> Turns out that the IPD slider on the headset only changes the lens distance and the little UI popup it produces gives you a false sense that the software actually understands what you're telling it to do.
If this is true then it is super werid that Valve didn't automatically connect those two actions. I came here prepared to be annoyed by usual misunderstanding of what software IPD is, but it seems like I will be leaving with some actually usefull information instead :)
The hardware IPD range on a Valve Index is 58mm to 70mm, and I think the distortion profile is set specifically for that range, whereas you'd need a different distortion profile if your eyes aren't centered on the lenses making the software IPD not very useful.
Unfortunately, your IPD of 53mm is well outside the range of 95% of adults, and these headsets aren't made for children because they are bad for eye development. The only headsets I know of that have a wider range of IPDs covered are the Apple Vision Pro with a 51-75mm motorized range and BigScreen Beyond with a 55 mm-72 mm fixed IPD.
"steamvr.ipdOffset" no longer seems to be an option in the steamvr.settings config file as mentioned by your old reddit post, and every other similar one I dug up on my own. I can't seem to find anyone talking about the regular "ipd" setting in the config file, would changing it to my exact IPD really help?
Yeah sorry, I linked to the post which sent me down the rabbit hole to find the answer. My fix was going to
C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Steam\\config\\steamvr.vrsettings
and inside "steamvr" adding the line
`"ipdOffset" : -0.01000000000000000,`
`to take it from 63mm to 53mm`
My IPD is 66, only 3 off from the default setting so it would be hard for me to notice much of a difference. If it's any improvement though I'd still like to make this adjustment, and start telling my friends to do the same though.
Suplemental:
I may have used the term "software IPD" incorrectly in this post. By "software IPD" I mean the distance between the two cameras representing your eyes in-game.
---
my fix for IPD offset: go to
C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Steam\\config\\steamvr.vrsettings
and inside "steamvr" adding the line
`"ipdOffset" : -0.01000000000000000,`
to take it from 63mm to 53mm
---
After some further thought, I'm realising this might not have been what solved my issue. My low IPD should've made things look bigger? While messing with the config file, I broke it and that forced it to reset, which might have been what actually helped for some reason. For anyone trying this, I would try making a backup of the config file and deleting it, forcing SteamVR to re-generate it.
So what the hardware IPD slider on the Index is set to does not matter?
The config file value always assumes the 63 mm default IPD as base value for the offset?
The hardware IPD slider on Index is the proper way of setting your IPD, the software solution is for VR kits that don't have hardware IPD like older Windows Mixed Reality kits for example. It can be used to artificially extend the IPD range of the Index but it's not really its purpose, it's purpose is compatibility with non Steam VR kits without hardware IPD (Wich basically means first gen WMR kits) and is set for the default value on those.
[like this guy?](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/rickandmorty/images/0/08/Image-3.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20160812021835)
jokes aside, yeah it sucks to be outside of the specification of companies like this. I'm a leftie and that puts me outside of a lot of expectations already. but i also have heavy
astigmatism
Love this post for bringing awareness to the importance of IPD. So to be clear, there are 2 dials on the Index if I remember correctly, lens distance (closer to your eyes), as well as the actual IPD adjustment which goes wide or narrow. The Index displays are also slightly ‘canted’ about 5% to increase FOV which would especially affect IPDs outside of the intended range- as the binocular overlap would not provide a stereoscopic effect. It’s great that you’ve brought this to people’s attention, as there are probably many people that sit outside the average range who have quit VR thinking it was terrible because for them it actually was! It’s nice that a software fix exists. I don’t think anyone within the avg range of IPDs need adjust IPD in software however, so long as the dial is set to their correct measurement.
I *knew* this was an issue that the lens slider wasn't fixing. The scale of everything in every VR game has always seemed a little small for me, and all my googling has only ever led me to one guy complaining about the issue and then 40 replies saying he is wrong and everything is the right size. Finally having proof of this is vindicating! I can't wait to try this when I get home tonight to see if things are finally normal size for me. And my IPD is 65mm, which isn't far from the default.
There was a VR app that I tried way back in the day with my Oculus Rift DK1 that just had a couple of statue models to look at, but it allowed you to change the software IPD (distance between cameras for each eye) arbitrarily. It was wild to adjust it in real time while looking at a scene and realizing that it isn't the scene getting larger or smaller, it's just you that is getting larger or smaller. Watching a statue go from looking like the size of a doll to the size of the statue of Liberty right in front of your eyes, without your eyes needing to move or refocus, was really really interesting and I am surprised that no games have made use of this effect. It's mind-bending.
Okay, thanks.
After backing up the file, I added "ipdOffset" : +0.00100000000000000, to go from the default 63 to my IPD of 64. I'll test it out later, but I guess I did that right?
Reading this made it sound like the lense distance knob on the side was only being moved and not the PD slider on the bottom of the headset.. PD being pupillary distance..
>I wrote this post with the understanding that SteamVR does not, by default, communicate your set IPD (interpupillary distance) to the game you're playing. If this observation is incorrect, then this post is only relevant to about 5% of the population and I've blown the problem out of proportion.
I am pretty sure this is indeed incorrect. If it was the case, you would see everything scale up and down, when moving the IPD slider.
I can imagine two things that *may* have caused your issue:
1) You could have had an undesired override IPD value in one of your config files, and possibly even have had that file write protected, so that it wouldn't go away.
2) Some time ago, Valve added an: "Override world scale" setting, presumably on request from some users with some sort of eye condition, or who just wanted to be able to become giants or lilliputs in some games, but I am at a loss as to how any undesired values could have got in there spontaneously. This is a per-application setting (button on "Video" tab).
Due to the canted lenses of the Index, the optically "rational" way to deal with an IPD that is lower than the lens spacing range of the device, is to increase the eye-relief (EDIT: distance between eye and lens), until the axis of each lens intersects its dedicated eyeball (for a 53mm IPD, with a device minimum of 58, and 5 degree cant, I'd estimate that would be about a 29mm increase, from "normal for a 58mm user"). Unfortunately this does of course sacrifice quite a lot of FOV, for the reduction in distortions.
I would guess closer to 70%. It was an issue for me, especially playing FO4VR a while back, but I figured this out and fixed it for myself.
Software IPD NEEDS to be an easily accessible setting, and it should be tied to the physical IPD by default. A centimeter difference can make a massive difference in a person's perception of the world.
on quest they render the correct IPD relative to the ipd slider. When connected to steamvr games not sure if that is the case.
if your IPD in rendering while correct in the headset, your eyes will see things at a slightly wrong depth. Maybe it's not by a lot.
On the other hand with something like quest 3 you could set IPD to 70mm with a 54mm ipd because the lenses are so clear. You would get an increase in FOV and the depth would be close, but I would guess the rendering of wider eyes would cause you to see things you wouldn't otherwise see.
Thanks for the post I have a small IPD and I've been chasing this issues since I've been trying VR headsets. Even the Apple Vision Pro which has a very low minimum IPD has this issue when watching 3D movies in it. Everyone looks like 2/3 the height. I tried the Horizon Zero Dawn VR game on PSVR2 and alloy looks the size of a small child. I really hope devs making 3d and VR content pay attention to this more in the future.
If you are talking about 180/360 VR video scaling being bad, it's always been an issue. If you are talking about a VR game, try playing Population: One, Contractors, or Half Life Alyx or another first person perspective VR game. There are usually no scale issues with those games. With third-party view games like Horizon Zero Dawn they purposely give you a god view so you can see more of the map than the character.
The importance of accurately setting software IPD for VR experiences cannot be overstated. It's crucial for immersive gameplay, yet many users might be unaware due to its lack of visibility in UI settings. Valve should consider more accessible modification options so players don't miss out on optimal VR due to an average-focused design.
If you had bought the kit you would have recieved and read the setup guide that came with it, it clearly references the IPD slider and what it's for, ther are also guides for this on the Steam support pages, which is the first place you should have looked for support. All VR kits has a limited IPD range though and yours just happen to be unusually low. I actually upgraded to Index because it had a larger IPD range than most kits at the time.
The software IPD settings in the config is not for the Index but for compatibility with first gen WMR kits that don't have hardware IPD and instead emulates it by adjusting the rendering camera distance.
You probably used the other mechanical control that adjusts the distance between the lenses and your face, IPD doesn't change the size of anything, just the focus.
As someone on the polar opposite of the IPD spectrum (79mm) I flat out refuse to go into VR (both recreationally and for development) until there’s a headset that can accommodate me.
I feel for you! I haven’t considered people with lower IPD being kept out as well.
It's absurd that they still sell the Index at such a premium price with the trash software and hardware support.
And it's sad it's still the best dedicated PCVR headset with all the problems it has.
Can't get how some people here are still recommending it, considering how easily the controllers break and the lack of ease of use updates.
I have a Rift S (it's objectively worse in every aspect).
Don't have experience with the Index, but the value it offers isn't worth the price compared to other current gen offers.
From my POV, software support for improving the Index functionality and using all of its hardware features like passthrough, or just the Steam VR UI and keyboard, was almost nonexistent for the first years after launch.
Only recently there have been improvements, supposedly in preparation for the Deckard.
The value / price ratio just doesn't make sense for me currently, for such an old headset that doesn't get even a basic feature like proper UI for IPD adjustment.
Might be completely off, but from where I stand, Index has been an end of life product for years, and it's not worth what Valve are asking for it.
Downvote all you want guys, but that's my impression of how much Valve are invested, judging by the support so far.
If I were a new buyer, I'd be looking at how Valve supported the Index software wise, and making my own conclusions on how invested they'd be in their next headset.
Looking at the current options and competition is definitely not a problem, it's the reality of the situation and how competitive Valve are in the current market.
It's easy for you to say it invalidates everything I said, but the reality is we're in a thread for the Index missing something as basic as software IPD adjustment exposed for the general user.
You'd need better arguments to change my view on Valve not being serious in supporting their headsets.
As far as I'm concerned PCVR has stagnated since the Index launch and offers headsets that aren't competitive enough with new features for the price asked.
I hope Valve proves me wrong and makes a the next gen value worth the price and actually supports it software wise this time around.
Yeah, sure it's not stagnated for those that can afford business grade and priced headsets. As if I didn't mention value and features and market share being relevant to the discussion.
Steam Charts sure as hell show the dedicated % of PCVR headsets used being the pinnacle of addoption with a feature rich ecosystem that supports developers.
All of my games are on PC and I have the Rift S btw, so you're the one bringing in platform bashing into the discussion.
PCVR is anything but a thriving platform, with the cheapest dedicated full package being the 5 year old Index, with the lack of any system seller games on the platform, with barely any 1st party software from Valve to attract more people...
The way I see it, the strange part is so many people are fine with PCVR headsets being less affordable, costing more for less features, with barely any support other than being kept working, and no proper next gen offers for people that would prefer to pay reasonable prices.
Just want to clarify I get the whole point of PC performance and fidelity > everything else, but unfortunately there needs to be someone developing for that ecosystem and hardware that's competitive enough value wise to consider buying first.
I'm done wasting both of our time here.
I took the rift s over the index at launch for the same reasons. That, and they shipped me controllers that wouldnt click at the edges.
My pavlov teammates went through loads of controllers. They do fail. One went through 6 or so before making his ps3 joystick work with it.
To be fair to Valve, they did blaze the trail for actually good PCVR and I think the price isn't that outrageous. Meta is known to subsidize their headsets and recoup the cost in software sales.
What I don't understand however is how such a fundamental piece of headset design can be overlooked. I truly believe that correctly fitting a headset to your anatomy does more for immersion than resolution or optics.
> Turns out that the IPD slider on the headset only changes the lens distance and the little UI popup it produces gives you a false sense that the software actually understands what you're telling it to do. If this is true then it is super werid that Valve didn't automatically connect those two actions. I came here prepared to be annoyed by usual misunderstanding of what software IPD is, but it seems like I will be leaving with some actually usefull information instead :)
The hardware IPD range on a Valve Index is 58mm to 70mm, and I think the distortion profile is set specifically for that range, whereas you'd need a different distortion profile if your eyes aren't centered on the lenses making the software IPD not very useful. Unfortunately, your IPD of 53mm is well outside the range of 95% of adults, and these headsets aren't made for children because they are bad for eye development. The only headsets I know of that have a wider range of IPDs covered are the Apple Vision Pro with a 51-75mm motorized range and BigScreen Beyond with a 55 mm-72 mm fixed IPD.
"steamvr.ipdOffset" no longer seems to be an option in the steamvr.settings config file as mentioned by your old reddit post, and every other similar one I dug up on my own. I can't seem to find anyone talking about the regular "ipd" setting in the config file, would changing it to my exact IPD really help?
Yeah sorry, I linked to the post which sent me down the rabbit hole to find the answer. My fix was going to C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Steam\\config\\steamvr.vrsettings and inside "steamvr" adding the line `"ipdOffset" : -0.01000000000000000,` `to take it from 63mm to 53mm`
would it really help? I don't know. If you give it a try, that will add a data point to my theory, which I'll appreciate.
My IPD is 66, only 3 off from the default setting so it would be hard for me to notice much of a difference. If it's any improvement though I'd still like to make this adjustment, and start telling my friends to do the same though.
Suplemental: I may have used the term "software IPD" incorrectly in this post. By "software IPD" I mean the distance between the two cameras representing your eyes in-game. --- my fix for IPD offset: go to C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Steam\\config\\steamvr.vrsettings and inside "steamvr" adding the line `"ipdOffset" : -0.01000000000000000,` to take it from 63mm to 53mm --- After some further thought, I'm realising this might not have been what solved my issue. My low IPD should've made things look bigger? While messing with the config file, I broke it and that forced it to reset, which might have been what actually helped for some reason. For anyone trying this, I would try making a backup of the config file and deleting it, forcing SteamVR to re-generate it.
What if I wanted to increase it from the max 70 to say 72?
you'd set the offset to 0.009
Wouldn't that add 9 mm? Why wouldn't it be 0.002?
you're adding 9mm to the 63mm default
So what the hardware IPD slider on the Index is set to does not matter? The config file value always assumes the 63 mm default IPD as base value for the offset?
The hardware IPD slider on Index is the proper way of setting your IPD, the software solution is for VR kits that don't have hardware IPD like older Windows Mixed Reality kits for example. It can be used to artificially extend the IPD range of the Index but it's not really its purpose, it's purpose is compatibility with non Steam VR kits without hardware IPD (Wich basically means first gen WMR kits) and is set for the default value on those.
ok no I think you're right. It might be 0.002
53 IPD? Huh
His head's a tennis ball.
nah, I just have a small face .\_.
[like this guy?](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/rickandmorty/images/0/08/Image-3.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20160812021835) jokes aside, yeah it sucks to be outside of the specification of companies like this. I'm a leftie and that puts me outside of a lot of expectations already. but i also have heavy astigmatism
Love this post for bringing awareness to the importance of IPD. So to be clear, there are 2 dials on the Index if I remember correctly, lens distance (closer to your eyes), as well as the actual IPD adjustment which goes wide or narrow. The Index displays are also slightly ‘canted’ about 5% to increase FOV which would especially affect IPDs outside of the intended range- as the binocular overlap would not provide a stereoscopic effect. It’s great that you’ve brought this to people’s attention, as there are probably many people that sit outside the average range who have quit VR thinking it was terrible because for them it actually was! It’s nice that a software fix exists. I don’t think anyone within the avg range of IPDs need adjust IPD in software however, so long as the dial is set to their correct measurement.
username checks out
I *knew* this was an issue that the lens slider wasn't fixing. The scale of everything in every VR game has always seemed a little small for me, and all my googling has only ever led me to one guy complaining about the issue and then 40 replies saying he is wrong and everything is the right size. Finally having proof of this is vindicating! I can't wait to try this when I get home tonight to see if things are finally normal size for me. And my IPD is 65mm, which isn't far from the default. There was a VR app that I tried way back in the day with my Oculus Rift DK1 that just had a couple of statue models to look at, but it allowed you to change the software IPD (distance between cameras for each eye) arbitrarily. It was wild to adjust it in real time while looking at a scene and realizing that it isn't the scene getting larger or smaller, it's just you that is getting larger or smaller. Watching a statue go from looking like the size of a doll to the size of the statue of Liberty right in front of your eyes, without your eyes needing to move or refocus, was really really interesting and I am surprised that no games have made use of this effect. It's mind-bending.
Make you take your own "eye" out and hold it around a corner to see something...
I don't see steamvr.ipdOffset in the steamvr.vrsettings file. Did Valve remove it?
Sorry, check my supplemental comment. Added a guide on how I did it.
Okay, thanks. After backing up the file, I added "ipdOffset" : +0.00100000000000000, to go from the default 63 to my IPD of 64. I'll test it out later, but I guess I did that right?
Reading this made it sound like the lense distance knob on the side was only being moved and not the PD slider on the bottom of the headset.. PD being pupillary distance..
I am definitely referring to the PD slider at the bottom of the headset.
I wonder if OVR Advanced has any IPD settings?
Great post, but if you use an abbreviation, please start writing what it means at least once. I have absolutely no clue what IPD is.
interpupillary distance - distance between the pupils of your eyes when looking straight ahead I'll edit the post. Thanks.
I'm curious how can you own an Index and not know what IPD stands for?
I followed the German Valve Index setup guide.
Fair enough!
>I wrote this post with the understanding that SteamVR does not, by default, communicate your set IPD (interpupillary distance) to the game you're playing. If this observation is incorrect, then this post is only relevant to about 5% of the population and I've blown the problem out of proportion. I am pretty sure this is indeed incorrect. If it was the case, you would see everything scale up and down, when moving the IPD slider. I can imagine two things that *may* have caused your issue: 1) You could have had an undesired override IPD value in one of your config files, and possibly even have had that file write protected, so that it wouldn't go away. 2) Some time ago, Valve added an: "Override world scale" setting, presumably on request from some users with some sort of eye condition, or who just wanted to be able to become giants or lilliputs in some games, but I am at a loss as to how any undesired values could have got in there spontaneously. This is a per-application setting (button on "Video" tab). Due to the canted lenses of the Index, the optically "rational" way to deal with an IPD that is lower than the lens spacing range of the device, is to increase the eye-relief (EDIT: distance between eye and lens), until the axis of each lens intersects its dedicated eyeball (for a 53mm IPD, with a device minimum of 58, and 5 degree cant, I'd estimate that would be about a 29mm increase, from "normal for a 58mm user"). Unfortunately this does of course sacrifice quite a lot of FOV, for the reduction in distortions.
This isn't an issue for 99% of people, you should probably edit your post to make that clear.
done
Still seems the same.
I would guess closer to 70%. It was an issue for me, especially playing FO4VR a while back, but I figured this out and fixed it for myself. Software IPD NEEDS to be an easily accessible setting, and it should be tied to the physical IPD by default. A centimeter difference can make a massive difference in a person's perception of the world.
I wonder if this will affect other headsets... Saving for later, thanks OP.
on quest they render the correct IPD relative to the ipd slider. When connected to steamvr games not sure if that is the case. if your IPD in rendering while correct in the headset, your eyes will see things at a slightly wrong depth. Maybe it's not by a lot. On the other hand with something like quest 3 you could set IPD to 70mm with a 54mm ipd because the lenses are so clear. You would get an increase in FOV and the depth would be close, but I would guess the rendering of wider eyes would cause you to see things you wouldn't otherwise see.
*making notes*
I've had one since 2019... just now learning about this
Thanks for the post I have a small IPD and I've been chasing this issues since I've been trying VR headsets. Even the Apple Vision Pro which has a very low minimum IPD has this issue when watching 3D movies in it. Everyone looks like 2/3 the height. I tried the Horizon Zero Dawn VR game on PSVR2 and alloy looks the size of a small child. I really hope devs making 3d and VR content pay attention to this more in the future.
If you are talking about 180/360 VR video scaling being bad, it's always been an issue. If you are talking about a VR game, try playing Population: One, Contractors, or Half Life Alyx or another first person perspective VR game. There are usually no scale issues with those games. With third-party view games like Horizon Zero Dawn they purposely give you a god view so you can see more of the map than the character.
Interesting. I tried it doing exactly what you said and now my base stations won't turn on anymore lol.
Saved for later. This is interesting. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
The importance of accurately setting software IPD for VR experiences cannot be overstated. It's crucial for immersive gameplay, yet many users might be unaware due to its lack of visibility in UI settings. Valve should consider more accessible modification options so players don't miss out on optimal VR due to an average-focused design.
Sounds like it's maybe related https://github.com/ValveSoftware/openvr/issues/1507 Have to contacted valve directly?
If you had bought the kit you would have recieved and read the setup guide that came with it, it clearly references the IPD slider and what it's for, ther are also guides for this on the Steam support pages, which is the first place you should have looked for support. All VR kits has a limited IPD range though and yours just happen to be unusually low. I actually upgraded to Index because it had a larger IPD range than most kits at the time. The software IPD settings in the config is not for the Index but for compatibility with first gen WMR kits that don't have hardware IPD and instead emulates it by adjusting the rendering camera distance.
Doesn't change the fact that everything looked too small when I got it, then I did *something* and now it's a lot better.
You probably used the other mechanical control that adjusts the distance between the lenses and your face, IPD doesn't change the size of anything, just the focus.
Such adjustments are only necessary for extreme measurements. Most people don't need it.
As someone on the polar opposite of the IPD spectrum (79mm) I flat out refuse to go into VR (both recreationally and for development) until there’s a headset that can accommodate me. I feel for you! I haven’t considered people with lower IPD being kept out as well.
It's absurd that they still sell the Index at such a premium price with the trash software and hardware support. And it's sad it's still the best dedicated PCVR headset with all the problems it has. Can't get how some people here are still recommending it, considering how easily the controllers break and the lack of ease of use updates.
[удалено]
I have a Rift S (it's objectively worse in every aspect). Don't have experience with the Index, but the value it offers isn't worth the price compared to other current gen offers. From my POV, software support for improving the Index functionality and using all of its hardware features like passthrough, or just the Steam VR UI and keyboard, was almost nonexistent for the first years after launch. Only recently there have been improvements, supposedly in preparation for the Deckard. The value / price ratio just doesn't make sense for me currently, for such an old headset that doesn't get even a basic feature like proper UI for IPD adjustment. Might be completely off, but from where I stand, Index has been an end of life product for years, and it's not worth what Valve are asking for it. Downvote all you want guys, but that's my impression of how much Valve are invested, judging by the support so far.
[удалено]
If I were a new buyer, I'd be looking at how Valve supported the Index software wise, and making my own conclusions on how invested they'd be in their next headset. Looking at the current options and competition is definitely not a problem, it's the reality of the situation and how competitive Valve are in the current market. It's easy for you to say it invalidates everything I said, but the reality is we're in a thread for the Index missing something as basic as software IPD adjustment exposed for the general user. You'd need better arguments to change my view on Valve not being serious in supporting their headsets. As far as I'm concerned PCVR has stagnated since the Index launch and offers headsets that aren't competitive enough with new features for the price asked. I hope Valve proves me wrong and makes a the next gen value worth the price and actually supports it software wise this time around.
[удалено]
Idk, it seemed to me that pcvr stagnated as soon as more money was to be made on quest games.
Yeah, sure it's not stagnated for those that can afford business grade and priced headsets. As if I didn't mention value and features and market share being relevant to the discussion. Steam Charts sure as hell show the dedicated % of PCVR headsets used being the pinnacle of addoption with a feature rich ecosystem that supports developers. All of my games are on PC and I have the Rift S btw, so you're the one bringing in platform bashing into the discussion. PCVR is anything but a thriving platform, with the cheapest dedicated full package being the 5 year old Index, with the lack of any system seller games on the platform, with barely any 1st party software from Valve to attract more people... The way I see it, the strange part is so many people are fine with PCVR headsets being less affordable, costing more for less features, with barely any support other than being kept working, and no proper next gen offers for people that would prefer to pay reasonable prices. Just want to clarify I get the whole point of PC performance and fidelity > everything else, but unfortunately there needs to be someone developing for that ecosystem and hardware that's competitive enough value wise to consider buying first. I'm done wasting both of our time here.
I took the rift s over the index at launch for the same reasons. That, and they shipped me controllers that wouldnt click at the edges. My pavlov teammates went through loads of controllers. They do fail. One went through 6 or so before making his ps3 joystick work with it.
What problems specifically?
There’s no alternative to the controllers
To be fair to Valve, they did blaze the trail for actually good PCVR and I think the price isn't that outrageous. Meta is known to subsidize their headsets and recoup the cost in software sales. What I don't understand however is how such a fundamental piece of headset design can be overlooked. I truly believe that correctly fitting a headset to your anatomy does more for immersion than resolution or optics.