5 ms·

An important consideration for me is that a 43" TV with a 4K HD screen is beautiful to look at, while Oculus screens are not. For 300 dollars I can get a beauti

An important consideration for me is that a 43" TV with a 4K HD screen is beautiful to look at, while Oculus screens are not. For 300 dollars I can get a beautiful portal into 3D worlds in the form of a monitor in front of my face and I don't have to wear anything or change anything about the way I see or hear. And also, I don't like the way things move in the VR I've seen. It lags and jumps bit and does not scroll smoothly as I look around.

coffeebeqn 4y ago
Maybe in 5 years it’ll be great but I found the Quest 2 to be very blurry and “streaky” compared to a decent monitor. It also still gives me nausea if I play a game for a few hours which I like to do
- Scalene2 4y ago
  When is the last time you tried an extended session? It is now possible to do 120Hz on the quest for some games and on PCVR. Earlier versions were limited to 72Hz. There have been other improvements too. Maybe update your headset, tweak some settings, find games that will work at 120Hz and give it another go. Also, the Quest 2 is kind of old now, newer headsets are vastly superior with regards to blur and streaks.
- anonred 4y ago
  I find the Quest Pro lenses and screen to be a significant improvement over Quest 2 in terms of clarity. You’ll find many other people saying the same thing. So your 5-year timeline seems off to me.
  - coffeebeqn 4y ago
    The quest pro costs as much as a gaming pc. So I guess I’ll have to wait. Also disappointing they didn’t increase the resolution. I’m not looking to pay 5x for marginally better lenses
    - anonred 4y ago
      Yes the value to cost isn’t there if you’re not very invested in XR. But I wouldn’t discount the local display dimming, eye tracking (for foveated rendering), faster GPU / CPU clocking, and 10% PPD increase which all contribute to better visual quality.
wkat4242 4y ago
On the contrary, the immersion still amazes me every day. The quest 2 screens are not beautiful, the blacks are a milky grey and the colors aren't particularly popping. But wow who cares, when I'm playing a third-party VR mod of half-life 2 from 2004, it seems so real. Despite the low-poly meshes and blocky textures that come with games of that era. Blown away by the feeling of actually being there. I get vertigo balancing on the de support beams of the huge bridge I have to climb, disgusted at the howling zombies attacking me while I hurriedly try to stuff shells into my shotgun. Those too-big and underwhelming pixels? I really don't have time to notice them. I bought this headset for only $50 more than the $300 you mention (yes now it costs more). For desktop work yes I prefer my $220 4K monitor hands down. But wow this is something else and it's only getting better.
- labrador 4y ago
  No offense, but you sound like ChatGPT Edit: Sorry. You deserve a serious answer. I'm old and not someone who wants to walk around and spin with a headset on. I'm someone who wants to use something similar to a flight simulator or Google Earth, so I put a premium on the niceness of the view.
  - sgtnoodle 4y ago
    Google Earth is rather awesome in VR, if you haven't tried it.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    ChatGPT doesn't use my kind of language, I've never seen it do exclamations like 'wow'. I'm just very enthusiastic about VR from using it a lot, and it has allowed me to relive some classics in an amazing way. As well as some amazing new content of course, but there isn't that much of it yet. But the things you mention benefit the most from VR. Graphical resolution is indeed a bit lower with Flight Simulation but the feeling of flying is much more accurate. I've flown real Cessna 172s and I've never really felt like flying in a PC simulator until VR came around. Google Earth is also quite amazing in VR. Of course for both experiences you need a serious PC, neither flight simulator nor google earth will run on the headset natively. The resolution and colour depth is really one of the least important things in my opinion (and they will be solved in due course, the first TFT screens were also quite horrible and still we played sims on them).
lewispollard 4y ago
I agree in principle that current VR screens suffer from many distortion and "pixelated" effects, which makes text especially hard to read (though this is improved with the newer lenses, the fresnel lenses are much worse for this), but: > It lags and jumps bit and does not scroll smoothly as I look around. That hasn't been my experience at all, not since the DK2 I originally had, maybe on the google cardboard, I never tried that. A headset with dedicated tracking works amazingly well in terms of your rotational/positional view of the world.

coffeebeqn 4y ago

Maybe in 5 years it’ll be great but I found the Quest 2 to be very blurry and “streaky” compared to a decent monitor. It also still gives me nausea if I play a game for a few hours which I like to do

Scalene2 4y ago
When is the last time you tried an extended session? It is now possible to do 120Hz on the quest for some games and on PCVR. Earlier versions were limited to 72Hz. There have been other improvements too. Maybe update your headset, tweak some settings, find games that will work at 120Hz and give it another go. Also, the Quest 2 is kind of old now, newer headsets are vastly superior with regards to blur and streaks.
anonred 4y ago
I find the Quest Pro lenses and screen to be a significant improvement over Quest 2 in terms of clarity. You’ll find many other people saying the same thing. So your 5-year timeline seems off to me.
- coffeebeqn 4y ago
  The quest pro costs as much as a gaming pc. So I guess I’ll have to wait. Also disappointing they didn’t increase the resolution. I’m not looking to pay 5x for marginally better lenses
  - anonred 4y ago
    Yes the value to cost isn’t there if you’re not very invested in XR. But I wouldn’t discount the local display dimming, eye tracking (for foveated rendering), faster GPU / CPU clocking, and 10% PPD increase which all contribute to better visual quality.

wkat4242 4y ago

On the contrary, the immersion still amazes me every day. The quest 2 screens are not beautiful, the blacks are a milky grey and the colors aren't particularly popping. But wow who cares, when I'm playing a third-party VR mod of half-life 2 from 2004, it seems so real. Despite the low-poly meshes and blocky textures that come with games of that era. Blown away by the feeling of actually being there. I get vertigo balancing on the de support beams of the huge bridge I have to climb, disgusted at the howling zombies attacking me while I hurriedly try to stuff shells into my shotgun. Those too-big and underwhelming pixels? I really don't have time to notice them. I bought this headset for only $50 more than the $300 you mention (yes now it costs more). For desktop work yes I prefer my $220 4K monitor hands down. But wow this is something else and it's only getting better.

labrador 4y ago
No offense, but you sound like ChatGPT Edit: Sorry. You deserve a serious answer. I'm old and not someone who wants to walk around and spin with a headset on. I'm someone who wants to use something similar to a flight simulator or Google Earth, so I put a premium on the niceness of the view.
- sgtnoodle 4y ago
  Google Earth is rather awesome in VR, if you haven't tried it.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  ChatGPT doesn't use my kind of language, I've never seen it do exclamations like 'wow'. I'm just very enthusiastic about VR from using it a lot, and it has allowed me to relive some classics in an amazing way. As well as some amazing new content of course, but there isn't that much of it yet. But the things you mention benefit the most from VR. Graphical resolution is indeed a bit lower with Flight Simulation but the feeling of flying is much more accurate. I've flown real Cessna 172s and I've never really felt like flying in a PC simulator until VR came around. Google Earth is also quite amazing in VR. Of course for both experiences you need a serious PC, neither flight simulator nor google earth will run on the headset natively. The resolution and colour depth is really one of the least important things in my opinion (and they will be solved in due course, the first TFT screens were also quite horrible and still we played sims on them).

lewispollard 4y ago

I agree in principle that current VR screens suffer from many distortion and "pixelated" effects, which makes text especially hard to read (though this is improved with the newer lenses, the fresnel lenses are much worse for this), but: > It lags and jumps bit and does not scroll smoothly as I look around. That hasn't been my experience at all, not since the DK2 I originally had, maybe on the google cardboard, I never tried that. A headset with dedicated tracking works amazingly well in terms of your rotational/positional view of the world.