiss two of the tools that measure the smaller 103 FOV. Why is this? Well it’s because they’re still working on the wide FOV lens that Pimax hopes will increase 103 to the released specifications.

To me it’s a mess because MRTV got his retail without one set of lenses. I suspect the wide FOV lenses will replace the 42PPD lenses and the retail box will end up with the 35 and 28PPD lenses.

That’s my guess anyway and who knows what’s going on behind the scenes.

1 Like