HP's Reverb VR Pro Headset

The question will be how will the Reverb run a complex flight sim like DCS?

Higher resolution is great unless one has to really scale back all the graphics settings.

I look forward to hearing reports once y'all get your hands on the Reverb.

I expect the VR improvment out soon enough that it will likely coincide with the reverb shipping.

we were so wrong about the rift s.

could we be wrong about the reverb too?

Well last week on Adams tested he says that hp ships the reverb this week. So fingers crossed. :D

we were so wrong about the rift s.

 

could we be wrong about the reverb too?

I don't think people were wrong on the Rift-S. In what way? The resolution? The IPD thing?

At least I expected a decent bump in clarity from the Rift-S at the same performance level as the CV1. And not much issue with IPD. It fully met my expectations.

I expect a much bigger bump in res/clarity from the Reverb, no tracking issues for regular DCS use. No issues with IPD for me. The only thing I'm slightly worried about is performance, but I think it will be ok with the VR improvment, and maybe ok even without it.

Well last week on Adams tested he says that hp ships the reverb this week. So fingers crossed. :D

OhmygodOhmygodOhmygod.......

OhmygodOhmygodOhmygod.......

HP screwed the pooch on the Reverb? So hopefully the mura is fixed with the re-baking and delay. Better right than on time I guess. My Lenovo Explorer is fine until they get the Reverb debugged a bit more. Price will probably drop by then as the competition does their releases (Valve Index). :-)

I don't really consider screwing the pooch. They found problems right before release, they held back the release. They are fixing problem. Once solved, release moves forward. Honestly that's way better IMO than getting a flawed product. Yes, it sucks in the sense the release date got pushed back, but we get a better headset at the end of the day. I've got a rift, and I can wait.

I don't really consider screwing the pooch. They found problems right before release, they held back the release. They are fixing problem. Once solved, release moves forward. Honestly that's way better IMO than getting a flawed product. Yes, it sucks in the sense the release date got pushed back, but we get a better headset at the end of the day. I've got a rift, and I can wait.

Yeah, I'd rather the wrinkles be ironed out BEFORE I take delivery. If that means waiting a few more weeks, then so be it.

Another of those review thingies. Apologies in advance if this is already posted.

https://vrscout.com/news/hp-reverb-vr-headset-review/

For all of you who have doubts about controllers just check this video who will give you all the answers you need.

Quite reassuring, but my money is still with Valve Index at the moment!

Quite reassuring, but my money is still with Valve Index at the moment!

Need to hear more about what it actually looks like through the lenses - should have less PPD/clarity than the Rift S going by the specs.

Need to hear more about what it actually looks like through the lenses - should have less PPD/clarity than the Rift S going by the specs.

Why do you say that?

Why do you say that?

Its marginally higher resolution is spread over much more FOV. I've seen PPD estimates for the Index around 11, whereas the Rift S is around 12. Both have RGB stripe screens, so should be pretty comparable as you can see from the sub-pixel per degree measure below.

Here's a comparison of all the headsets I found here:

As you can see, from pure specs, the Reverb blows them both out of the water should have more than 50% more pixels/sub-pixels per degree.

Its marginally higher resolution is spread over much more FOV. I've seen PPD estimates for the Index around 11, whereas the Rift S is around 12. Both have RGB stripe screens, so should be pretty comparable as you can see from the sub-pixel per degree measure below.

 

Here's a comparison of all the headsets I found here:

 

As you can see, from pure specs, the Reverb blows them both out of the water should have more than 50% more pixels/sub-pixels per degree.

Well, there are a few things wrong there. For a start, it has the vertical and horizontal resolutions mixed up in places.

For example, the Vive Pro is 1440W and 1600H not the other way round. I haven't comprehensively checked, but I think it's wrong for most of the headsets. The Pimax is correct however. It is obvious, as it has a lower vertical res than the Vive Pro at 1440 compared to 1600.

Also, the FOV calcs are not correct. Although the Index is quotes as 130 degrees, that is achieved by the lenses simply being closer to the eyes, not a result of hardware changes.

Whoever put that chart together needs to get his facts right! If you corrected the res figures, you would see a different PPD/sub pixels result!

Well, there are a few things wrong there. For a start, it has the vertical and horizontal resolutions mixed up in places.

For example, the Vive Pro is 1440W and 1600H not the other way round. I haven't comprehensively checked, but I think it's wrong for most of the headsets. The Pimax is correct however. It is obvious, as it has a lower vertical res than the Vive Pro at 1440 compared to 1600.

Also, the FOV calcs are not correct. Although the Index is quotes as 130 degrees, that is achieved by the lenses simply being closer to the eyes, not a result of hardware changes.

Whoever put that chart together needs to get his facts right! If you corrected the res figures, you would see a different PPD/sub pixels result!

It actually doesn't matter which way round the H or W are - the calculation multiplies the two and then square roots them, so doesn't matter if it's 1440x1600 or 1600x1440, you get the same result.

Valve didn't say they ONLY increased FOV with the lenses being closer to the eyes, they said it's a *guaranteed* increase because you can get the lenses close to your eyes to ensure you can get the benefit of the extra FOV. I don't see it claimed anywhere that it's a 110 degree FOV headset with a 20 degree boost just from bringing the lenses closer.

Anyway, we can pick apart tiny details till the cows come home - you asked why I wanted to hear more about what it actually looks like through the lenses, and this is why. Is it a load of marketing waffle and it's actually a 130 FOV headset with that resolution - in which case it's got pretty average PPD - or have they performed some magic, in which case I might buy it. I can't buy the Reverb as it can't be extended (or so their QA guy says), so my options are pretty slim at the minute till I hear more.

It doesn't matter in terms of how he calculates PPD, but the fact that he got his horizontal and vertical mixed up for different headsets doesn't inspire confidence. Some right, some wrong!

Anyway, the way he calculates it is not really the convention. What is important is showing the pixel density per degree for the horizontal and vertical axes.

FOV is very difficult to measure, and is most certainly not an exact science. In the case of the Index, it is well documented that the 'increased FOV' is down to the lenses being closer to the eyes. It is not hardware related. Does give you extra, but not at the expense of PPD.

Does give you extra, but not at the expense of PPD.

I don't think that's been proven at all yet - which is why I'm waiting for comparisons from people who actually have it in their hands.

I don't think that's been proven at all yet - which is why I'm waiting for comparisons from people who actually have it in their hands.

Of course, we all need some real hands-on reviews as there is a distinct lack at the moment. I haven't got time to do a full search, but I know for sure it is mentioned here

@backspace340

This chart gets it all wrong, all those calculations are based on the assumption that VR HMD's work with 100% panel utilization, which isn't the case. The Valve Index will be the first consumer HMD which tries to tackle that problem with a new concept for optics. All HMD's since 2016 just reach something about 70% panel utilization or less, which means there is much less ppd as stated in the chart. The other thing is that FOV on the Index is very user dependent, only if you are able to max out the so called eye relief setting (bring the lenses as close as possible to your eyes) you will be able to experience fov up to 130~140 degrees. However, technically the HP Reverb has the highest ppd of them all, followed by the Index...

However, technically the HP Reverb has the highest ppd of them all, followed by the Index...

and how have you come to that conclusion in the case of the Index?

H = height

W = width

before buying the HP Reverb ´blind´, I would really wait for some testing with DCS, as it is to expect, running the Reverb in DCS in its full resolution, will be a massive impact on performance and maybe not satisfying on midrange systems ( like GTX 1080Ti ).

Whereas the Reverb counteracts the disadvantages of a less clear and detailed image due to the design of the HMDs, especially the so far regular fresnel lenses, with a massive increase of panel resolution on cost of GPU, CPU and DCS engine performance, the Index sounds more promising to me for a good quality images in VR.

Need to know exactly, when the Index is available, but I would expect, that Valve engineered a lens technology, which counteracts the disptortion of the lenses on a physical base, like one konvex lens blows up the image from the panels and another concave lens counteracts the distortion before the image meets the eye. In result the Index might then have a clear image all over with no sweetspot and the need for super high resolution to achieve the detail level in comparison to the Reverb.

But that´s more or less speculation, but sure is, that the Reverb will have performance issues with DCS in its full resolution with state-of-the-art GPU generation.

I made this sketch to demonstrate the panel utilization problem:

So if the Index is able to use most of it's 1440x1600 RGB matrix panel, it will deliver the best compromise between ppd vs fov.