![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,198
it's the face tracking and controllers that make it so expensive
PRE-ORDER CANCELLED.
Cannot believe after all these years, STILL nothing out to replace my Index.
Riddlinkidstoner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,478
The reason I still use my Quest 2 over the Index is purely because of Airlink. I'm not sure it's worth the jump to $1500 though given the specs.
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,198
I think this will be way better than an Index for PCVR
Higher resolution, local dimming, wireless PCVR, setup anywhere, no base stations, controllers can't be occluded because they have their own cameras for tracking
But you are paying a lot for all this other stuff that is quite expensive and you may not want. Hand tracking for no controllers, face tracking, the stand alone hardware built into the headset so you don't need a PC, even each controller has it's own processor and OS.
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,198
Pretty interesting to hear John Carmack talk about Quest Pro and the future of VR
Tengis
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2003
- Messages
- 5,685
People are losing their minds on Facebook groups and/or the internet. So many people complaining about the price and it being crap, while ignoring the months of stuff put out by Meta that this is for professionals/developers. Then you have the other crowd making up conspiracies that these were marketed towards pro/developers because Meta knew it was going to be a flop and just wanted to try to break even by peddling to consumers with cash.
...sigh. The older I get, the more I fear for humanity.
I think it's the frustration that VR tech is moving so incredible slow. I mean the best mainstream PC consumer VR headset (Index) is low resolution and what 3-4 years old? Then Meta releases a VR headset at $1,500 with basically the same specs as a 2+ year old $299 headset. I can see the discontent.
It's definitely better, but I suspect many people don't grasp that improvements can involve more than processing power, resolution and battery life.
Mind you, Meta also doesn't seem to understand that releasing a pro-oriented headset is frustrating when the Quest 2 is aging, it's the holiday season and there are no signs of a Quest 3 coming any time soon. Imagine if Apple's only new iPhone this fall was a 1TB 14 Pro Max... a great device, but there would be riots. Good companies feed the beast by keeping a consistent flow of mainstream offerings, even if they're relatively modest.
I, too, remember the riots two years after the PS1 released when there was no immediate replacement. Same with the PS2. Also the tumultuous Xbox upheavals. And the many, differently named Nintendo furors. Even now, we are poised to fall into the churning masses of the combined PS5/XBseries commotions.
Or, maybe some people just need to get a grip...
The Quest 2 has sold, in it's two-year life-to-date, what iPhones sell in one month. Also, iDevices aren't sold at a loss. Expecting annual product upgrades out of a division that has never turned a profit -- as far as I'm aware -- is kind of a reach.
There's a long way to go before VR hits proper sustainability, and rapid iteration of failing products is not the way to get there.
No one cares until everyone cares. If I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Facebook's push is for presence and multi-user immersion, then user tracking is kind of key for their success. And driving developer and enthusiast interest up -- while figuring out how to drive cost down -- is how they're gonna get eventual low-cost headsets in hands.
I wouldn't expect Meta to put out a new mainstream Quest headset every year, or even two. Rather, the issue is that Meta unintentionally sent a message of indifference: we know you've been waiting for a Quest 3, but here's a $1,500 headset that isn't even aimed at you. I'm sure one is in the works, and I understand that VR hardware evolves slowly. But it might've helped if Meta had teased the Q3 or otherwise managed expectations, much in the same way as Apple hinted at a new Mac Pro in March.
QPro is the teaser for the Q3. "Here's all the stuff we hope to cram in the next consumer headset... a thousand bucks cheaper and a year or so later."
An early announcement for a headset that's not coming out until holiday season next year would be absolutely disastrous. Not just for Meta, but for the entire VR industry. It'd kill sales of QPro, and of the existing Q2. It'd suck all the air out of the room, suffocating competing products on the horizon. What little inertia there is in the VR space would evaporate, all for the sake of a thing which probably doesn't even exist as a complete prototype yet.
Relax. Enjoy your Quest 2. It's still fun.
Yep, this is next gen but a year early. For that privilege, you pay a grand extra. Face tracking, eye tracking, full color pass through for mixed reality, controllers with their own tracking, fully wireless and the ability to do foveated rendering which coupled with the more powerful precessor should give near pcvr quality. This is for developers to start building experiences around all of that so when the consumer version launches next year they have plenty of software for it. I won't be getting one but will probably get the consumer version.
Absalom
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,108
The recent Carmack talk made the Quest Pro sound better than internet nerds' anecdote. Carmack is always transparent about the pros and cons of the tech he's critical of. He's no mere marketing mouthpiece. The Pro was never meant to be a mainstream product. It's meant for developers and enthusiasts who like bleeding edge tech. The Quest 2, 3, etc. is still and always has been what Carmack is excited about. He still maintains that the cost should not be a barrier for those even remotely interested in VR. Anyway, it sounds like the mainstream tech is what he's pouring all his own personal efforts in. They've got plenty of talent over there to work on side-projects like the Pro.
Listening to him speak, the foveated rendering feature with the eye tracking sounds like it could be make or break. If the eye tracking is off even by a little, you could be staring at some blurry mess. Although when it does work, it could have huge performance savings since those areas outside your FoV don't have to be rendered in detail.
The lack of 120 Hz is, however, going to be a big regret for the Pro team, imo. I get that they made a compromise, but I feel the competition will be using that deficiency against them.
The local area dimming of the Pro could be really good or really lame. I think it's going to be context dependent (starry sky will probably not look as good as OLED). I was surprised when Carmack was so dismissive of OLED. I didn't realize that OLED tech was just not there for VR. I get that OLED sucks down more power than LCD, but surely battery improvements can solve that? Especially since the Pro moved the battery out of the front housing.
I can see why the $1500 doesn't look good on paper. A 90Hz screen that's not even OLED? That does seem like one step forward two steps back. It will be interesting to see how much VR experience improvements they can squeeze out of the Pro.
Listening to him speak, the foveated rendering feature with the eye tracking sounds like it could be make or break. If the eye tracking is off even by a little, you could be staring at some blurry mess. Although when it does work, it could have huge performance savings since those areas outside your FoV don't have to be rendered in detail.
The lack of 120 Hz is, however, going to be a big regret for the Pro team, imo. I get that they made a compromise, but I feel the competition will be using that deficiency against them.
The local area dimming of the Pro could be really good or really lame. I think it's going to be context dependent (starry sky will probably not look as good as OLED). I was surprised when Carmack was so dismissive of OLED. I didn't realize that OLED tech was just not there for VR. I get that OLED sucks down more power than LCD, but surely battery improvements can solve that? Especially since the Pro moved the battery out of the front housing.
I can see why the $1500 doesn't look good on paper. A 90Hz screen that's not even OLED? That does seem like one step forward two steps back. It will be interesting to see how much VR experience improvements they can squeeze out of the Pro.
learners permit
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,295
Not to mention 106deg FOV. Pass on all especially at that price.
aliaskary77
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2006
- Messages
- 393
I really do hope Quest 3 widens the FOV, even a little. I don't need 160 or 180...even 125 to 135 would be nice.
I agree. PPI has been fine for a while now, even Quest 2 is satisfactory. Scuba diver FOV has to go next. Humans are not birds, we use our eye movement more than our necks to get a feel of our surroundings.
This is why I finally just went Pimax 8KX, as it's taking the more mainstream headset manufacturers far too long to widen FOV, and who knows if they'll ever do it.
learners permit
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,295
Love my pimax. VR sims too.
learners permit
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,295
Just know that they are not simple plug and play devices. They really require some dedicated setup effort to optimize for the user and one size doesn't fit all so to speak. I spent about 2 months getting familiar with all the nuances and adjustments available via software and hardware to fine tune for clarity and framerate optimization but YMMV as I'm a bit slow and methodical about these things.
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,198
If it's half as good as they claim it will be I'll buy one for sure. But I'm not waiting around holding my breath for it which is why I bought a Quest pro.
... the company has updated its privacy policy in the wake of the Quest Pro announcement with an ominous section titled “Eye Tracking Privacy Notice.” The document says that eye-tracking data can be used to “personalize your experience,” which is universally understood to be code for targeted ads. Meta’s Nick Clegg has confirmed this is what the company has in mind, telling the Financial Times the eye-tracking data will help Meta understand whether people are engaging with ads.
https://www.extremetech.com/interne...l-monitor-your-eyes-during-ads-for-engagement
https://www.extremetech.com/interne...l-monitor-your-eyes-during-ads-for-engagement
Last edited:
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,198
Was there anything about facial tracking in there yet? I would assume they want to know your reaction to the ad, not just how long you look at it.
RagingSamster
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Messages
- 3,038
If this turns out to be an "Enterprise" device, I'm glad I retired - imagine you are in your virtual meeting and the company has all your facial, body, and eye tracking digitized and stored to look over at their whim. Some bodies avatar grab your fancy - HR will know. You roll your eyes at a buzz-word spewing manager - Management will know.
Absalom
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,108
Pfft. Just cover the eye tracking sensor or wear some special contact lenses or eyewear that fools it.
If life has taught me anything there's almost always a low tech solution to a high tech problem.
If life has taught me anything there's almost always a low tech solution to a high tech problem.
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,198
Yeah if you actually cared about that you could easily circumvent it. Also they see all that stuff in real life, nothing special about it being in VR.
If a job was that crazy where they record and analyze that data in creepy ways I simply would find a new job that doesn't. There would also be plenty of lawyers salivating if any of that information was used for something like that.
If a job was that crazy where they record and analyze that data in creepy ways I simply would find a new job that doesn't. There would also be plenty of lawyers salivating if any of that information was used for something like that.
Well, the solution would be don't buy a $1500 HMD to begin with if privacy is a concern, since part of the pricepoint is the bleeding edge feature you'd be trying to circumvent.
Quest Pro seems by every angle like mostly like a public dev kit to develop Quest 3 titles for the next year, and obviously not targeted at end users.
Last edited:
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,198
I have had the pro a few days now, I just had a new baby so I haven't had a lot of time to play with it but here aremy first impressions.
It's a huge upgrade.
The resolution bump is very noticeable. The entirety of the screen can be filled with clear, readable text now.
The optics are also a huge upgrade. Fresnel lenses are garbage compared to the pancake lenses in the Pro. Every bit of what you see is clear and free from distortion.
The headset is also a lot more comfortable because it doesn't stick out so far.
The new controllers are awesome. Perfect tracking no matter where they are, they can't be occluded by your body because they have their own cameras. They also just feel a lot better.
The new color passthrough is great, but could be better. It's kind of a surreal experience because the video is grainy depending on how bright your room is, but the augmented stuff is crystal clear. If they used higher quality cameras it would make it very hard to distinguish reality from the digital.
I would say this is very much a VR device first with AR capability. It's not an AR device like some clueless media has made it out to be.
I have been using it without light blockers and after a minute you completely forget about being able to see real life from the corner of your eyes.
It comes with side light blockers that attach magnetically and they work fine, but it doesn't come with anything to block the bottom.
I have a 4090 and was playing a hyper realistic game in first person with my body matching up perfectly and could see my real life shirt was blue out the bottom of the headset but then tilted my head down and in game it wasn't. It's crazy how good graphics have gotten. If I had the same shirt IRL as in game I don't know if I would be able to tell where the screen ends and my real body begins.
Also the standalone runs noticably faster than the quest 2. Bone Lab ran silky smooth the entire time whereas sometimes the Q2 would drop frames.
It's probably not worth upgrading from a Q2 if you only use it for standalone, but for PCVR with a high end PC it's a massive upgrade because you can take advantage of the higher resolution and superior optical clarity. And you get all of this capability wirelessly and without base stations.
Last edited:
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,198
Ah yeah I guess they're actually almost the exact same resolution and it's all in the optics. Looks like they're claiming 25% clearer in the center and 50% on the outside.
It feels like it is at least that to me. It probably also helps you can set your exact IPD.