Noticed that the HP Reverb has a dramatically low ratings on Amazon. Thinking about getting this headset for MSFS but with ratings like that?

as I said in a previous post: those ratings could refer to the older versions sold earlier this year, the new G2 I just received 2 days ago is fantastic, no issues observed whatsoever, yet.

2 hours ago, turbomax said:

as I said in a previous post: those ratings could refer to the older versions sold earlier this year, the new G2 I just received 2 days ago is fantastic, no issues observed whatsoever, yet.

Yeah, until the low frequencies start to make you want to puke.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1571ac50-a482-4e3a-92d5-f32175cd039e

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 20205 yr by DaveCT2003

Reverb G1 Revision 1 were bad but then they fixed some issues, mines the Revision 2 and it's been great for over a year now aside an ear piece issue. Overall though it's a great product, thoroughly happy with it.

"Reverb G1 Revision 2", that is probably what confused some people versus the Reverb G2

"the low frequencies start to make you want to puke. "

has never happened to me and that is not an inherent problem of the HP Reverb G2, and that would apply to any VR headset if you are susceptible to nausea in VR. people can always adjust their graphics settings sliders or use more powerful CPU/GPUs if they need higher fps. the HP Reverb G2 display has over 9 million pixels, both eyes combined. that is more than even a 4K monitor, so it doesn't come as a surprise that we need very powerful hardware to drive these high resolution headsets.

22 hours ago, turbomax said:

"the low frequencies start to make you want to puke. "

has never happened to me and that is not an inherent problem of the HP Reverb G2, and that would apply to any VR headset if you are susceptible to nausea in VR. people can always adjust their graphics settings sliders or use more powerful CPU/GPUs if they need higher fps. the HP Reverb G2 display has over 9 million pixels, both eyes combined. that is more than even a 4K monitor, so it doesn't come as a surprise that we need very powerful hardware to drive these high resolution headsets.

There aren’t any more powerful CPUs or GPUs, most of us are maxed out or close to it!

More pixels cost performance. All current VR sims have marginal baseline performance, apart from AF FS2. There is no way i can run a Rift S reliably at 80 FPS in P3D, so good luck doing that once you massively up the pixel count.

MSFS is not a great-performing sim in pancake mode. Hopefully it will have good VR optimisation, but i’m not counting on it - i guess we will see later today.

"There aren’t any more powerful CPUs or GPUs, most of us are maxed out or close to it! "

there are, but not enough! not everybody, hardly anyone, has a RTX 3090 yet (nor do you), and not everybody uses  8-core-5 GHz CPUs yet. further optimisations (DX12) and other optimisations from Asobo will be very welcome.

80 fps are definitely not required for fluent, smooth VR flying in a civilian flight simulator. that may be different in military, or car racing, ego shooters etc. though. constant 30 fps is totally enjoyable in VR. stutters would be bad, but I don't have those.

in a few hours, we will be able to share our VR experience in all kinds of configurations.

3 hours ago, turbomax said:

"There aren’t any more powerful CPUs or GPUs, most of us are maxed out or close to it! "

there are, but not enough! not everybody, hardly anyone, has a RTX 3090 yet (nor do you), and not everybody uses  8-core-5 GHz CPUs yet. further optimisations (DX12) and other optimisations from Asobo will be very welcome.

80 fps are definitely not required for fluent, smooth VR flying in a civilian flight simulator. that may be different in military, or car racing, ego shooters etc. though. constant 30 fps is totally enjoyable in VR. stutters would be bad, but I don't have those.

in a few hours, we will be able to share our VR experience in all kinds of configurations.

Almost nobody who uses VR thinks that a constant 30 FPS is good, and you’ve been talking about getting that in flatscreen which means 15-20 FPS in VR. Good luck flying for several hours with that! 

It’s possible that you have a very strong stomach, but at low frame rates panning and changes in aircraft attitude will not be smooth, notwithstanding the ability of reprojection to help a bit.

re: “80 fps are definitely not required for fluent, smooth VR flying in a civilian flight simulator.”

”Definitely” is a strong word. Firstly, the number you mean is 90 FPS (not 80 FPS) for your headset. I would say that 90 is “definitely” what you would ideally want, and i’m confident that nobody could sensibly disagree that that is where smoothness is optimal in VR.

Now, there’s no way you’re going to get 90 FPS in MSfS VR tomorrow, which means that for the G2 users a little over 45 FPS is the next goal, so that your HMD can lock at 45 FPS.

Chances are, even that is not going to happen, so now the goal is to get as close to a constant 45 FPS as possible so that reprojection is kept to a minimum.

For any new VR users here planning on flying with the G2 or any other HMD for that matter, adjust your settings to get a frame rate in this ballpark. You are much better to have mediocre visuals and not have headache/nausea/vomiting, than to run at 30 FPS or less and get the problems that constant reprojection can cause.

The “30 FPS is all you need” argument that these forums are infamous for may be almost true for flat screen avsimmers, but it’s well below what you want for enjoyable, sustainable VR flying.

 

Edited December 22, 20205 yr by OzWhitey

May be referring to this:

 

 

14 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

 

For any new VR users here planning on flying with the G2 or any other HMD for that matter, adjust your settings to get a frame rate in this ballpark. You are much better to have mediocre visuals and not have headache/nausea/vomiting, than to run at 30 FPS or less and get the problems that constant reprojection can cause.

 

Although high fps is better than low fps, >20 fps in vr is perfectly acceptable. 

Just as there are some people get easily sea sick, there are many who don’t so it’s an individual thing.

Matter of users making the usual flight sim trade offs, nothing dramatic. 

15 minutes ago, kdfw__ said:

Although high fps is better than low fps, >20 fps in vr is perfectly acceptable.

I feel exactly the same. I can't believe that I am getting only 25-30 fps, because its all so smooth. If P3D/xplane were that low, it wouldn't feel as smooth. I guess frame times are a lot more constant in MSFS, i.e. no stutters here.

1 hour ago, kdfw__ said:

Although high fps is better than low fps, >20 fps in vr is perfectly acceptable. 

Just as there are some people get easily sea sick, there are many who don’t so it’s an individual thing.

Matter of users making the usual flight sim trade offs, nothing dramatic. 

20 fps is not “perfectly acceptable” in VR. 

Early HMD were 60 FPS which is now considered undesirable, hence new HMDs being 80 or 90 FPS. For flight sims, you can get away with half the intrinsic refresh rate, but it’s not ideal. But halving that again to  20 FPS? No way that’s even “borderline acceptable”, unless maybe you’ve got your neck immobilised after a recent spinal fracture and can’t move it at all!

What flight sim are you flying at 20 FPS?? (and for the love of god, why?) How many flight hours to do you have doing this, and how long are your sessions with the HMD on? Or is this just a theoretical Avsim “20 fps is more than enough” argument??

tl;dr “>20 fps in vr is perfectly acceptable” - no, no way, unless the number that is “>20” happens to be “around 45”. Please don’t try 20ish fps at hone, new vr users, or you’re going to end up hating VR!

1 hour ago, conundrum said:

May be referring to this:

 

 

OP is very confused in that thread, thinks VR is still going to be WMR-only. No.

And as someone mentions, reprojection in WMR has always been pretty bad. Reprojection is NEVER good, but if you’re around 40/45 (depending on HMD), reprojecting a few frames acceptable. I sometimes fly in the high 30s, it’s OK. But I would never aim for it, it’s not a good thing, and any frame you drop below 45 is a frame that the software has to make up. I can cope because i’ve been vr-exclusive flying for 6 years, and i have a strong stomach. But suggesting these types of frame rates for newbies is just going to lead to disappointment.

On a separate note - i hope that asobo are going to manage more than 30 fps in VR. If not, given the hardware most of us are running, that will indicate that the program is far from well-optimised. Only in the world of flight sim would anyone be defending these glacial-paced frame rates in 2020!

20 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

 

No worries, users will make the appropriate flight sim tradeoffs to make vr work for his/her hw.