5 ms·

I use my xreal air as my airplane display. I would love the Quest 3's higher resolution but my understanding is that compared to the XA the Q3 - Requires cont

I use my xreal air as my airplane display. I would love the Quest 3's higher resolution but my understanding is that compared to the XA the Q3 - Requires controllers - Requires wifi instead of plugging in the cable and it just works* - Has fairly limited battery life Am I mistaken on these points / do you think it would work on an airplane despite them? * To be fair, the XA only "just works" in vanilla display mode, the fancy xreal multiple virtual monitors feature called Nebula doesn't work well enough to be worth the hassle.

Topfi 3y ago
Tried my hand at a Viture One for two weeks, but the diopters did not work with my specific vision, perhaps I'll give the new XA2 a shot now that they are more available in the EU. Concerning your question, it's very different. While VR content can be cast both over USB or wireless, for flat-screen casting, wireless is the preferred and most comprehensively supported way, which, whilst tether-free, can be less seamless when out-and-about than just plugging in a cable. Note that wireless does not require a local WiFi router or internet connection but can also be handeled directly from a host device, still, less reliable than a plain cable carrying video signal. Furthermore, as the Quest has its own full on operating system based on Android, rather than receiving an HDMI signal like the Viture or XA, there is an additional point of complexity to consider, and it looks a lot less inconspicuous than the XA. Lastly, tracking via the cameras is a great advantage in general use, though a very inclosed, darkish space such as an aeroplane may push the small sensors to their limit and yes, battery life can be a limit as well, though I do hot-swap BoboVR battery at the back of my skull for that. Still not as convenient as just using your phones power and having that charged. Quest does not require an controller at this point, hand tracking is currently my prefered way of navigating the system day-to-day. Overall, I'd agree, on an airplane I'd consider the Quest to be of marginal usability.

Topfi 3y ago

Tried my hand at a Viture One for two weeks, but the diopters did not work with my specific vision, perhaps I'll give the new XA2 a shot now that they are more available in the EU. Concerning your question, it's very different. While VR content can be cast both over USB or wireless, for flat-screen casting, wireless is the preferred and most comprehensively supported way, which, whilst tether-free, can be less seamless when out-and-about than just plugging in a cable. Note that wireless does not require a local WiFi router or internet connection but can also be handeled directly from a host device, still, less reliable than a plain cable carrying video signal. Furthermore, as the Quest has its own full on operating system based on Android, rather than receiving an HDMI signal like the Viture or XA, there is an additional point of complexity to consider, and it looks a lot less inconspicuous than the XA. Lastly, tracking via the cameras is a great advantage in general use, though a very inclosed, darkish space such as an aeroplane may push the small sensors to their limit and yes, battery life can be a limit as well, though I do hot-swap BoboVR battery at the back of my skull for that. Still not as convenient as just using your phones power and having that charged. Quest does not require an controller at this point, hand tracking is currently my prefered way of navigating the system day-to-day. Overall, I'd agree, on an airplane I'd consider the Quest to be of marginal usability.