49 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I find the negativity around the Reverb G2 to be a bit odd.  I have been using VR for years without any problems with fit, weight, sharpness or playability.  I race a lot in VR with Assetto Corsa and iRacing.  The Reverb G2 gives smooth 90 fps racing with superb sound and settings at max. the Reverb G2 isn't far off 2K monitor sharpness.  I tried Assetto Corsa Competizione, but the game developers haven't optimised the game for VR so I don't play it - hardly the fault of the G2.  I don't understand the comment about VR not being as sharp as a monitor in MSFS2020.  It like running it on a 1080p monitor and complaining it isn't as sharp as 4K.  VR, especially the Reverb G2, puts you in the aircraft - something a flat monitor is never going to give you.  Of course this doesn't make the monitor poor in any respect because the two technologies give different benefits.

If I'm going to fly a VFR cross country or circuits i'll put the G2 on for the immersion.  If I want to fly with charts and external software, ill fly on the monitor.  I have a choice.

I don't get that part either. The past 6 years folks have been complaining about bad clarity in VR...HP makes the G2 and people are even more unhappy.

I started with the DK2 and I feel the Rift S has drastically improved image clarity since then. Maybe not as close to 2K monitor sharpness as G2 but the pixel pattern simply works in the Rift S for a nice image.

I've owned the Samsung O+ and Reverb G1 also and I found myself simply buying another Rift S lately and I would think the G2 would be much more comfortable.

As far as clarity in MSFS I find using

120 TAA

8X8 Antistrophic Filtering 

6x6 Texture Resolution

Gives a really nice solid image in the Rift S...without the need for external Super sampling programs such as OTT.

I would think the G2 folks would have an even sharper image on less settings in the FOV sweet spot. 

Not sure if folks are either suffering from really bad eyesight, just oddly shaped head or nose HMD fitment. Or maybe not tuning their HMD/MSFS settings for a great image/performance compromise?

Edited May 22, 20215 yr by blueshark747

VR is primitive and nowhere near crisp enough or hi res enough to justify the outlay. If I could actually get it running well enough, I would prefer to use my Quest 2 as a 2D head tracker and get a wrap-round 2d image. 3d is mildly impressive for the first half an hour but after that you realise you are part of a group of people with rather too much optimism and forever frustrated by fuzzy images, stuttering, juddering, washed out colours, slow frame rates and a huge bulky monstrosity on your head.

For a start they should come up with a flip up visor like motorcycle helmets so you are not continually taking the stupid things off and putting them back on while you scrabble around for your mouse or keyboard.

The glitches, bugs and huge palava just getting the things working is bad enough, but even when you've "optimised" the software and settings it still is way off from satisfactory. I don't find any of this in the least "immersive" and a decent 2d tracker is in the end more satisfying, but as someone mentioned further up the thread, none of this gets close to a beautiful, large monitor with crisp visuals.

In short, I wasted my money, as I also did with the now absurdly primitive Oculus Rift Cv1 which was a complete mess of screen door fuzz and utterly blurred. Frankly the Quest 2 is little better.

I'm surprised the take up is as high as 20%. I would guess more than half of that number have given up and shoved their overpriced hardware on ebay.

We are at least 5 - if not 8 years away from anything approaching a useable VR.

The quest 1 has a big gap between the visor and nose, so peeking out to the outside world was easy from the day I bought it, should I want to type something or look at the TV etc, all without having to touch the headset.

The reverb g2 had a rubber flap which completely sealed light off around the nose. I immediacy peeled it off and now I do the above. I never need to touch the headset to type or look around the real world. 

Once my eyes return to looking at the internal screen, I don't notice anything coming through the gap at all.

19 hours ago, robert young said:

We are at least 5 - if not 8 years away from anything approaching a useable VR.

That’s me stuck in limbo for 5-8 years then. 
Can’t go back to 2D, and Vr isn’t quite there. 

I agree, re: VR was a waste $$$.  My old Oculus Rift Cv1 is just about full collecting dust it's been so long I haven't used it.  Yea, it was a "WOW" moment in the beginning but after all the struggles of the FOV, wires etc  (I can't see well long distance) the fever of having VR died quickly.   Even my granddaughter got bored after a while.  IMO, VR is not there yet, not even close.  It needs better picture quality, better software and not these demo type VR games. Also much lighter headset or a smaller eyewear type VR headset.   Right now, it's too uncomfortable.

23 hours ago, robert young said:

VR is primitive and nowhere near crisp enough or hi res enough to justify the outlay. If I could actually get it running well enough, I would prefer to use my Quest 2 as a 2D head tracker and get a wrap-round 2d image. 3d is mildly impressive for the first half an hour but after that you realise you are part of a group of people with rather too much optimism and forever frustrated by fuzzy images, stuttering, juddering, washed out colours, slow frame rates and a huge bulky monstrosity on your head.

For a start they should come up with a flip up visor like motorcycle helmets so you are not continually taking the stupid things off and putting them back on while you scrabble around for your mouse or keyboard.

The glitches, bugs and huge palava just getting the things working is bad enough, but even when you've "optimised" the software and settings it still is way off from satisfactory. I don't find any of this in the least "immersive" and a decent 2d tracker is in the end more satisfying, but as someone mentioned further up the thread, none of this gets close to a beautiful, large monitor with crisp visuals.

In short, I wasted my money, as I also did with the now absurdly primitive Oculus Rift Cv1 which was a complete mess of screen door fuzz and utterly blurred. Frankly the Quest 2 is little better.

I'm surprised the take up is as high as 20%. I would guess more than half of that number have given up and shoved their overpriced hardware on ebay.

We are at least 5 - if not 8 years away from anything approaching a useable VR.

I’m sorry you feel this way, but I couldn’t disagree with you more.  I’ve been using VR exclusively - first with Xplane and now with MSFS and could never go back to a flat screen.  I’m using the Reverb G2 and have a top end rig that can support it.  For me the head tracking doesn’t come close to the immersion and depth perception I get with the VR experience.

Resolution has never been an issue for me.  If ever I have a problem reading an instrument (which i generally don’t with the G2), it’s a simple matter of leaning forward a little just like yould do in a real plane.  And depth perception, especially when flying choppers like the EC135, is so helpful in timing flares, etc.

I don’t suffer motion sickness, so that may be a big part of why it works for me, but i suspect there are more people Iike me out there than you might realize.  I’ll be happy if and when the hardware improves, perhaps in ways you suggest, but I’m the meantime I’m quite satisfied with it now and it’s my preferred way to sim.

You'll never truly experience sunrays piercing the cockpit until you've experienced it in VR.

On 6/11/2021 at 1:17 AM, robert young said:

VR is primitive and nowhere near crisp enough or hi res enough to justify the outlay.

Disagree, my Reverb G1 is perfectly crisp enough to read the display instruments, there's no "screendoor" effect like I had with my old Rift CV1 and VR as a whole has come on loads in the past 5 years. Sure it's still a bit pricey but for every hour of fun @ £1 I've easily paid it off. Of course everyone has different tastes, if it's not for you then it's not for you.

14 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

That’s me stuck in limbo for 5-8 years then. 
Can’t go back to 2D, and Vr isn’t quite there. 

TrackIR Ian?

12 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

I’m sorry you feel this way, but I couldn’t disagree with you more.  I’ve been using VR exclusively - first with Xplane and now with MSFS and could never go back to a flat screen.  I’m using the Reverb G2 and have a top end rig that can support it.  For me the head tracking doesn’t come close to the immersion and depth perception I get with the VR experience.

Resolution has never been an issue for me.  If ever I have a problem reading an instrument (which i generally don’t with the G2), it’s a simple matter of leaning forward a little just like yould do in a real plane.  And depth perception, especially when flying choppers like the EC135, is so helpful in timing flares, etc.

I don’t suffer motion sickness, so that may be a big part of why it works for me, but i suspect there are more people Iike me out there than you might realize.  I’ll be happy if and when the hardware improves, perhaps in ways you suggest, but I’m the meantime I’m quite satisfied with it now and it’s my preferred way to sim.

I think the difference in perceptions is in part the difference between the G2 and the Quest 2. There is no doubt the G2 is the far better headset. If I add up the cost of Oculus Cv1 and Quest 2 I could have purchased a G2 and the reaction might be different. The Quest 2 is a "nearly-there" device. OK for simple, flat graphics but for me just too fuzzy and flakey in racing or flying apps even when I'm lucky enough to hit upon better settings.

One of the frustration is that with my now 3 years out of date rig I can either get crisp PDFs/gauges by setting Oculus to low render and Fs2020 to high render, or I can get slightly better exterior visuals with high oculus settings and low rendering values in FS2020, but not both. I'm sure a faster computer and now eye wateringly expensive current GPU (owing to those tiresome bitcoin speculators) would change my perception. But that's an awful lot of cash to dole out for an uncertain result!

Edited June 12, 20214 yr by robert young

30 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

TrackIR Ian?

I've tried 2d tracking with Opentrack and a giant virtual desktop version of fs2020 but it is full of issues (like Steam blocking any running app more than Steam FS2020). I've also tried a mobile phone app which uses your phone camera to track your head (too jerky). I've tried oculus virtual desktop (doesn't work as a tracker base and the screen is fuzzy).

So far I just haven't found a headset substitute for crisp and wonderful plain monitor rendering - I get easily 50fps even with a modest 1080ti GPU on a 32 inch monitor running at "almost" 4k. The image is stunningly sharp. If I could get a head set to achieve even a third of that quality I'd be all in.

If all goes as planned, I will have a vive pro 2 to test before July, which is being purchased for work. I'll report back on how that compares with quest 2 and reverb g2 if anyone's interested, though the reviews so far don't sound very positive, particularly for it's price.

30 minutes ago, robert young said:

I've tried 2d tracking with Opentrack and a giant virtual desktop version of fs2020 but it is full of issues (like Steam blocking any running app more than Steam FS2020). I've also tried a mobile phone app which uses your phone camera to track your head (too jerky). I've tried oculus virtual desktop (doesn't work as a tracker base and the screen is fuzzy).

So far I just haven't found a headset substitute for crisp and wonderful plain monitor rendering - I get easily 50fps even with a modest 1080ti GPU on a 32 inch monitor running at "almost" 4k. The image is stunningly sharp. If I could get a head set to achieve even a third of that quality I'd be all in.

Thats not TrackIR Robert. TrackIR is smooth as silk and works perfectly.

before VR, I was using an X-box kinetic sensor with ebay USB adaptor, open source kinetic driver + kinectheadtracker utility and opentrack. it just tracked the face and worked incredibly well and without the need to wear anything (markers, IR devices etc) very responsive with little lag for a track-ir type setup

Ideally it needs a camera with fairly good low light capabilities and without a built-in infra red filter on the camera, if you prefer to sit in the dark. It also works best with 60fps. The kinetic and the playstation 3 camera both do 60 and can see infrared. The advantage of the kinetic camera is it's motorized and will track you up and down if you need to change your seating height, plus has an infrared light to light up your face

there are 60fps regular webcams out there but they filter out infrared

 

Edited June 12, 20214 yr by dogmanbird

4 hours ago, Nyxx said:

TrackIR Ian?

Got it. With a. 38 inch widescreen Gsync. Problem is, VR is way better! I just wish it was clearer with a better fov and then I’m sorted!