I have owned my HP Reverb G2 for a couple of months. I am curious about VR headset owners use of it vs ordinary 2D monitor with Track Ir.

As I see and have experienced  there are advantages and disadvantages for both options which could summarized as this.
If you only use VR why does not its disadvantages sometimes pull you to monitor use ?

VR
Advantages
3D display makes a completely new immersion and realism since you see the world in 3D and the environment in normal size. It looks like you are really sitting in a real cockpit.
Disadvantages
Requires much more of the computer so you have to turn down the settings of the sim
Headset uncomfortable to wear
You can't see your hardware controllers and must rely on muscle memory which can be tricky
In some cases keyboard use is needed which require taking of the headset
Some glitches and anomalies that only exist in VR

Monitor with Track Ir
Advantages
Less requirement on the computer so you can use higher settings
You can see keyboard and hardware controllers
No problem with VR specific problems
Disadvantages
No 3D display which of course loses realism in significant way. For example I find the instrument to be unrealistic small compared to VR

11 minutes ago, jfri said:

You can't see your hardware controllers and must rely on muscle memory which can be tricky

i  fly  always  in  vr  in  dcs   cant  go  past  vr  in  dcs,  and  i use  track ir  for  my  other  sims.  I use  voice  attack,   so  i don't  need  to use  memory  to find  switches   on the  key  board.  Since  i bind  all the  switches  to  the  voice  attack profile  for  each   plane  in  dcs.  You  can  do this  for  any  program  that  you  have.

Edited April 24, 20215 yr by pete_auau

Good questions. I was completely taken over by VR... But only in DCS. There is no getting away from the flying experience, you are IN the cockpit. In my opinion DCS was was good because the cockpit graphics were very good and the main focus is flying. Especially when doing what I did which was formation flying. No time or inclination to go gawping at scenery. Which, to be fair wasn't really 'heavy duty' in DCS.

When MFS came along it seemed and probably was, the main reason for it's being, scenery! In VR it MFS didn't cut it, So back to TIR. Besides, while I still enjoy my simming I'm not so intense about it these days.

It's been only VR for me since getting a headset, if on my own. I've occasionally shown friends potential areas they were considering buying real estate in, using MSFS, which meant using a monitor too 

I can't wait till there's an easy way to share a VR flight without a second PC.

On 4/25/2021 at 2:05 AM, Ron Attwood said:

Good questions. I was completely taken over by VR... But only in DCS. There is no getting away from the flying experience, you are IN the cockpit. In my opinion DCS was was good because the cockpit graphics were very good and the main focus is flying. Especially when doing what I did which was formation flying. No time or inclination to go gawping at scenery. Which, to be fair wasn't really 'heavy duty' in DCS.

When MFS came along it seemed and probably was, the main reason for it's being, scenery! In VR it MFS didn't cut it, So back to TIR. Besides, while I still enjoy my simming I'm not so intense about it these days.

I also find VR most useful in DCS where it works good. Although one problem I had was with the A10CII where the HUD display is far away which makes it difficult to read.
I also use it in P3D V5 where I feel that it works quite good and with acceptable performance. The problem here is anomalies like corrupted scenery display with Orbx scenery which is more serious.
In MSFS performance is the big problem (biggest problems among all titles). Even after turning down almost all settings to minimum I can barely use VR with the C152 in urban areas. A plane with glass cockpit or flying any plane in the vicinity of big cities and the stutters became very significant.

Yes - I pretty much only use VR now.  Generally it is X-plane 11 loaded with the full Orbx True Earth UK suite and flying all sorts: from the stock 737 through to light aircraft to the fantastic Just Flight Hawk Trainer and stunning Avro Vulcan and then to some WW2 fighters including the Flying Iron Simulations Spitfire IX and P-38 Lightning.

It took me a fair bit of time, tweaking and reading and trying out to nudge it up to being able to run smoothly and realistically through my HP Reverb Gen 1 at Medium graphics and High World Objects running a Ryzen 7 3700x overclocked to 4.3GHz and a 2070Super GPU, again overclocked.

In the past few weeks, I've upgraded to the new Ryzen 7 5800x overclocked through the AMD Ryzenmaster overclock facility to 4.8GHz, with the same GPU and can now run all aircraft at Maximum World Objects, albeit at the same Medium graphics (one notch below HDR).  HDR strains my graphics card beyond its capabilities and the visuals are very much OK at one notch down from that.

The visuals inside the cockpit and out of all the aircraft I fly are way beyond my wildest dreams of a year or so ago and I can't see me ever running at 2D again unless for testing out stuff.

That said, even with the upgraded CPU, I can't get a pleasant experience yet out of MSFS, even at the lowest settings and no air or road traffic.  I'm actually surprised considering just how much clarity and animation is going on in X-plane.  But the 2D scenery in MSFS is knockout, even compared with Orbx, and so I continue to tweak and try.

Last word - anyone with a lower spec of PC and graphics but still wanting that WOW experience, you just HAVE to try Aerofly FS2.  Yes - the scenery is static but they really are defying gravity with the efficiency of their VR experience.  Certainly, if anyone asks me if they can try VR for their first time, I set them up on the runway in Aerofly in the stock Corsair at Meigs airport.  Knocks everybody's socks off!

 

On 4/28/2021 at 11:25 AM, dogmanbird said:

It's been only VR for me since getting a headset, if on my own. I've occasionally shown friends potential areas they were considering buying real estate in, using MSFS, which meant using a monitor too 

I can't wait till there's an easy way to share a VR flight without a second PC.

I see you have an AMD CPU and HP Reverb G2. I have read rumors about the headset disconnecting with AMD based motherboard. Do you now anything about that ?

Hi jfri. I don't have any issue provided I use the USB ports that extend from motherboard to front of my case. The rear ports built onto the board cause the headset to drop out almost immediately. 

The headset has been great so far (touch wood). Like you, I'd read about all the apparent drama about this and FOV and small sweet spot etc.

12 hours ago, dogmanbird said:

Hi jfri. I don't have any issue provided I use the USB ports that extend from motherboard to front of my case. The rear ports built onto the board cause the headset to drop out almost immediately.

That is strange assuming both are USB 3 ports. If USB 3 it should work no matter from where it is connected.

On 4/29/2021 at 4:30 PM, AJZip said:

Yes - I pretty much only use VR now.  Generally it is X-plane 11 loaded with the full Orbx True Earth UK suite and flying all sorts: from the stock 737 through to light aircraft to the fantastic Just Flight Hawk Trainer and stunning Avro Vulcan and then to some WW2 fighters including the Flying Iron Simulations Spitfire IX and P-38 Lightning.

It took me a fair bit of time, tweaking and reading and trying out to nudge it up to being able to run smoothly and realistically through my HP Reverb Gen 1 at Medium graphics and High World Objects running a Ryzen 7 3700x overclocked to 4.3GHz and a 2070Super GPU, again overclocked.

In the past few weeks, I've upgraded to the new Ryzen 7 5800x overclocked through the AMD Ryzenmaster overclock facility to 4.8GHz, with the same GPU and can now run all aircraft at Maximum World Objects, albeit at the same Medium graphics (one notch below HDR).  HDR strains my graphics card beyond its capabilities and the visuals are very much OK at one notch down from that.

The visuals inside the cockpit and out of all the aircraft I fly are way beyond my wildest dreams of a year or so ago and I can't see me ever running at 2D again unless for testing out stuff.

That said, even with the upgraded CPU, I can't get a pleasant experience yet out of MSFS, even at the lowest settings and no air or road traffic.  I'm actually surprised considering just how much clarity and animation is going on in X-plane.  But the 2D scenery in MSFS is knockout, even compared with Orbx, and so I continue to tweak and try.

Last word - anyone with a lower spec of PC and graphics but still wanting that WOW experience, you just HAVE to try Aerofly FS2.  Yes - the scenery is static but they really are defying gravity with the efficiency of their VR experience.  Certainly, if anyone asks me if they can try VR for their first time, I set them up on the runway in Aerofly in the stock Corsair at Meigs airport.  Knocks everybody's socks off!

 

I forgot to mention that I also use VR set with XP11 and have fairly good performance. I use Ortho generated scenery. I had to lower world details one step.

What resolution does the Reverb G1 have ?

It is interesting that you still have problem running MSFS with a Ryzen 7 5800X. You have the same GPU as me but a far more powerful CPU than my 4770K @4.5 GHz. I have been thinking about upgrading my current CPU (whole system in practice). But that seem lika a bad idea at least for MSFS.

In what way is Aerofly FS2 so much better with VR than the other sims ?

17 hours ago, jfri said:

That is strange assuming both are USB 3 ports. If USB 3 it should work no matter from where it is connected.

yeah. it seems like some on board hubs can provide more current than others

14 hours ago, jfri said:

I forgot to mention that I also use VR set with XP11 and have fairly good performance. I use Ortho generated scenery. I had to lower world details one step.

What resolution does the Reverb G1 have ?

It is interesting that you still have problem running MSFS with a Ryzen 7 5800X. You have the same GPU as me but a far more powerful CPU than my 4770K @4.5 GHz. I have been thinking about upgrading my current CPU (whole system in practice). But that seem lika a bad idea at least for MSFS.

In what way is Aerofly FS2 so much better with VR than the other sims ?

The Reverb Gen 1 is the same resolution as the Gen2 - 2160x2160.  The main improvements from the Gen 2 is the larger sweet-spot, less screendoor effect and, I gather, better colours.  But, all the same, the G1 gives a crackingly good view.  It varies from aircraft to aircraft but, for example, the small print on the dashboard of a Cessna is easily readable from normal sitting position, all of the dials and glass cockpit stuff.  Some of the smaller AP buttons need a modest lean-forward to read on the lightplanes.  The main limitation, as with the G2, is probably the FOV which is a bit like looking at the world through a scuba diving mask.  But I'm very happy with it at this stage in VR headset development.

The MSFS is probably linked to an issue I have with OpenXR.  The Reverb, running through WMR operates in OpenXR anyway...but it's not the same OpenXR.  Presently I can't get the OpenXR Developer App to work properly and have just found some info on something I need to do in Reg-edit to fix that.  I'll report back when I've done that.

I run an app called fpsVR which gives me lots of in-cockpit detail of the CPU and GPU loadings, temps and speeds which correlate very closely with the actual flying and visual experience - I'll do some screen shots showing what I get for each Sim when I get a few hours - but in overall terms:

Oh - and this just is on my system with my set up....it isn't a statement about the programs' relative potentials and /or features:

MSFS:  On low settings, stuttery and jumpy, freezes and CPU and GPU working to their top working temperature limits

X-Plane 11: On high settings, smooth and visually impressive.  CPU and GPU working inside their limits but working quite hard nevertheless

Aerofly FS2: On Ultra settings, every bit as smooth and visually impressive (other than the scenery being a bit 'static') as X-plane above, but the CPU and GPU simply breezing along, hardly breaking sweat.

I'll post the shots when I get a moment - and also with MSFS again if I can sort the OpenXR regedit conundrum.