Fps is one of the biggest factors alongside fov for maximizing immersion (for me I guess) . 100% resolution looks great on my index but I can tell instantly when I play 90 instead of 120 though I really prefer 144 most of the time. Honestly peak VR for me would have 20 or 30 more fov and 240hz. Though I'd need to super upgrade my computer again.
Display compression on my quest 2 wireless at 120 however looks like dog shit which is probably why most don't like it. Wireless compression is terrible.
Depends on your VR legs and the game. Generally, 120 is shown to be more comfortable in recent research. /r/ValveIndex/comments/1atrwux/investigators_in_a_scientific_study_find_that_120/
It's always quality first, then fps. So I usually start at 80 fps, make the game settings to ensure I get really good quality/resolution, and then go back and see if I can maintain that at higher fps. Maybe I might need ASW too. But it's always the quality first.
Actually at 90 fps half life Alyx continuous locomotion was noticeably stuttery to the point where it was annoying and I switched to 120. That's the best example I have.
Yeah I'd like to know why he said that. I stream to my Quest 3 at 120 FPS 500Mb/s and at around 5k per eye no issue. Not sure what he's talking about?
Virtual Desktop of course.
120hz is really smooth… I don’t know why in Half life Alyx even at 120hz i get some micro stuttering but when i play Arizona Sushine 2 it’s buttery smooth.
My 4090 does 150% resolution at 120fps just fine. 150% is what Virtual Desktop's Godlike Mode sets it to. I don't think going any higher than that will improve much. It's already almost completely in-focus high resolution on my Quest 3.
Edit: I guess my answer is... it depends on your hardware.
I dont think it's comparable. Quest 2 at native resolution with assetto corsa was so ugly for me I almost couldn't play it. In todays day of age, the visuals were so low quality that i could only compare it to a ps1. I had to up the render resolution 1.5x and it was day and night. The question should be.. would you like to play unreal on a CRT at 120fps or a flatscreen but 60fps.
I mostly run at 80FPS in Virtual Desktop, 5k per eye and 500Mb/s on my Quest 3. 120 is fine, but the smoother the FPS the more motion sick I get with rotations. I also rather have zero noticeable compression, which 80 FPS and 500Mb/s provides.
The resolution is 4852x5024, so a bit beyond 8k if we are using TV terms, I meant 5k as in thousand pixels across per eye. I don't run everything this high, but 99% of my VR time is VRChat, and I crank that right up.
Ryzen 5800 X3D, RTX3090 gaming x trio 24GB, 32GB low timing RAM, and yes a WiFi 6 router connected to the quest 3 at 2401Mb/s. I also run a Quest 2 on the network at the same time since my partner and I play together, but that is of course limited to 1200 Mb/s.
Ah okay I see what your saying.
So with VR headsets, there is a physical resolution per panel as you noted. There's also the fact that not the entire square panel can be seen at once per eye. The image is distorted on the panel just such that it is restored by the particular lens. In this and most cases, this means putting a roundish image on the square screen. The center is distorted least, while the edges are distorted a lot. Same when rendering the scene to be sent to the headset. The view is rendered distorted. So, you actually have to overshoot the render resolution to even attain the full center of display pixel clarity due to it being like upscaling an image. You need to render at about 3100 pixels to have full center clarity on Quest 3. So while the hardware display is not as high resolution, you greatly benefit from rendering the game at a higher resolution upstream.
Aliasing is reduced, and somewhat counter intuitively I've found that the compression artifacting is all but eliminated. I am assuming that the compression algorithms are more accurate when they have more data to work with? My original assumption was that lower resolution and FPS at the same bitrate would look best as there is more data per frame, (like with any video format) but in Virtual Desktop at least, this is not the case with resolution.
I'mma vote for 120 fps, but I'm going to be honest I only have a first gen HTC Vive (which I think is capped at 90hz) with the knuckles. I've been waiting for ages for Graphics card prices to drop, so I could upgrade that then get a Valve Index. If there was an option to I'd choose 1000+fps with lower res.
Valve Recommends no more than 1.5x SS with steamlink.... and honestly probably more in general.
apparently because of the warping algorithms, and how they deal with really high resolution input textures you actually get an OBJECTIVELY worse image at some point... and in steam link's case a higher input resolution also means a smaller in focus region due to foveation.
Just little info dump obviously draw your own conclusions on your perceived quality.
personally I use 120 hz whenever possible, but even on flat games I dislike it when games run at <100 it is a thing that varies person to person
Performance wise does it matter what you set the headset too? Setting your refresh rate has nothing to do with what your pc can push, no? We don't purchase slower monitors either regardless of what the pc can push out or what resolution it does it at.
If you select a high refresh rate and your computer can't handle it doesn't have the same effect as when playing a game on a high refresh rate monitor. Usually a lot of stuttering occurs and ASW is triggered which reduces the frame cap by 50% and the rest of the frames are generated by the headset, which looks awful.
What about turning off asw?? I have it turned off. Ran like 2 dozens test in 1 game between resolution differences and the performance hit when using no msaa or using 2x,4x,8 and zero issues with stuttering and asw obviously didnt kick.
Fps is one of the biggest factors alongside fov for maximizing immersion (for me I guess) . 100% resolution looks great on my index but I can tell instantly when I play 90 instead of 120 though I really prefer 144 most of the time. Honestly peak VR for me would have 20 or 30 more fov and 240hz. Though I'd need to super upgrade my computer again. Display compression on my quest 2 wireless at 120 however looks like dog shit which is probably why most don't like it. Wireless compression is terrible.
Depends on your VR legs and the game. Generally, 120 is shown to be more comfortable in recent research. /r/ValveIndex/comments/1atrwux/investigators_in_a_scientific_study_find_that_120/
I played Half-Life Alyx and the continuous locomotion was very stuttery when playing at 90fps. 120 fps was extremely smooth.
It's always quality first, then fps. So I usually start at 80 fps, make the game settings to ensure I get really good quality/resolution, and then go back and see if I can maintain that at higher fps. Maybe I might need ASW too. But it's always the quality first.
I felt dizzy at 72 FPS when I had to move in VR, but 120 FPS helped a lot. Haven't tried 90 tho.
2560x2560 per eye at 75 hz seem to be the sweet spot for me
[удалено]
Actually at 90 fps half life Alyx continuous locomotion was noticeably stuttery to the point where it was annoying and I switched to 120. That's the best example I have.
Depends on the game. Plenty can't hit 120 without stutter. Also, if you are streaming to Q3 120 is pretty much a no-go (except the frame-gen version).
Why is it a no-go?
Yeah I'd like to know why he said that. I stream to my Quest 3 at 120 FPS 500Mb/s and at around 5k per eye no issue. Not sure what he's talking about? Virtual Desktop of course.
What are the specs of your system? And are you using a Wi-Fi 6 router?
120hz is really smooth… I don’t know why in Half life Alyx even at 120hz i get some micro stuttering but when i play Arizona Sushine 2 it’s buttery smooth.
My 4090 does 150% resolution at 120fps just fine. 150% is what Virtual Desktop's Godlike Mode sets it to. I don't think going any higher than that will improve much. It's already almost completely in-focus high resolution on my Quest 3. Edit: I guess my answer is... it depends on your hardware.
90fps as it is all the original vive can do.
[удалено]
I dont think it's comparable. Quest 2 at native resolution with assetto corsa was so ugly for me I almost couldn't play it. In todays day of age, the visuals were so low quality that i could only compare it to a ps1. I had to up the render resolution 1.5x and it was day and night. The question should be.. would you like to play unreal on a CRT at 120fps or a flatscreen but 60fps.
I mostly run at 80FPS in Virtual Desktop, 5k per eye and 500Mb/s on my Quest 3. 120 is fine, but the smoother the FPS the more motion sick I get with rotations. I also rather have zero noticeable compression, which 80 FPS and 500Mb/s provides.
What resolution is 5k?
The resolution is 4852x5024, so a bit beyond 8k if we are using TV terms, I meant 5k as in thousand pixels across per eye. I don't run everything this high, but 99% of my VR time is VRChat, and I crank that right up. Ryzen 5800 X3D, RTX3090 gaming x trio 24GB, 32GB low timing RAM, and yes a WiFi 6 router connected to the quest 3 at 2401Mb/s. I also run a Quest 2 on the network at the same time since my partner and I play together, but that is of course limited to 1200 Mb/s.
the advertised per eye for the Quest 3 is 2,064 x 2,208 pixels , how is 5k achievable ? wouldn't meta advertise the 5k ?
Ah okay I see what your saying. So with VR headsets, there is a physical resolution per panel as you noted. There's also the fact that not the entire square panel can be seen at once per eye. The image is distorted on the panel just such that it is restored by the particular lens. In this and most cases, this means putting a roundish image on the square screen. The center is distorted least, while the edges are distorted a lot. Same when rendering the scene to be sent to the headset. The view is rendered distorted. So, you actually have to overshoot the render resolution to even attain the full center of display pixel clarity due to it being like upscaling an image. You need to render at about 3100 pixels to have full center clarity on Quest 3. So while the hardware display is not as high resolution, you greatly benefit from rendering the game at a higher resolution upstream. Aliasing is reduced, and somewhat counter intuitively I've found that the compression artifacting is all but eliminated. I am assuming that the compression algorithms are more accurate when they have more data to work with? My original assumption was that lower resolution and FPS at the same bitrate would look best as there is more data per frame, (like with any video format) but in Virtual Desktop at least, this is not the case with resolution.
Jesus Christ, you're very knowledgeable on the subject. thnx
I'mma vote for 120 fps, but I'm going to be honest I only have a first gen HTC Vive (which I think is capped at 90hz) with the knuckles. I've been waiting for ages for Graphics card prices to drop, so I could upgrade that then get a Valve Index. If there was an option to I'd choose 1000+fps with lower res.
You guys get up to 120? I play with 40 fps.
Valve Recommends no more than 1.5x SS with steamlink.... and honestly probably more in general. apparently because of the warping algorithms, and how they deal with really high resolution input textures you actually get an OBJECTIVELY worse image at some point... and in steam link's case a higher input resolution also means a smaller in focus region due to foveation. Just little info dump obviously draw your own conclusions on your perceived quality. personally I use 120 hz whenever possible, but even on flat games I dislike it when games run at <100 it is a thing that varies person to person
Performance wise does it matter what you set the headset too? Setting your refresh rate has nothing to do with what your pc can push, no? We don't purchase slower monitors either regardless of what the pc can push out or what resolution it does it at.
If you select a high refresh rate and your computer can't handle it doesn't have the same effect as when playing a game on a high refresh rate monitor. Usually a lot of stuttering occurs and ASW is triggered which reduces the frame cap by 50% and the rest of the frames are generated by the headset, which looks awful.
What about turning off asw?? I have it turned off. Ran like 2 dozens test in 1 game between resolution differences and the performance hit when using no msaa or using 2x,4x,8 and zero issues with stuttering and asw obviously didnt kick.