HP's Reverb VR Pro Headset

@twobells,

I don't understand the HP Reverb calculation of pixels per degree. 2160 / 114 degrees = 18.9 so either the pixels per degree is less (at least horizontally ) or the field of view is. (25 ppd no way )

So this method of "measuring" PPD is basically wrong, because it ignores the optics component and a bunch of other things. But its the best we can do as a back of the envelope calculation. Most likely your FOV is off, its 114 degrees total not per eye, since there is overlap. Also you aren't using the diagonal res. Look at it this way, an OG rift has a PPD in the 11-13 range with a res of 1080x1200... This is about double that res with "about" the same FOV. If HP says its 25ppd I'd go with that.

@twobells,

I don't understand the HP Reverb calculation of pixels per degree. 2160 / 114 degrees = 18.9 so either the pixels per degree is less (at least horizontally ) or the field of view is. (25 ppd no way )

114° is diagonal and 2160 is horizontal so you can't calculate it like this.

Also, you have to divide horizontal resolution by horizontal FOV per eye not combined together.

So Vive, Rift, WMR have almost same FOV per eye. If you use 100° as reference FOV to all HMDs and divide it with horizontal rezolution you will not get exact PPD by specifications but will get almost 99% accuracy for numbers value comparison.

So this method of "measuring" PPD is basically wrong, because it ignores the optics component and a bunch of other things. But its the best we can do as a back of the envelope calculation. Most likely your FOV is off, its 114 degrees total not per eye, since there is overlap. Also you aren't using the diagonal res. Look at it this way, an OG rift has a PPD in the 11-13 range with a res of 1080x1200... This is about double that res with "about" the same FOV. If HP says its 25ppd I'd go with that.

Please correct me if the math is wrong as far as calculating PPD.

For example in PIMAX 5K+ we have:

1) let’s say 150 horizontal FOV total (not per eye)

2) at 2560 pixels per eye horizontally

3) binocular (horizontal) overlap between two eyes - let’s say 80 degrees

4) (150+80)/2 = 115 FOV horizonal per eye

5) at 2560 pixels per eye over 115 degrees per eye we get 2560/115 = 22.26 PPD

disclaimer: I couldn’t find anything official about the true binocular overlap for PIMAX 5K+

p.s. for sake of keeping it simple let’s ignore this isn’t a flat projection but an “oval bubble” and that binocular overlap also overlaps the number of pixels per degree so PPD is higher in that region (?).

Please correct me if the math is wrong as far as calculating PPD.

 

For example in PIMAX 5K+ we have:

 

1) let’s say 150 horizontal FOV total (not per eye)

2) at 2560 pixels per eye horizontally

3) binocular (horizontal) overlap between two eyes - let’s say 80 degrees

4) (150+80)/2 = 115 FOV horizonal per eye

5) at 2560 pixels per eye over 115 degrees per eye we get 2560/115 = 22.26 PPD

 

disclaimer: I couldn’t find anything official about the true binocular overlap for PIMAX 5K+

 

p.s. for sake of keeping it simple let’s ignore this isn’t a flat projection but an “oval bubble” and that binocular overlap also overlaps the number of pixels per degree so PPD is higher in that region (?).

About Pimax5K it is a little bit different. Real horizontal FOV is around 170 to 180° max. It is not determined officially or measured by someone.

When you reducing FPV on Pimax it is made by reducing horizontal resolution so peripheral part of the screen stay black (off) but that is not effecting on PPD because how in the percentage you reducing resolution same way you reducing FOV so PPD stays the same.

So if we take 180° FOV on Pimax3K in central view we got 100° like on Rift for example and ve got additional 80° periferal and that you should devide per eye, 40° to the left peripheral and 40° to the right. So one eye is approximate 140° FOV what is 2560/140= 18.285 so PPD on Pimax5K under similar principal used on other HMD we calculated is around 18. Such results proving multiple reviews where is made some pictures true lens for comparison.

These pictures do not represent your personal impressions in VR but accurately showing difference same as those numbers we calculate for PPD just to give you picture what you can expect from some of those HMDs.

I want to ask, given the HP Reverb's total pixels, will we have a clearer image whilst running less pixel density within the software. If so, will this reduction in pixel density cancel out the resources needed to run a higher resolution display?

At the moment I tend to use my Vive with around 1.4 or 1.5 pixel density. Is the Reverb likely to run at 1.0 (or even 0.9) whilst keeping a satisfactory image and frame rate?

I want to ask, given the HP Reverb's total pixels, will we have a clearer image whilst running less pixel density within the software. If so, will this reduction in pixel density cancel out the resources needed to run a higher resolution display?

 

At the moment I tend to use my Vive with around 1.4 or 1.5 pixel density. Is the Reverb likely to run at 1.0 (or even 0.9) whilst keeping a satisfactory image and frame rate?

As I understand it, the native resolution of this headset, being pretty much double that of the Rift will allow you to halve your current pixel density setting and still have the same image quality or better. The higher your PD setting currently is, the greater the gains you will see; although PD is a bit of a misnomer.

It should be rightly called supersampling antialiasing, which is heavy on CPU and GPU hardware, for relatively small gain.

Think of it like the coefficient of drag. All things being equal, to double your airspeed you need to quadruple your power. PD has a similar coefficient of effectiveness, though I don't profess to know what it actually is.

I am currently running PD at 2.1 in DCS and am expecting to be able to run the Reverb at native resolution with no loss of performance and maybe even a slight gain with a very much sharper image.

The Forum experts can jump in if I am wrong, this is just how I understood it.

That's the way I see it :)

New review of Reverb by glasses wearer.

Sounds to be very good news for simmers.

As I understand it, the native resolution of this headset, being pretty much double that of the Rift will allow you to halve your current pixel density setting and still have the same image quality or better.

Except if you plan to go below 1.0 PD, it kind of defeats the purpose of buying expensive headset with high res screen in the first place.

I mean it will always be better than old 1st gen headsets thanks to much smaller SDE, but the same can be said about other modern headsets with SDE mitigating optics like Odyssey+ or even probably Rift S.

I mean Reverb will be worth buying only if you have the power to run it at full resolution - right now. Because with the speed of advancements in VR, in 6 months it can be surpassed by another better or more cost effective option, so by the time one updates his PC, there may be better choices on the market.

Please correct me if the math is wrong as far as calculating PPD.

 

For example in PIMAX 5K+ we have:

 

1) let’s say 150 horizontal FOV total (not per eye)

2) at 2560 pixels per eye horizontally

3) binocular (horizontal) overlap between two eyes - let’s say 80 degrees

4) (150+80)/2 = 115 FOV horizonal per eye

5) at 2560 pixels per eye over 115 degrees per eye we get 2560/115 = 22.26 PPD

 

disclaimer: I couldn’t find anything official about the true binocular overlap for PIMAX 5K+

 

p.s. for sake of keeping it simple let’s ignore this isn’t a flat projection but an “oval bubble” and that binocular overlap also overlaps the number of pixels per degree so PPD is higher in that region (?).

Yeah, the issue is you don't what the per-eye FOV actually is, and the lens design is fairly important in terms of how good that actually looks and PPD. I don't have a pimax so I can't really comment. Most calcs I've seen place it in the high teens. The overalap is probably pretty minimal from what I've read its usually more like 10-20 degrees for other headsets. The other issue, is how many pixels you are throwing away going from a square screen to a spherical image in the HMD, because in a rift for example you are throwing away the "corners" of the screen, so you don't get those pixels (picture a circle in a square). The DCS VR shader mod actually gets a nice performance boost by not rendering those corners as an example.

As I understand it, the native resolution of this headset, being pretty much double that of the Rift will allow you to halve your current pixel density setting and still have the same image quality or better. The higher your PD setting currently is, the greater the gains you will see; although PD is a bit of a misnomer.

It should be rightly called supersampling antialiasing, which is heavy on CPU and GPU hardware, for relatively small gain.

 

Think of it like the coefficient of drag. All things being equal, to double your airspeed you need to quadruple your power. PD has a similar coefficient of effectiveness, though I don't profess to know what it actually is.

 

I am currently running PD at 2.1 in DCS and am expecting to be able to run the Reverb at native resolution with no loss of performance and maybe even a slight gain with a very much sharper image.

 

 

The Forum experts can jump in if I am wrong, this is just how I understood it.

Thats how I've explained it here in this thread and others.

And a native 2160 image will look way better IMO than a 1080 image that is super sampled to 2160, and then downsampled back to 1080.

About Pimax5K it is a little bit different. Real horizontal FOV is around 170 to 180° max. It is not determined officially or measured by someone.

 

When you reducing FPV on Pimax it is made by reducing horizontal resolution so peripheral part of the screen stay black (off) but that is not effecting on PPD because how in the percentage you reducing resolution same way you reducing FOV so PPD stays the same.

 

So if we take 180° FOV on Pimax3K in central view we got 100° like on Rift for example and ve got additional 80° periferal and that you should devide per eye, 40° to the left peripheral and 40° to the right. So one eye is approximate 140° FOV what is 2560/140= 18.285 so PPD on Pimax5K under similar principal used on other HMD we calculated is around 18. Such results proving multiple reviews where is made some pictures true lens for comparison.

These pictures do not represent your personal impressions in VR but accurately showing difference same as those numbers we calculate for PPD just to give you picture what you can expect from some of those HMDs.

Thanks for the reply!

Couple things:

(1) the assertion that when reducing FOV (PIMAX 5K+ has 3 settings: 170/150/125) - the “edge” pixels are simply disabled and go unused so total PPD goes unchanged. I’d love to see a link about this if you don’t mind.

(2) binocular overlap for PIMAX 5k+ is 100 degrees (“central view”) - I couldn’t find anything official about this unfortunately. If you can share a link or some such I’d greatly appreciate it.

(3) PPD calculations here don’t include another important aspect - the distance between retina and the screen. The greater the distance, the greater the PPD. At 3cm in a headset the difference is non-trivial. Is this traditionally taken into account?

Point 3 no, at least not in the back of envelope calcs.

The easiest way to do the back of the envelope calculstion is to eliminate as many variables as possible and assume only the res of the display is changing.

Going from a rift to reverb.

Retinal distance, similar ish (what about lens magnification!)

Lenses. Probably not similar but lets assume they are

FOV: 110 vs 114. So lets assume similar overlap.

Screens. Oled vs RGB LED (subpixels)

Screen res. 1080x1200 vs 2160x2160

The pimax comparison is harder becuaus of FOV/lenses are gonna be way different than a rift.

So basically comparing apples to potatoes. Most folks ignore what they can, because you dont know much about how each component really effects the PPD or better yet precieved PPD or what it looks like un the end.

Well, with the S Oculus have lost me. Looking at the Reverb with a LOt of interest. Only slight problem is my house is a 1070ti. I’m hoping a PD of 1.0 will give me acceptable frames via steamvr...

I'm sorry but you are incredible: you complain about Rift s and then you run a 1070ti, Rift s would be your best spot. How many FPS do you believe to get with a reverb out of a 1070ti?

Well, with the S Oculus have lost me. Looking at the Reverb with a LOt of interest. Only slight problem is my house is a 1070ti. I’m hoping a PD of 1.0 will give me acceptable frames via steamvr...

A 2080ti will have trouble with a HP reverb...

A 2080ti will have trouble with a HP reverb...

It really shouldn't at 1.0PD - plenty of people have run Odysseys and Vive Pros at 1.5PD and that's the same as the Reverb at 1.0PD. Anything from a 1080ti up should be able to run this in DCS at playable framerates.

I'm sorry but you are incredible: you complain about Rift s and then you run a 1070ti, Rift s would be your best spot. How many FPS do you believe to get with a reverb out of a 1070ti?

Yes, I can complain about the S.

No integrated audio.

I am wary of the lower refresh rate.

I dislike the new form factor, both in terms of snugness of fit, the space it will take up on my desk when not being used, and because I will be unlikely to use my Widmovr lenses without changes

For the price it isn’t a ‘good enough’ upgrade when I am likely to only be able to upgrade ‘once’ (irl considerations)

No announcement/consideration by Oculus for those who want the next step up, not an sidegrade.

A LOT of reviews are saying it is ‘good’ because it gets rid of the sensor faff which I don’t care about and the ‘slight’ increase in resolution, so if you have an original Rift, the upgrade is debatable.

At $299 (once adjusted for UK prices) it MAY have been of interest. It’ll be £450 (or more!) by the time it gets to us which is too much for a ‘sidegrade’.

I’m currently running with supersampling to get the best out of my Rift, so my question, (if you would like to have a stab at answering it?) is whether I would be able to run the Reverb undersampled (0.8 or 0.9) to get an acceptable frame rate.

If not, then fine. Time to start saving up to replace the GPU too.

Ah. Bugger. Just spotted the CPu requirement is an i7 too. Well that sorts that out. Would need to upgrade CPU and likely MB as well as i’m Only on an i5-4690k OC :-(

Edit. Or maybe not. Just checking some benchmarks and they look comparable.

I'd guess the 1070Ti+Reverb would be fine for any software designed to make the most of modern cpu/gpus. How some flight simulation software performs with it could be another matter, but these platforms are evolving all the time and are updating their game engines to adapt to how hardware has evolved.

Thanks John. I think i’ll Be waiting for reviews to come in to see if anyone tries this out. Even if they have a better gpu, it would be interesting to see the utilisation/headspace it would release.

Yes, I can complain about the S.

No integrated audio.

I am wary of the lower refresh rate.

I dislike the new form factor, both in terms of snugness of fit, the space it will take up on my desk when not being used, and because I will be unlikely to use my Widmovr lenses without changes

For the price it isn’t a ‘good enough’ upgrade when I am likely to only be able to upgrade ‘once’ (irl considerations)

No announcement/consideration by Oculus for those who want the next step up, not an sidegrade.

 

A LOT of reviews are saying it is ‘good’ because it gets rid of the sensor faff which I don’t care about and the ‘slight’ increase in resolution, so if you have an original Rift, the upgrade is debatable.

 

At $299 (once adjusted for UK prices) it MAY have been of interest. It’ll be £450 (or more!) by the time it gets to us which is too much for a ‘sidegrade’.

 

I’m currently running with supersampling to get the best out of my Rift, so my question, (if you would like to have a stab at answering it?) is whether I would be able to run the Reverb undersampled (0.8 or 0.9) to get an acceptable frame rate.

 

If not, then fine. Time to start saving up to replace the GPU too.

I get your point of view. As a CV1 owner I'm thinking about upgrading to s, I already changed my GPU (now 2070) and I'd like to stay within the Oculus environment. To be true, the s has got integrated audio: just two little speakers, otherwise you can plug your headphones. The boost in resolution Is not that much on paper, but we have to see the combined effect of Better lenses and LCD (less screen Door) to judge; I can't comment about form factor, I should try to wear It but the First reviews Say It is lighter and fits Better. About 80 Hz I do not know what to think: someone Says It Is unnoticeable, some orhers it's a big drawback: I'll wait for more extensive reviews when It Will be available. To get rid of the external sensors (I have three of them) Is a big advantage to me, maybe the One I consider the most important. My last consideration Is about the price: something affordable if I can sell my CV1 first. As another option I should consider a vive pro or an odyssey +, but I'm not confident in changing the software environment and I prefer a lot Oculus above steam VR (which sometimes I use with my CV1) and Windows mixed reality. In addition, odyssey + has only 2 cameras and I'm concerned about tracking (Rift s has 5 cameras); the vive pro Is a lot more expensive and has external devices for tracking. I'm not interested in a higher-end solution as the new hp or pimax because my first concern Is FPS above all, and I'd like to have the smoothest experience achievable.

P.s. Just a last thing: Oculus has clearly said Rift s Is not and should not be considered a Rift 2, but Just an Evolution of the standard Rift.

Is that a Rift S topic now ?

Seriously, this type of message could be exchanged by MP or be posted in the appropriate topic guys. Think about those who don't visit this topic every day and have to catch up on all the previous messages. I really don't care about the Rift S and I'd like to find on the Reverb topic the appropriate informations I'm looking for.

Thank you for not throwing me rocks and sorry for the sunday rant.

The videos I've seen of the HP Reverb being reviewed are showing that it "still uses" external tracking devices, and they're showing that as a drawback. But, according to HPs official web posting for the Reverb Pro, they say it has integrated tracking with no need for external peripherals. So, I'm thinking the reviewers in those videos were using a demo unit that wasn't representative of the final product. Might have had a couple of issues they still needed to get worked out with the internal tracking. Whatever it ends up being, as long as it tracks as well as the Rift CV1, I'll be happy with it. Besides, the cameras for the Rift are really nice, classy-looking pieces of equipment that blend right in with high-end entertainment systems. If HP ditches integrated tracking and uses cameras that look as good, I'll be fine with it.

As for the Rift S discussion, I already have a CV1, so "upgrading" to the S with only a marginal increase in visual quality just doesn't make financial sense. There is nothing wrong with my CV1, so I'm only going to spend more money on an HMD if its a significant leap in display technology. The latest Rift is great if you have a lower-end system and don't already have a VR HMD. But, if you have a CV1 like I do, when thinking about the Rift S question, its very much a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation. I'm banking on the Reverb Pro to be my next HMD.

Here's the link to the official HP posting, for anybody who hasn't already stumbled across it like I did.

https://www8.hp.com/us/en/workstations/mixed-reality-headset/index.html

As for the Rift S discussion, I already have a CV1, so "upgrading" to the S with only a marginal increase in visual quality just doesn't make financial sense. There is nothing wrong with my CV1, so I'm only going to spend more money on an HMD if its a significant leap in display technology. The latest Rift is great if you have a lower-end system and don't already have a VR HMD. But, if you have a CV1 like I do, when thinking about the Rift S question, its very much a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation.

I do not want to continue off-topic and there's nothing wrong with my CV1 too, I just say I do not agree with you, but maybe we should discuss on the rift s topic and not here. If you plan to get a reverb maybe there's nothing else to discuss: to each his own ;)