Haha nice!! Yeah you’re much more of a simmer than me, I guess for simming this is an extremely interesting headset indeed.
For me personally I’m actually not even that much of a PPD junkie. I feel that the current ‘top of the line’ headsets offer PPD’s that I’m already quite comfortable with. I’m personally looking mostly for improvements in optics, FoV and form factor and I’m not sure that the XR4 therefore is the right next headset for me. However I’m looking forward with great interest to your review!
Personally I hope that the XR-4 does not have the cooling lens function for preventing of fogging up the lenses, like the Aero and VR/XR-3, as this unfortunately kills for me the usage of this HMDs. After 15 minutes in a Aero HMD, my eyes started to hurt so much, that I could not use it any longer. This was/ is for me the main issue to surpass the Varjo HMDs at the moment. That’s very sad and unfortunate for me, as I really like The Varjo HMDs.
I discovered the same thing with my quest 3, but lucky wise not as strong as with the Aero, just not to strong for preventing me to use my quest 3 for longer session. Lucky wise the XTALs do not have this feature, otherwise I would have now a huge problem with my XTAL 5K.
Do not get me wrong about this feature, it is really nice to not have to worry about any fogging up of the lenses, but for my eyes the ongoing air stream blasting in to my face is pure torture. If I could just have not so pitty eyes regarding that …
The XR-4 uses only one DP 1.4 cable to drive both screens. As such, it cannot display more than 30ppd across its FOV because even with DSC, the bandwidth is lacking.
The 50+ppd image can only be achieved via foveated transport and this is not implemented on a driver level and therefore isn’t application agnostic.
As such, only apps with specific support for their SDK will support max res, every other app and all OpenVR/XR applications are hard limited to 30ppd.
I fricking loathe NVIDIA for slapping DP1.4 on the 4090, what a damn waste.
What it chews and what it performs are two different things. DP 2.0 is backwards compatible. Of course, longer lengths are possible, but only with half or a quarter of the bandwidth. DP2.1 is more powerful, but the full bandwidth is only guaranteed with thicker DP80 cables “greater than 1 meter”. More than 1m can be all, 1,2 or 1,5 or 1,8 but 3 or more? Read the Vesa specification.
For comparsion, this is the thinner DP40 cable against the standar 8kx cable. Optical would be interesting in the future.
Optical from FIBBR which I use at 30m for DP1.4 is available for full fat 80gbps at length of 15m and more. So there already are reputable optical solutions.
This seems like a huge blunder on their part, surely at the price point they are pushing they could afford to put in DP2.1 Unless they are planning that exclusively for XR-5.
What does the bandwidth calc workout to for the XR-4 vs XR-3? since they dropped the focus display tech does this potentially leave them some wiggle room?
