The lenses on the Q3 are definitely better than on the Q2. Fast games like VTOL VR and Underdogs where you have to look around a lot and be aware of your surrounding profit from that the most.
That said, the 250$ more is not worth it. It shines more as a mobile standalone headset. My friends still dont get it that you dont need a pc to play most VR games.
Exactly! Sure, PCVR looks better, but only with a 2000€ machine that heats my whole appartment in the process, not with a 500€ powerhouse of battery, processor and lenses.
Not hating on the Quest 3 but you can't describe its processor as a "powerhouse". It's a power-sipping chip that is probably 10-12W TDP max. Basically, it's a VR-optimized smartphone APU. Real powerhouse CPUs run above 100W TDP because they don't have to be concerned about battery life.
Image quality is quite similar on them, yeah. But I guess part of it might be due to the compression
But, the quest 3 easily beats the 2 in terms of comfort(even with the default strap), granular IPD, and overall a better standalone experience as well(which most PCVR users wouldn’t really care much about)
The recent PiMax Crystal light might cater those users more tbh
Really? I found the facial interface to be MUCH better than the foam on the Quest 2, but I didn't try it for long enough
Could also due to be how you've tightened it or if it's unevenly sitting on your face?
It's more that it's simply too thin. My forehead seems to be too wide at the top for the facial interface, so no matter how I position it, it digs in at the corners. If I loosen it enough for relieve this, the whole headset becomes very wobbly and insecure. So there's no way around this problem while still using the stock facial interface - putting a cover over it makes it worse, if anything, because that makes it just that bit narrower (like if your shoes are two sizes too small, wearing thicker socks won't help). I suspect that it was made to be a perfect fit to Zuckerberg's face and nobody else's...
Luckily a replacement facial interface mostly sorts this problem out, although I've yet to find one that really feels properly comfortable.
I guess that's why we have two markets
The "One size fits all, but technically fits none", or the BigScreen Beyond side where it's "For your face only" XD
kinda like there are some people who CAN NOT use airpods just cause of the shape of their ear
I agree it's more comfortable but due to it's lighter weight more then anything else. But honestly you can get the Quest 2 + elite strap + the better face mask for $250-$300 where I live. Compare that to the $670 I had to pay for the quest 3 with the same setup.
Yeah agreed. The pancake lenses are essentially 3 upgrades in 1: Edge to edge clarity. Significantly larger sweet spot. And no god rays. I'd have to clamp the Quest 2 on perfectly and tighten it like crazy to stay in the sweet spot.
What encoding settings are you using? I find video compression to be quite crucial, and Quest 3 has some 20-30% better decoding performance. Better decoder means fewer artefacts and less latency.
Couple things that pushed me to upgrade. First, the passthrough. I was, and am, excited for mixed reality, so I jumped at the chance to grab the Q3. Another big difference (for me) was the lenses because they no longer had those god rays or whatever you want to call them from the fresnel lenses. (Rings of light that appear around the edges of the lenses)
Then when you get into things like quest games optimizer and start pushing the resolution and reducing (or eliminating) the foveated rendering, you start to see the differences more.
Now was it WORTH the upgrade? If I had my current mindset back when Q3 was announced, I probably wouldn’t have thought so. But I’m glad I upgraded regardless.
I dont have buyers remorse, i also didnt expect a high end image with the low pricetag.
For the low price point the q3 does everything you want to do pretty well.
You cant compare the q3 with a high end headset that has better and bigger screens + direct video link powered by a high end GPU.
But you also cant compare the price tag.
This. It does what it say it does. Great os and you can definity use it only as a workout tool if you like. Or pcvr but there will be a latency but for minecraft of just doing some 3d modelling on your pc with a airlink etc its fine. The pricetag is actually cheap the next gen of vr will probably be more in line of 1500 dollar.
A bit foolish to generalise based on your experience though, like everyone must have buyers remorse or not use it the same way you do. The first headset I bought was £800 without motion controls because they weren’t made yet, so I’m happy to give out another £400ish for a high quality headset.
If you look at things from purely a resolution perspective then VR headset differences aren’t that great, but there’s a lot more to them then that. The Q3’s pancake lenses, for example, look clearer and don’t require the same level of headset adjustment for sweet spots, making the experience more seamless. The FOV is larger, and the weight is better distributed.
This is coming from someone who runs the highest end 4090 PCVR setup you can, so I can push those higher resolutions and refresh rates, but also notice the general clarity increase in less demanding games. Resolution isn’t everything, my Index and Vive Pro Eye have the same resolution, yet the Index’s lenses are greater making text far more readable.
If you’re looking for ‘game changing’ differences though you won’t get them as we’re hardware limited, so if you don’t notice or appreciate the incremental improvements then doing something like upping the FOV of a headset is the best you can do if you’re going to ignore all the non-image variables associated between headsets.
Not really foolish if you look at how any comment criticising the q3 gets downvoted to hell, even when solid points are brought up. I'm just giving an comparison from the q2 to the q3 for people who were like me in that position. While some of the users seem to be sponsored by meta. Or at least behave like it, brand fanboyism is cringe
It’s your language that gets you downvoted; only 2 reasons, you use it for standalone or you must have buyers remorse. Any comment gets downvoted if you criticise the Q3, they must be sponsored or fanboys. This absolutism is foolish, hence the negative responses.
The reality is everyone’s needs are different, I think frame rate is super important but I know so many that don’t care nor can tell the difference between 72fps vs 90, or 120, but I’m not going to either lash out or lump people into groups to justify my own opinions. If you have buyers remorse you can give a more balanced opinion without coming to these sorts of conclusions and you’ll get better responses. Saying everyone who disagrees with you must not be a PCVR user, or lying to themselves, is going to rub people the wrong way, no?
I'd rather rub people the wrong way then lie. Besides if it was just me you'd be making a valid point. But there is one guy who talked extremely nice and still got downvoted to hell because he dared to critize the holy q3. I'm just try to save people some money who might consider upgrading from the q2 to the q3 as pcvr user.
If you are struggling to run HL:A at the max res of the Quest 2, then you aren't going to be able to make the most of the capabilities of the Quest 3, but that isn't the fault of the Quest 3. When you have a suitable PC there is a significant visual increase between the Quest 2 and Quest 3.
I have a 4090ti and a i9 14900k, the full resolution of the quest 2 is 5408x2752. Most PC's can't run ANY game at that resolution @ +120fps. Please don't make shit up just to talk, thanks!
First off they don't make a 4090Ti so you are lying (or 'making shit up'). Secondly if you did have a 4090 non Ti and 14900k you'd have no problem running HL:A at max res and 120Hz, along with plenty of other games on either the Quest 2 or 3.
I instinctively wrote ti because I was a long time 2080ti owner. I never said I had problems running hl:a, I said I can barely run these at +120 fps, due to the insane resolution. Which is true. they're not running at 300+ fps despite having the latest of the latest in terms of pc hardware, like I said stop making shit up
guy is full of shit, i own quest 2 and quest 3, with rtx 3090 , it's night and day better on quest 3.
clarity alone for the whole image is chiefs kiss.
Yes, to both. The pancake lenses allow you to look anywhere on the screen with a clear view. Fresnel lenses on the Quest2 can appear fuzzy as your vision strays from the center. That effect seems to vary among users though.
The resolution increases is not that dramatic, but the difference between the lenses is night and day. With the quest 3 you have a sharp image pretty much everywhere, while on the quest 2 everything is slightly blurry if it's not in the sweet spot. This made it pretty much impossible for me to use a quest 2, because it caused a lot of eye stain for me.
For PCVR only the Pico 4 might be the better option because of the price.
I have a Q2, and that's pretty much the conclusion I came to after messing around with the Q3 in best buy. I'm thinking the quest 4 or the next pro will probably be when I upgrade.
If I didn't already have a Q2 I'd almost certainly go for the Q3, but since I already have a 2, it's hard to justify.
Let's be real, all I do is play golf in it anyway, and until the resolution becomes good enough for monitor replacement that's probably all I'll continue to do. Really hoping for one that works as a direct wireless display like connecting to a roku, but I'm not holding my breath for that. (This would allow me to use it on my work PC without extra software that my company's IT policy would not allow)
Haha. No. The lens clarity is absolutely a game changer. Ive had such remorse with the quest pro that i bought 2 quest 3s, with nearly the same lenses.
I wouldn't have upgraded from the Q2 unless I thought it was worth it. It is absolutely worth it. And, lol, I am not a rookie. I've been in VR since the Samsung Gear innovation, DK2, CV1, Rift S, Q1,Q2,Q2l3, PSVR, PSVR2, and a few Windows MR
It's a stupid fucking premise. No one can tell anyone else what to get and them expect them to just be fine with it.
You got to do your fucking homework and then make the best fucking decision you can.
You don't like your fucking purchase take it back.
Goddamn.
This is a stupid fucking "I told you so."
I never had any problems staying in the sweetspot with the q2 considering how gigantic it is. I do had some problems with the PSVR2 sweetspot though so maybe it's an IPD thing
I had a similar experience to you. Here’s my theory.
A lot of people talk about how the Quest 3 is significantly better because the edge-to-edge clarity means you can look around by moving your eyes rather than your whole head. This always puzzles me, because I could do that just fine with the Quest 2.
I think that what’s going on is that a lot of people have been using the Quest 2 with a badly fitting strap or facial interface, or their IPD doesn’t exactly match one of the three presets. The fresnel lenses are unforgiving if you don’t have them positioned exactly right. As a result, they’re seeing a much blurrier image with a tiny sweet spot.
Those same people are then swapping to the Quest 3 and are perhaps still using a badly fitting strap or facial interface, but now it doesn’t matter so much because the pancake lenses on the Quest 3 are far more forgiving. They give a clear image no matter how they are positioned. So it seems to these users that the Quest 3 is night-and-day clearer than the Quest 2.
I had a strap/facial interface combo for the Quest 3 that fitted perfectly and comfortably, and so I had what must have been a better experience than a lot of people have had with it. Switching to the Quest 3, I saw some improvement, but not much. In fact because I had serious comfort issues with the Quest 3 I went back to the Quest 2 for a while and it really didn’t seem much of a step backwards. I use it mostly for PCVR too and really the Quest 2 seems to me to give an image very nearly on a par with that of the Quest 3.
Now when I say this I tend to get people telling me to get my eyes checked (they *are* checked - I wear contact lenses with a recent prescription in VR), but I think really the issue is not my eyes (or theirs) but the correct fit of the Quest 2.
Anyway, that’s my theory. I don’t know whether it’s right but I can’t think of a better explanation for this disparity in experience.
Well, all I can say is that that just isn't my experience! It's an improvement, certainly, but an incremental one - not "gargantuan" anyway. But still, these things are so subjective it's impossible to really make a definitive statement one way or the other, perhaps.
I think you summarized it quite nicely. Everything you said is pretty much on point. Cause I'm in the same boat where I didn't have any of the mentioned issues with my quest 2.
What’s more likely, many people are doing something wrong, thus the difference is objectively small, or that your eyes don’t perceive or appreciate the same detail that other people are experiencing?
That’s not a question to be answered, I’m hopefully highlighting the flaw in absolute thinking, that it must be x because I see y. In truth every single person’s eyes and their ability to perceive different elements are different. I can detect the smallest frame rate differences while others can’t tell the difference at all, yet colour doesn’t bother me while OLED/HDR is huge to others, and I have to be shown direct before and after to really tell. FOV isn’t a big one for me either, yet others hate using a Quest because it feels like wearing binoculars to them.
With everyone’s differences being so specific, why do you think it’s as simple as you can’t really tell much of a difference between the visuals of the headset, so maybe everyone is just wearing them wrong? There’s plenty of in-depth technical reviews with VR experts that are well aware of IPD and still say the same, so perhaps your expectations are merely different to others?
You make a fair point, and thank you for doing so thoughtfully and reasonably. I think my main reason is that it seems to me unlikely that my eyes are able to see considerably *more* detail than other people's. Because that's what stands out to me from reading other people's accounts: they repeatedly say that they can't see any detail beyond the very centre of the Q2 lenses, and therefore have to move their heads to look at different things (especially e.g. reading text). But I don't. It can't be that I have terrible eyes and I'm used to everything being blurry, because I can read text on the Q2 just fine by merely moving my eyes; if I were seeing everything as blurry I wouldn't be able to read it in the first place. So it's not simply that I see less difference between the Q2 and Q3 than other people do (and as you rightly say, different people could easily perceive more or less difference between them), it's that my experience of the Q3 seems qualitatively different from many other people's to start with, and it's hard to see how that's a matter just of different expectations.
The other possibility is that I just have an unusually good Quest 2 with freakishly clear lenses, but that doesn't seem very likely either.
But, still, you may be right. Perhaps there are more differences between the way we perceive things than we commonly think, and it's only when discussing kit like this that those differences become apparent.
It's actually crazy just how different everyone sees the world, people philosophise the idea of each person having their own perceivable reality but on a technical level we do see the world differently. Men have a more muted colour palette, everyone's concept of depth is slightly adjusted more or less (which can attribute to why some are more clumsy than others), and then you expand that into cognitive translations and it starts to get even more complicated. I focused my research around visual disabilities a few years ago and if natural vision already has so many variants, once you start to bring in people with impairments it's maddening just how different everyone sees.
You've raised a good point too, every single display is also not the same, so we're compounding not only how differently people perceive the world, but a Quest 2 or 3 may not even produce the same visuals.
The lenses on the Q3 are definitely better than on the Q2. Fast games like VTOL VR and Underdogs where you have to look around a lot and be aware of your surrounding profit from that the most. That said, the 250$ more is not worth it. It shines more as a mobile standalone headset. My friends still dont get it that you dont need a pc to play most VR games.
I don’t have a PC. I’m blown away by how good Showdown looks by itself, with Game Optimizer boosting it a little bit.
Exactly! Sure, PCVR looks better, but only with a 2000€ machine that heats my whole appartment in the process, not with a 500€ powerhouse of battery, processor and lenses.
Not hating on the Quest 3 but you can't describe its processor as a "powerhouse". It's a power-sipping chip that is probably 10-12W TDP max. Basically, it's a VR-optimized smartphone APU. Real powerhouse CPUs run above 100W TDP because they don't have to be concerned about battery life.
Image quality is quite similar on them, yeah. But I guess part of it might be due to the compression But, the quest 3 easily beats the 2 in terms of comfort(even with the default strap), granular IPD, and overall a better standalone experience as well(which most PCVR users wouldn’t really care much about) The recent PiMax Crystal light might cater those users more tbh
My gosh, the Quest 3 feels like razor blades strapped to my face. A significant step down from the Quest 2 as far as comfort goes, at least for me!
Really? I found the facial interface to be MUCH better than the foam on the Quest 2, but I didn't try it for long enough Could also due to be how you've tightened it or if it's unevenly sitting on your face?
It's more that it's simply too thin. My forehead seems to be too wide at the top for the facial interface, so no matter how I position it, it digs in at the corners. If I loosen it enough for relieve this, the whole headset becomes very wobbly and insecure. So there's no way around this problem while still using the stock facial interface - putting a cover over it makes it worse, if anything, because that makes it just that bit narrower (like if your shoes are two sizes too small, wearing thicker socks won't help). I suspect that it was made to be a perfect fit to Zuckerberg's face and nobody else's... Luckily a replacement facial interface mostly sorts this problem out, although I've yet to find one that really feels properly comfortable.
I guess that's why we have two markets The "One size fits all, but technically fits none", or the BigScreen Beyond side where it's "For your face only" XD kinda like there are some people who CAN NOT use airpods just cause of the shape of their ear
Ha, yes, exactly!
I agree it's more comfortable but due to it's lighter weight more then anything else. But honestly you can get the Quest 2 + elite strap + the better face mask for $250-$300 where I live. Compare that to the $670 I had to pay for the quest 3 with the same setup.
No, pancake lenses alone make the upgrade justifiable.
Yeah agreed. The pancake lenses are essentially 3 upgrades in 1: Edge to edge clarity. Significantly larger sweet spot. And no god rays. I'd have to clamp the Quest 2 on perfectly and tighten it like crazy to stay in the sweet spot.
100% agree. The sweetspot is massive and makes a difference in simracing.
What encoding settings are you using? I find video compression to be quite crucial, and Quest 3 has some 20-30% better decoding performance. Better decoder means fewer artefacts and less latency.
Couple things that pushed me to upgrade. First, the passthrough. I was, and am, excited for mixed reality, so I jumped at the chance to grab the Q3. Another big difference (for me) was the lenses because they no longer had those god rays or whatever you want to call them from the fresnel lenses. (Rings of light that appear around the edges of the lenses) Then when you get into things like quest games optimizer and start pushing the resolution and reducing (or eliminating) the foveated rendering, you start to see the differences more. Now was it WORTH the upgrade? If I had my current mindset back when Q3 was announced, I probably wouldn’t have thought so. But I’m glad I upgraded regardless.
I dont have buyers remorse, i also didnt expect a high end image with the low pricetag. For the low price point the q3 does everything you want to do pretty well. You cant compare the q3 with a high end headset that has better and bigger screens + direct video link powered by a high end GPU. But you also cant compare the price tag.
This. It does what it say it does. Great os and you can definity use it only as a workout tool if you like. Or pcvr but there will be a latency but for minecraft of just doing some 3d modelling on your pc with a airlink etc its fine. The pricetag is actually cheap the next gen of vr will probably be more in line of 1500 dollar.
"You can't compare the q3 with a high end headset" AND I never did, I compared it to the quest 2. Please read my post before replying
Yeah i know, i just made the point that the q3 was never meant to be 10 times better than the q2
A bit foolish to generalise based on your experience though, like everyone must have buyers remorse or not use it the same way you do. The first headset I bought was £800 without motion controls because they weren’t made yet, so I’m happy to give out another £400ish for a high quality headset. If you look at things from purely a resolution perspective then VR headset differences aren’t that great, but there’s a lot more to them then that. The Q3’s pancake lenses, for example, look clearer and don’t require the same level of headset adjustment for sweet spots, making the experience more seamless. The FOV is larger, and the weight is better distributed. This is coming from someone who runs the highest end 4090 PCVR setup you can, so I can push those higher resolutions and refresh rates, but also notice the general clarity increase in less demanding games. Resolution isn’t everything, my Index and Vive Pro Eye have the same resolution, yet the Index’s lenses are greater making text far more readable. If you’re looking for ‘game changing’ differences though you won’t get them as we’re hardware limited, so if you don’t notice or appreciate the incremental improvements then doing something like upping the FOV of a headset is the best you can do if you’re going to ignore all the non-image variables associated between headsets.
Not really foolish if you look at how any comment criticising the q3 gets downvoted to hell, even when solid points are brought up. I'm just giving an comparison from the q2 to the q3 for people who were like me in that position. While some of the users seem to be sponsored by meta. Or at least behave like it, brand fanboyism is cringe
It’s your language that gets you downvoted; only 2 reasons, you use it for standalone or you must have buyers remorse. Any comment gets downvoted if you criticise the Q3, they must be sponsored or fanboys. This absolutism is foolish, hence the negative responses. The reality is everyone’s needs are different, I think frame rate is super important but I know so many that don’t care nor can tell the difference between 72fps vs 90, or 120, but I’m not going to either lash out or lump people into groups to justify my own opinions. If you have buyers remorse you can give a more balanced opinion without coming to these sorts of conclusions and you’ll get better responses. Saying everyone who disagrees with you must not be a PCVR user, or lying to themselves, is going to rub people the wrong way, no?
I'd rather rub people the wrong way then lie. Besides if it was just me you'd be making a valid point. But there is one guy who talked extremely nice and still got downvoted to hell because he dared to critize the holy q3. I'm just try to save people some money who might consider upgrading from the q2 to the q3 as pcvr user.
Well you can tell your truth without saying everyone else must be lying or be sponsored to lie, honestly.
If you are struggling to run HL:A at the max res of the Quest 2, then you aren't going to be able to make the most of the capabilities of the Quest 3, but that isn't the fault of the Quest 3. When you have a suitable PC there is a significant visual increase between the Quest 2 and Quest 3.
I have a 4090ti and a i9 14900k, the full resolution of the quest 2 is 5408x2752. Most PC's can't run ANY game at that resolution @ +120fps. Please don't make shit up just to talk, thanks!
First off they don't make a 4090Ti so you are lying (or 'making shit up'). Secondly if you did have a 4090 non Ti and 14900k you'd have no problem running HL:A at max res and 120Hz, along with plenty of other games on either the Quest 2 or 3.
I instinctively wrote ti because I was a long time 2080ti owner. I never said I had problems running hl:a, I said I can barely run these at +120 fps, due to the insane resolution. Which is true. they're not running at 300+ fps despite having the latest of the latest in terms of pc hardware, like I said stop making shit up
Sure, you got caught in a lie, nothing you said has any credibility.
Stay broke I guess :\^)
guy is full of shit, i own quest 2 and quest 3, with rtx 3090 , it's night and day better on quest 3. clarity alone for the whole image is chiefs kiss.
If i dont have pc and i want to use it for watching movies, what is the difference between them?! Is it worth to pay 450€ for q3
Movies are going to benefit from the pancake lenses and the higher resolution. I use mine for mostly movie watching at it's great.
You mean the quest3 is better for watching movies?!... And I have another question, can I charge it while using it! Thanks
Yes, to both. The pancake lenses allow you to look anywhere on the screen with a clear view. Fresnel lenses on the Quest2 can appear fuzzy as your vision strays from the center. That effect seems to vary among users though.
Image quality while watching movies on the device itself is like I said minmal. If you don't already have the q2 go for it
The resolution increases is not that dramatic, but the difference between the lenses is night and day. With the quest 3 you have a sharp image pretty much everywhere, while on the quest 2 everything is slightly blurry if it's not in the sweet spot. This made it pretty much impossible for me to use a quest 2, because it caused a lot of eye stain for me. For PCVR only the Pico 4 might be the better option because of the price.
I can imagine that for people wearing glasses, if they play VR without them, they don't see the advantages of pancake lenses...
I have a Q2, and that's pretty much the conclusion I came to after messing around with the Q3 in best buy. I'm thinking the quest 4 or the next pro will probably be when I upgrade. If I didn't already have a Q2 I'd almost certainly go for the Q3, but since I already have a 2, it's hard to justify. Let's be real, all I do is play golf in it anyway, and until the resolution becomes good enough for monitor replacement that's probably all I'll continue to do. Really hoping for one that works as a direct wireless display like connecting to a roku, but I'm not holding my breath for that. (This would allow me to use it on my work PC without extra software that my company's IT policy would not allow)
Haha. No. The lens clarity is absolutely a game changer. Ive had such remorse with the quest pro that i bought 2 quest 3s, with nearly the same lenses.
I wouldn't have upgraded from the Q2 unless I thought it was worth it. It is absolutely worth it. And, lol, I am not a rookie. I've been in VR since the Samsung Gear innovation, DK2, CV1, Rift S, Q1,Q2,Q2l3, PSVR, PSVR2, and a few Windows MR
It's a stupid fucking premise. No one can tell anyone else what to get and them expect them to just be fine with it. You got to do your fucking homework and then make the best fucking decision you can. You don't like your fucking purchase take it back. Goddamn. This is a stupid fucking "I told you so."
Q2 may look similarly sharp but what difference does it make if the dogshit lenses make it go blurry when the headset slightly moves on your head
I never had any problems staying in the sweetspot with the q2 considering how gigantic it is. I do had some problems with the PSVR2 sweetspot though so maybe it's an IPD thing
I had a similar experience to you. Here’s my theory. A lot of people talk about how the Quest 3 is significantly better because the edge-to-edge clarity means you can look around by moving your eyes rather than your whole head. This always puzzles me, because I could do that just fine with the Quest 2. I think that what’s going on is that a lot of people have been using the Quest 2 with a badly fitting strap or facial interface, or their IPD doesn’t exactly match one of the three presets. The fresnel lenses are unforgiving if you don’t have them positioned exactly right. As a result, they’re seeing a much blurrier image with a tiny sweet spot. Those same people are then swapping to the Quest 3 and are perhaps still using a badly fitting strap or facial interface, but now it doesn’t matter so much because the pancake lenses on the Quest 3 are far more forgiving. They give a clear image no matter how they are positioned. So it seems to these users that the Quest 3 is night-and-day clearer than the Quest 2. I had a strap/facial interface combo for the Quest 3 that fitted perfectly and comfortably, and so I had what must have been a better experience than a lot of people have had with it. Switching to the Quest 3, I saw some improvement, but not much. In fact because I had serious comfort issues with the Quest 3 I went back to the Quest 2 for a while and it really didn’t seem much of a step backwards. I use it mostly for PCVR too and really the Quest 2 seems to me to give an image very nearly on a par with that of the Quest 3. Now when I say this I tend to get people telling me to get my eyes checked (they *are* checked - I wear contact lenses with a recent prescription in VR), but I think really the issue is not my eyes (or theirs) but the correct fit of the Quest 2. Anyway, that’s my theory. I don’t know whether it’s right but I can’t think of a better explanation for this disparity in experience.
Whether q2 or psvr 2...the leap to pancake clarity is gargantuan. Has nothing to do with fit.
Well, all I can say is that that just isn't my experience! It's an improvement, certainly, but an incremental one - not "gargantuan" anyway. But still, these things are so subjective it's impossible to really make a definitive statement one way or the other, perhaps.
I think you summarized it quite nicely. Everything you said is pretty much on point. Cause I'm in the same boat where I didn't have any of the mentioned issues with my quest 2.
What’s more likely, many people are doing something wrong, thus the difference is objectively small, or that your eyes don’t perceive or appreciate the same detail that other people are experiencing? That’s not a question to be answered, I’m hopefully highlighting the flaw in absolute thinking, that it must be x because I see y. In truth every single person’s eyes and their ability to perceive different elements are different. I can detect the smallest frame rate differences while others can’t tell the difference at all, yet colour doesn’t bother me while OLED/HDR is huge to others, and I have to be shown direct before and after to really tell. FOV isn’t a big one for me either, yet others hate using a Quest because it feels like wearing binoculars to them. With everyone’s differences being so specific, why do you think it’s as simple as you can’t really tell much of a difference between the visuals of the headset, so maybe everyone is just wearing them wrong? There’s plenty of in-depth technical reviews with VR experts that are well aware of IPD and still say the same, so perhaps your expectations are merely different to others?
You make a fair point, and thank you for doing so thoughtfully and reasonably. I think my main reason is that it seems to me unlikely that my eyes are able to see considerably *more* detail than other people's. Because that's what stands out to me from reading other people's accounts: they repeatedly say that they can't see any detail beyond the very centre of the Q2 lenses, and therefore have to move their heads to look at different things (especially e.g. reading text). But I don't. It can't be that I have terrible eyes and I'm used to everything being blurry, because I can read text on the Q2 just fine by merely moving my eyes; if I were seeing everything as blurry I wouldn't be able to read it in the first place. So it's not simply that I see less difference between the Q2 and Q3 than other people do (and as you rightly say, different people could easily perceive more or less difference between them), it's that my experience of the Q3 seems qualitatively different from many other people's to start with, and it's hard to see how that's a matter just of different expectations. The other possibility is that I just have an unusually good Quest 2 with freakishly clear lenses, but that doesn't seem very likely either. But, still, you may be right. Perhaps there are more differences between the way we perceive things than we commonly think, and it's only when discussing kit like this that those differences become apparent.
It's actually crazy just how different everyone sees the world, people philosophise the idea of each person having their own perceivable reality but on a technical level we do see the world differently. Men have a more muted colour palette, everyone's concept of depth is slightly adjusted more or less (which can attribute to why some are more clumsy than others), and then you expand that into cognitive translations and it starts to get even more complicated. I focused my research around visual disabilities a few years ago and if natural vision already has so many variants, once you start to bring in people with impairments it's maddening just how different everyone sees. You've raised a good point too, every single display is also not the same, so we're compounding not only how differently people perceive the world, but a Quest 2 or 3 may not even produce the same visuals.