HP's Reverb VR Pro Headset

Much different impression compared to those that said everything was so clear and did not require zooming in to read stuff. Wonder why some people and reviews say it's so clear and different and others say differently. Wonder if those people probably don't have good vision in the first place lol?

I think also it makes a difference what you're comparing it with. If coming from Rift CV1 then yes I'd probably be enthusing how much clearer it was.

Coming from a 1440x1440 per eye LCD panel - difference not so great.

And yes it's entirely possible there's a seeing eye dog in the cockpit with me :)

Well, after 3 or 4 days, I thought I would revisit the 'review' I gave here earlier in post #1260 comparing with my Vive Pro.

I had spent a few days exclusively on the Reverb, so I thought I would go back and try the VP.

Frankly, I was amazed. The pop and dynamic range of the colours were much much better than the Reverb as I wrote previously.

Still, it's not straightforward.

If I was to list the major pros and cons of the Reverb compared to the VP it would be this:

Pros - resolution, huge reduction in SDE, and a big improvement in the size of the sweet spot.

Cons - soft, flat image quality, the horrible cable and WMR!

The Pros are big, but the flat image quality of the LCD panels compared with the OLED ones are really disappointing in my opinion. Flying over PG or Caucasus and looking around just doesn't give the same wow factor as the VP, it's like they are covered in a light white haze. I just find it less immersive. But, on the other hand, the reduced SDE is something I've been looking forward to, and that doesn't disappoint.

So, I don't know. Not sure whether to send it back to HP (or sell to someone here!) or not. I'll procrastinate for a day or two more, I think!

I think also it makes a difference what you're comparing it with. If coming from Rift CV1 then yes I'd probably be enthusing how much clearer it was.

Coming from a 1440x1440 per eye LCD panel - difference not so great.

And yes it's entirely possible there's a seeing eye dog in the cockpit with me :)

Damn I thought I could see a big difference going from a Lenovo to a OG Odyessy ....

Well, after 3 or 4 days, I thought I would revisit the 'review' I gave here earlier in post #1260 comparing with my Vive Pro.

I had spent a few days exclusively on the Reverb, so I thought I would go back and try the VP.

Frankly, I was amazed. The pop and dynamic range of the colours were much much better than the Reverb as I wrote previously.

Still, it's not straightforward.

If I was to list the major pros and cons of the Reverb compared to the VP it would be this:

Pros - resolution, huge reduction in SDE, and a big improvement in the size of the sweet spot.

Cons - soft, flat image quality, the horrible cable and WMR!

The Pros are big, but the flat image quality of the LCD panels compared with the OLED ones are really disappointing in my opinion. Flying over PG or Caucasus and looking around just doesn't give the same wow factor as the VP, it's like they are covered in a light white haze. I just find it less immersive. But, on the other hand, the reduced SDE is something I've been looking forward to, and that doesn't disappoint.

So, I don't know. Not sure whether to send it back to HP (or sell to someone here!) or not. I'll procrastinate for a day or two more, I think!

What gamma are you running?

Tried all sorts. It’s the dynamic range and contrast that’s missing, not brightness. It’s obvious straight from the DCS loading screens!

SteamVR settings : application 100 % video custom 180 % gives resolution of 2156 x 2116 per eye. 188 % would give quite a bit more than the 2160 x 2160 per eye of the headset ?

 

At 2156 x 2116, it doesn't look a heck of a lot different. Can make out the containers on the decks of ships in Persian Gulf. If I lean in, then I can actually read the symbology on the moving map display rather than it still being a bit blurry. Looks a tiny bit more like metal than cardboard.

 

 

 

9900K / RTX2080Ti./ 32Gb RAM. Video settings in DCS as per 'high' preset default. System tab - res 2560x1440. Not that that should affect VR res ?

On that last point (system res) I found with my low end system it did have an effect on performance. So I turn it down as much as I can.

In that you wrote:

 

 

 

EDIT: I should expand on that a bit. It's like why the Odyssey Plus is clearer with a DCS PD of 1.0 and a SteamVR SS of 210%. The base resolution of the O+ at SteamVR 100% SS is reported as 1426x1779. If you increase it to 210% (2064x2576 per eye) then you can see it is taking the native resolution of 1440x1600 and getting close to that 1.4x warp distortion size. What that means is that in the center the pixels are the clearest because they are close to 1 pixel per 1 native pixel where you need it the most. For sims and clarity that helps a lot.

I'm trying to follow this but cannot, I have the O+ and at 100% mine reports 1744x2180. 1.4x what? I should be shooting for 1.4x1440 and 1.4x1600 for a final resolution? Which is 2016x2240. The closest I can get is 134% that= 2020x2524.

I'm trying to follow this but cannot, I have the O+ and at 100% mine reports 1744x2180. .

Check your SteamVR 'Settings / Video' tab and make sure it is set to 100% first with 'Enable custom resolution' ticked. Otherwise SteamVR will automatically choose a value based on your system performance, which I'm guessing you're seeing now. The 'Applications' tab in that settings area also allows you to vary per VR app the resolution used, but it is a multiplier over the value shown in the Video tab. To make life simpler it is best to leave Application to 100% and just change the Video value.

If that is set to 100% then the render settings in SteamVR for the O+ should be 1424x1780. The '1.4x' stuff is because the view inside VR is a bit like a fish-eye lens, as in detailed in the middle with a 'wrapped around' image for how you can see in each eye on the periphery. Because SteamVR needs to 'warp' the game to make that view, the resolution you should give it (for maximum text reading clarity like a cockpit) is about 1.4 times what is shown. The Vive and Vive Pro use 1.4, but each WMR headset make is slightly different (because the fresnel lens and panels are different sizes/specs).

For the O+ if you use about 212% then you'll be using a 2076x2592 resolution in SteamVR, which is 100% native panel resolution including this 'warping' that goes on. That way you end up with the sweet spot at more or less 100% native panel pixel resolution. The Vive and Vive Pro (because they are from Valve/Steam) already include this 100% = native panel resolution * 1.4x needed for warp, while WMR does not, hence confusing.

So, why 212%? Well it's because the O+ lens/panels are designed around a 1.44x by 1.61x warp ratio (different to the Vive or Vive Pro plain 1.4x). You're aiming for 2072x2582, so the 212% gives you the nearest you can get to that in SteamVR, which is 2076x2592 (because you only have a single slider adjustment value for both axes to play with). The current Windows 1903 bug limits any source for the warping to a hard limit of 1657x2065, which is why it looks clearer before the bug on Win10 version 1809 - so hopefully they fix that soon).

Hope that helps explain it a bit more.

Tried all sorts. It’s the dynamic range and contrast that’s missing, not brightness. It’s obvious straight from the DCS loading screens!

Bit of a long shot, but in your SteamVR is it showing as 90 Hz in your SteamVR settings? On my O+ when I put it to 60Hz it goes really dull, so wondering if a bug here for that. Really unlikely but thought I should say.

Also for people saying their HP Reverb experiences, it would be really interesting to see if you're using Win10 latest (version 1903) or the version without the WMR bug (we think) 1809. Because the experiences seem different it would be great to correlate the two if possible.

(To quickly see your Windows build number run 'winver' from the Start cmd, it'll be on the second line, i.e. 'Version 1809').

Check your SteamVR 'Settings / Video' tab and make sure it is set to 100% first with 'Enable custom resolution' ticked. Otherwise SteamVR will automatically choose a value based on your system performance, which I'm guessing your seeing now. The 'Applications' tab in that settings area also allows you to vary per VR app the resolution used, but it is a multiplier over the value shown in the Video tab. To make life simpler it is best to leave Application to 100% and just change the Video value.

 

If that is set to 100% then the render settings in SteamVR for the O+ should be 1424x1780. The '1.4x' stuff is because the view inside VR is a bit like a fish-eye lens, as in detailed in the middle with a 'wrapped around' image for how you can see in each eye on the periphery. Because SteamVR needs to 'warp' the game to make that view, the resolution you should give it (for maximum text reading clarity like a cockpit) is about 1.4 times what is shown. The Vive and Vive Pro use 1.4, but each WMR headset make is slightly different (because the fresnel lens and panels are different sizes/specs).

 

For the O+ if you use about 212% then you'll be using a 2076x2592 resolution in SteamVR, which is 100% native panel resolution including this 'warping' that goes on. That way you end up with the sweet spot at more or less 100% native panel pixel resolution. The Vive and Vive Pro (because they are from Valve/Steam) already include this 100% = native panel resolution * 1.4x needed for warp, while WMR does not, hence confusing.

 

Hope that helps explain it a bit more.

Yes this helps, I understand the idea of the 1.4x to make up for the fish eye but not the math. How are you arriving at 2076x2592 being optimal?

The Pros are big, but the flat image quality of the LCD panels compared with the OLED ones are really disappointing in my opinion. Flying over PG or Caucasus and looking around just doesn't give the same wow factor as the VP, it's like they are covered in a light white haze. I just find it less immersive.

Exactly my experience with Pimax 5K+. I could not figure what makes the image so 'flat' firstly despite the higher resolution and FOV. It is like you are not really in a cockpit but rather looking at a huge LCD screen with a 3D image on it.

Exactly my experience with Pimax 5K+. I could not figure what makes the image so 'flat' firstly despite the higher resolution and FOV. It is like you are not really in a cockpit but rather looking at a huge LCD screen with a 3D image on it.

Yes, exactly that!

On that last point (system res) I found with my low end system it did have an effect on performance. So I turn it down as much as I can.

Well documented that it makes no difference.

Bit of a long shot, but in your SteamVR is it showing as 90 Hz in your SteamVR settings? On my O+ when I put it to 60Hz it goes really dull, so wondering if a bug here for that. Really unlikely but thought I should say.

 

Also for people saying their HP Reverb experiences, it would be really interesting to see if you're using Win10 latest (version 1903) or the version without the WMR bug (we think) 1809. Because the experiences seem different it would be great to correlate the two if possible.

 

(To quickly see your Windows build number run 'winver' from the Start cmd, it'll be on the second line, i.e. 'Version 1809').

Yep, it’s 90Hz on 1903.

Yes this helps, I understand the idea of the 1.4x to make up for the fish eye but not the math. How are you arriving at 2076x2592 being optimal?

Native O+ resolution is 1440x1600. The warp scale factor per axis (the panels are tall, not square) are:

1440 x 1.43888 = 2072

1600 x 1.61375 = 2582

So the nearest we can get to 2072 x 2582 in SteamVR using the percentage slider (which changes both axes assuming the same scaling) is 2076 x 2592, which is 212%.

What'll really blow your noodle is that the WMR engineers did this deliberately, as the 'out of the box' defaults means that it is undersampling quite a lot, so people get better framerates. That's great if you're hitting colored boxes with a lightsabre, not so good trying to read the SA MFD in the Hornet.

Yep, it’s 90Hz on 1903.

Tempted to rollback to 1809 for science? ;)

(I don't blame if you don't want to, but just curious if this impacts the Reverb like the O+. If you sell or return it without actually seeing the native resolution then it might be a shame. Or could be that it makes no difference.)

Tempted to rollback to 1809 for science? ;)

 

(I don't blame if you don't want to, but just curious if this impacts the Reverb like the O+. If you sell or return it without actually seeing the native resolution then it might be a shame. Or could be that it makes no difference.)

I would but I deleted the windows.old folder in system file clean up!

Native O+ resolution is 1440x1600. The warp scale factor per axis (the panels are tall, not square) are:

 

1440 x 1.43888 = 2072

1600 x 1.61375 = 2582

 

So the nearest we can get to 2072 x 2582 in SteamVR using the percentage slider (which changes both axes assuming the same scaling) is 2076 x 2592, which is 212%.

 

What'll really blow your noodle is that the WMR engineers did this deliberately, as the 'out of the box' defaults means that it is undersampling quite a lot, so people get better framerates. That's great if you're hitting colored boxes with a lightsabre, not so good trying to read the SA MFD in the Hornet.

Its actually great news for me, I had it set way higher LOL! I should see a performance increase. Ill have to reassess the image quality to see If I see an improvement. Thank you. Also where are you getting the 1.43888 and 1.61375 numbers from?

PS I plan to order a Reverb just as soon as I see one in stock!

Its actually great news for me, I had it set way higher LOL! I should see a performance increase. Ill have to reassess the image quality to see If I see an improvement. Thank you. Also where are you getting the 1.43888 and 1.61375 numbers from?

 

 

PS I plan to order a Reverb just as soon as I see one in stock!

The SDK shows 2072 x 2582 as the max buffer for the O+. Publicly the nearest comment from Microsoft was this:

..which is handy for other headset ratios as well.

The SDK shows 2072 x 2582 as the max buffer for the O+. Publicly the nearest comment from Microsoft was this:

 

 

..which is handy for other headset ratios as well.

OK cool ty! So where are you guys getting the 188% business from for the Reverb?

OK cool ty! So where are you guys getting the 188% business from for the Reverb?

More specifically:

On an Acer, HP, Lenovo, Dell, ASUS or other headset (1440x1440 per eye resolution):

renderTargetScale == 1: Limit is 1764x1764 per eye

renderTargetScale == 2: Limit is 2206x2206 per eye (this is the max; setting renderTargetScale > 2 won’t have an effect).

On a Samsung Odyssey or Odyssey+ headset (1440x1600 per eye resolution):

renderTargetScale == 1: Limit is 1657x2065 per eye

renderTargetScale == 2: Limit is 2072x2582 per eye (this is the max; setting renderTargetScale > 2 won’t have an effect).

Setting renderTargetScale will use slightly more video memory, but not much.

To be honest I never tried setting the steam vr scale to 188. I tried 200 and kept dcs PD at 1.0 in my Odyssey and it seemed ok I don't know if I could tell a difference between dcs PD 1.5 and steam 100% vs the 188% and PD 1.0.

Things looked a tiny bit clearer but nothing too exciting. I can't remember if I experienced any performance issues, maybe a bit of stutter.

Not sure if its just my luck but started playing around with DCS PD vs SteamVr SS. With the o+, setting the super sampling with DCS PD, I get a lot of ghosting and video defects on the headset and more micro-stuttering. I get a much more stable video feed to the HMD with SteamVR SS turned up and DCS PD @ 1.0. For example BFM with an f14 with PD turned up makes the f14 constantly shimmer and ghost during the fight. I don't have that issue with SteamVR SS, and the visual clarity seems on par.

 

Current settings - PD 1.0, SteamVR 180% and MFAA and MSAAx2 on. I set textures other than water (@medium) to low, no grass, half trees, shadows flat with both object distance and preload set to extreme and max respectively. MotionVector is on in Steam for re-projection.

 

Anybody else seeing similar results? This might help on the Reverb since the render pipeline is the same.

using settings similar to you with pretty good results (the key in terms of smoothness seemed to be enabling reprojection in the vrsettings file) - also when you refer to tweaking steamVR SS - do you mean custom resolution to 180% or is there another setting? also I notice there is a motion smoothing in the steamVR settings menu - mine is ticked by default but from other posts don't think this actually does anything?

OK cool ty! So where are you guys getting the 188% business from for the Reverb?

I think that's because the native resolution of the Reverb is 2160x2160 per eye, so 188% gets the SteamVR resolution to 2206x2160. SteamVR reports 100% on the Reverb as 1608x1576.

The trouble with that is that it's not taking into account the warp distortion, so I wonder if it's meant to be best targeted at 3024x3024 (as in 2160 x 1.4 ish) or is already included for that headset?

I don't have a Reverb so can't tell, plus would suspect current WMR limits things before getting to a resolution like that. If HP made some more then I could get one. :)

At the end of the day, all the sliders and adjustments are a balance for clarity and performance, so even doing stuff like undersampling on a Reverb is probably still clearer than a O+ pentile.

One of the reasons the Rift S is so clear despite the resolution is the RGB pixel layout, so it's always more a combination of the panel tech, lens and various stages in the render stack as to what works best for different people.

EDIT: BeachAV8R is documenting his Reverb set-up steps here - in-case it helps anyone in the future.

I think that's because the native resolution of the Reverb is 2160x2160 per eye, so 188% gets the SteamVR resolution to 2206x2160. SteamVR reports 100% on the Reverb as 1608x1576.

 

The trouble with that is that it's not taking into account the warp distortion, so I wonder if it's meant to be best targeted at 3024x3024 (as in 2160 x 1.4 ish) or is already included for that headset?

 

I don't have a Reverb so can't tell, plus would suspect current WMR limits things before getting to a resolution like that. If HP made some more then I could get one. :)

 

At the end of the day, all the sliders and adjustments are a balance for clarity and performance, so even doing stuff like undersampling on a Reverb is probably still clearer than a O+ pentile.

 

One of the reasons the Rift S is so clear despite the resolution is the RGB pixel layout, so it's always more a combination of the panel tech, lens and various stages in the render stack as to what works best for different people.

 

EDIT: BeachAV8R is documenting his Reverb set-up steps here - in-case it helps anyone in the future.

Good stuff! thx

using settings similar to you with pretty good results (the key in terms of smoothness seemed to be enabling reprojection in the vrsettings file) - also when you refer to tweaking steamVR SS - do you mean custom resolution to 180% or is there another setting? also I notice there is a motion smoothing in the steamVR settings menu - mine is ticked by default but from other posts don't think this actually does anything?

Yes I mean SteamVR supersampling to 180% as a custom setting for the O+. Haven't received the reverb yet. So far, those settings have worked very well. I think DCS still has VR render pipeline issues when reprojection is turned on, so I moved the SS and reprojection to SteamVR and only turned on the post processing MSAA x2 to help with the aliasing in DCS.

It might just be me, but turning up the textures, grass, and trees doesn't make enough difference for me to notice so I turned those down.

Well documented that it makes no difference.

 

Got me on well documented, but it clearly made a difference in my case on a low end system. I documented it quite well. Also made a huge difference in other sims.