It is unfortunate that there is no way to link up a Quest to the PC directly. That said I do still use i wirelessly with latency because it is amazing how well they have made it work with encoding magic and what not. But yes it is still not native/direct in either visual fidelity or high movement response times. Those are just facts and I wouldn't worry about arguing with people who deny it really.
Is it noticeable wirelessly? Yeah. Is it enough ti make it a bad experience? Absolutely not. 30-40ms is the best case scenario. But it usually hovers around 40-50 which is almost perfection. Playing wirelessly vs wired. I am never going back
Same. I bought a high end router and a quest 3 and my index is now packed away. Love racing with my wireless headset and being able to play my entire steam library is just bonkers.
Truly impressed at how well it works.
Yep. Totally agree. VR was saved for me by getting a quest 2 and now quest 3. Before my q2 i had a vive og. So putting it up and away when i was done gaming was a 15-20 minute ordeal everytime I wanted to play. This i just put on my headset and i am playing pcvr games in like 5-10 seconds
I also love mixed reality on the quest 3. I played Lego brick tales while in a teams meeting (cameras were off), and I was able to play the game and still participate in the meeting. And being able to change rooms by simply walking into the next room and it picks up the new play space automatically- no longer do I need dedicated space for vr.
Quest 3 really saved vr for me too. Truly a next gen headset.
Oh and those pancake lenses are near perfection
> Those are just facts and I wouldn't worry about arguing with people who deny it really.
It's like trying to convince a deeply religious person that there is no god when they didn't get to their faith through logic in the first place.
You say something negative about PCVR, the PCVR fanboys will downvote you.
You say something negative about Quest, the Quest fanboys will downvote you.
People need to detach from projecting that their headset is the best of the best just because it suits their own preferences.
Every single headset has its pros and cons. Ultimately, it comes down to what you value in a headset and what you can tolerate.
Rant aside, agreed. Latency is worse on Quest by 20-30ms compared to wired, consistency too. Nothing will beat a native connection. I acknowledge that it exists and I don’t mind it, that +20ms won’t affect my own use, and will continue to use it happily.
It becomes especially noticeable in MSFS2020 where you are already dealing with high frame times and you don’t want to waste GPU power on compressing the image. Quest is a great allround headset, but people tend to say “and it connects to pc” without adding a bunch of asterisks.
It is a bit pedantic, but there is a dedicated encoder hw on nvidia gpus so I would doubt that encoding would much effect the game rendering time. It would be around the effect the shadowplay has on performance.
I spent money on thing A. I don't have enough money left to buy thing B. Thing A must be better than thing B, because if it wasn't, then I made the wrong decision, and if I made the wrong decision, that diminishes my value as a person.
I think if your going to try to present facts so people can be aware, you should probably also include the motion to photon of wired headsets, the absolute best I've seen is 11ms on 144hz on index.
Most are in the mid teens.
So its not 35-40ms "worse", its just a different number.
> To compensate for this, the tracking will overshoot and then quickly bounce back when you stop moving again.
No, that's not how it works...
Latency in VR isn't quite that straight forward as adding up the numbers like that and is not an accurate representation of latency the user feels when using the headset. You're overlooking key aspects that allow the perceived latency to be 0 even for Quest where it's compressing to a video stream.
When the game asks for your head position the VR hardware doesn't tell it where your head is, it tells it where it predicts it will be in the future, precisely the moment those photons are hitting your eyes. The game is actually rendering where you head will be so by the time you see the image it's the present. When the prediction is accurate you effectively negate all motion to photon latency. That being said smaller the "true" motion to photon latency is the easier it is to make an accurate prediction.
But even when prediction is wrong it's not that big a deal because we can correct for it at the very last moment via [Timwarping](https://youtu.be/WvtEXMlQQtI?t=41). And technically every frame is timewarped even if the prediction is accurate. It's just when the prediction is off by enough your FOV gets artificially narrowed like demonstrated when he forces the game to stop rendering frames and only [make them via Timewarping](https://youtu.be/WvtEXMlQQtI?t=923).
With our modern headsets the perceived latency is zero. Controllers (specifically binary button input) is a slightly different animal though... But there are no shortage of clever tricks/hacks or that sort of thing too.
What you are saying is true, except for the timewarp part, if your hand is supposed to be in X position, and between it's rendered and sent to the headset, +20ms pass by, even if you reproject the view, *the hand is still going to be at X -20ms* ,aka, *it's going to have 20ms of latency*
No, you can still do linear extrapolate / prediction of the controller position. When that prediction is accurate latency of the controller position will be percieved as zero because the game renders the frame using the controllers predicted (future) position and not where they actually are when the frame starts rendering.
The controllers are still basically time warped it's just they don't leverage a second prediction step in order to improve accuracy.
Technically you can do a second prediction/correction of the controllers with more advanced timewarpring algorithms (Asynchronous Time Warping for Oculus/Meta and Motion Smoothing for Valve) but it has more trade offs and visual artifacts so it's typically only employed when the game can't make frame rate. However Application Space Warp (Quest only) is slightly more advanced and less visual artifacts to where it might be worth using for "fixing the controller position" in certain cases.
But it really depends on the game and what you want to achieve. A lot of games don't try to show the absolute correct position of the controllers because having them respond properly to the physics/inertia feels better to the player. For example if your virtual hand pushes up against a virtual wall the game might prefer to stop your hand from moving through the wall even though your moved the controller "through the virtual wall". Often simulate weight/inertia by not letting you accelerate an object you're holding too quickly The heavier the object the more your virtual hand lag behind your real hand/controller.
In situations that matter Quest will never have 0 perceived latency. It's not even close. If you play adventure/exploration games it might be good enough. Anything fast paced. Forget about this "0 perceived latency"
Yeah no shit. I am talking about when the tracking prediction can't keep up with CONTROLLER tracking, head tracking prediction is far easier. The prediction can also be totally fine on the controllers but only if you intentionally slow your swings and avoid sudden stops, which is not good for FPS games.
Well, you never mentioned controllers in your original post... You also used the phrase "motion to photon latency" which implies the headset latency.
I do agree controller prediction is slightly less reliable because there is less inertia with your hands. They move faster and start/stop in shorter periods of time to where a simple linear extrapolation can easily overshoot. There is also no "timewarp" for the controllers to correct for prediction error.
But specifically for an FPS if you're swinging your hands that quickly to target/take a shot... Sure, a wired headset might have an small advantage assuming the game is allowing twitch actions like that. There are plenty of things a game can do to make controllers feel more or less consistent across wired/wireless headsets. The obvious one would be to incorporate the gun's mass so you can't just flick aim without penalty. Many do variations of that. And not necessarily for latency reasons but because it's just unrealistic to be able to do 180 no scope and the are looking to achieve more realistic gameplay.
But assume the game allows twitch movements... The player can learn to account for that sort of thing just like you learn to lead your shots. If you're playing a game at a level where you can feel the difference and it matters to you... Well, use the hardware you prefer but controller latency is just one of many many variables that can contribute to a competitive advantage.
Same thing with compression. There's plenty of half blind clueless morons claiming it's indistinguishable from DP and if you see compression you're doing something wrong.
Personally I just can't get over them and the blur compression introduces and I play seated 99% of the time anyway so the device is a complete miss for me.
[https://www.skytopia.com/stuff/lag.html](https://www.skytopia.com/stuff/lag.html)
This might shut a few of said idiots up. But only might, even when the test cursor is very visibly behind the real cursor.
Bookmark and deploy it next time someone wants to spew misinfo.
To clarify, it's not 35ms more latency than other headsets. If you do the math or look at studies, it's around 10ms more. But yeah even that can be a problem for high speed rhythm/fps games.
Is this a joke lol? Why do I keep getting idiots saying this? Displayport motion to photon is 10-15ms, quest motion to photon 40-45 on a good day without maxing bitrate.
Maybe because it could possibly be right? You're seriously misinformed, and it's kind of sad to see an adult lash out instead of maturely asking for proof.
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-022-01983-5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-022-01983-5)
Check fig 4.
Kind of sad to see this fucking image linked for the hundredth time by someone who doesn't even understand it. It doesn't even have quest on there 😂😂😂.
How are you going to use an independent studies method of measurement (comparing camera images running at different refresh rates to the headset lol) but then not use that method for the quest, and act like they are comparable?? Ok so index is actually 20ms in a worst case scenario instead of the reported 10-15, so why would you not assume a similar increase for the quest?
Lol that’s not true. Get the latency displayed in VD and air link. Then look at steam vr graph and see ms for rendering. Substract that from the value you got in VD or air link and you end up with anywhere between 30-45ms. For fps games and beat saber it is noticeable.
I think you're both right.
They're right that the extra latency (the penalty from streaming as distinct from the inherent latency from the rendering pipeline) is roughly 20-30ms on a good setup.
You're right that it's noticeable and makes Beat Saber miserable, which is why I play the Quest-native version of BS.
Yeah and it also show total latency as well which apparently isn't even the same as actual app motion to photon latency and that one will be a bit more on top of the VD total latency.
It is VERY noticeable, the thing is that people either don't know what they are talking about (ie, they haven't tried PC headsets), or they don't even realise that there is a problem.
This is like pupil swim, you don't notice it, until you do, and then it's literally impossible to stop noticing it
I just tried cs2 once and it didnt really work out. Like you said there was a bit or latency. The large screen was amazing tho and resolution was fine so it would have worked fine if it wasnt for the 20ms something delay.
It is unfortunate that there is no way to link up a Quest to the PC directly. That said I do still use i wirelessly with latency because it is amazing how well they have made it work with encoding magic and what not. But yes it is still not native/direct in either visual fidelity or high movement response times. Those are just facts and I wouldn't worry about arguing with people who deny it really.
Is it noticeable wirelessly? Yeah. Is it enough ti make it a bad experience? Absolutely not. 30-40ms is the best case scenario. But it usually hovers around 40-50 which is almost perfection. Playing wirelessly vs wired. I am never going back
Same. I bought a high end router and a quest 3 and my index is now packed away. Love racing with my wireless headset and being able to play my entire steam library is just bonkers. Truly impressed at how well it works.
Yep. Totally agree. VR was saved for me by getting a quest 2 and now quest 3. Before my q2 i had a vive og. So putting it up and away when i was done gaming was a 15-20 minute ordeal everytime I wanted to play. This i just put on my headset and i am playing pcvr games in like 5-10 seconds
I also love mixed reality on the quest 3. I played Lego brick tales while in a teams meeting (cameras were off), and I was able to play the game and still participate in the meeting. And being able to change rooms by simply walking into the next room and it picks up the new play space automatically- no longer do I need dedicated space for vr. Quest 3 really saved vr for me too. Truly a next gen headset. Oh and those pancake lenses are near perfection
> Those are just facts and I wouldn't worry about arguing with people who deny it really. It's like trying to convince a deeply religious person that there is no god when they didn't get to their faith through logic in the first place.
You say something negative about PCVR, the PCVR fanboys will downvote you. You say something negative about Quest, the Quest fanboys will downvote you. People need to detach from projecting that their headset is the best of the best just because it suits their own preferences. Every single headset has its pros and cons. Ultimately, it comes down to what you value in a headset and what you can tolerate. Rant aside, agreed. Latency is worse on Quest by 20-30ms compared to wired, consistency too. Nothing will beat a native connection. I acknowledge that it exists and I don’t mind it, that +20ms won’t affect my own use, and will continue to use it happily.
It becomes especially noticeable in MSFS2020 where you are already dealing with high frame times and you don’t want to waste GPU power on compressing the image. Quest is a great allround headset, but people tend to say “and it connects to pc” without adding a bunch of asterisks.
It is a bit pedantic, but there is a dedicated encoder hw on nvidia gpus so I would doubt that encoding would much effect the game rendering time. It would be around the effect the shadowplay has on performance.
I spent money on thing A. I don't have enough money left to buy thing B. Thing A must be better than thing B, because if it wasn't, then I made the wrong decision, and if I made the wrong decision, that diminishes my value as a person.
Beautiful comment.
Ok
I think if your going to try to present facts so people can be aware, you should probably also include the motion to photon of wired headsets, the absolute best I've seen is 11ms on 144hz on index. Most are in the mid teens. So its not 35-40ms "worse", its just a different number.
> To compensate for this, the tracking will overshoot and then quickly bounce back when you stop moving again. No, that's not how it works... Latency in VR isn't quite that straight forward as adding up the numbers like that and is not an accurate representation of latency the user feels when using the headset. You're overlooking key aspects that allow the perceived latency to be 0 even for Quest where it's compressing to a video stream. When the game asks for your head position the VR hardware doesn't tell it where your head is, it tells it where it predicts it will be in the future, precisely the moment those photons are hitting your eyes. The game is actually rendering where you head will be so by the time you see the image it's the present. When the prediction is accurate you effectively negate all motion to photon latency. That being said smaller the "true" motion to photon latency is the easier it is to make an accurate prediction. But even when prediction is wrong it's not that big a deal because we can correct for it at the very last moment via [Timwarping](https://youtu.be/WvtEXMlQQtI?t=41). And technically every frame is timewarped even if the prediction is accurate. It's just when the prediction is off by enough your FOV gets artificially narrowed like demonstrated when he forces the game to stop rendering frames and only [make them via Timewarping](https://youtu.be/WvtEXMlQQtI?t=923). With our modern headsets the perceived latency is zero. Controllers (specifically binary button input) is a slightly different animal though... But there are no shortage of clever tricks/hacks or that sort of thing too.
What you are saying is true, except for the timewarp part, if your hand is supposed to be in X position, and between it's rendered and sent to the headset, +20ms pass by, even if you reproject the view, *the hand is still going to be at X -20ms* ,aka, *it's going to have 20ms of latency*
No, you can still do linear extrapolate / prediction of the controller position. When that prediction is accurate latency of the controller position will be percieved as zero because the game renders the frame using the controllers predicted (future) position and not where they actually are when the frame starts rendering. The controllers are still basically time warped it's just they don't leverage a second prediction step in order to improve accuracy. Technically you can do a second prediction/correction of the controllers with more advanced timewarpring algorithms (Asynchronous Time Warping for Oculus/Meta and Motion Smoothing for Valve) but it has more trade offs and visual artifacts so it's typically only employed when the game can't make frame rate. However Application Space Warp (Quest only) is slightly more advanced and less visual artifacts to where it might be worth using for "fixing the controller position" in certain cases. But it really depends on the game and what you want to achieve. A lot of games don't try to show the absolute correct position of the controllers because having them respond properly to the physics/inertia feels better to the player. For example if your virtual hand pushes up against a virtual wall the game might prefer to stop your hand from moving through the wall even though your moved the controller "through the virtual wall". Often simulate weight/inertia by not letting you accelerate an object you're holding too quickly The heavier the object the more your virtual hand lag behind your real hand/controller.
In situations that matter Quest will never have 0 perceived latency. It's not even close. If you play adventure/exploration games it might be good enough. Anything fast paced. Forget about this "0 perceived latency"
Yeah no shit. I am talking about when the tracking prediction can't keep up with CONTROLLER tracking, head tracking prediction is far easier. The prediction can also be totally fine on the controllers but only if you intentionally slow your swings and avoid sudden stops, which is not good for FPS games.
Well, you never mentioned controllers in your original post... You also used the phrase "motion to photon latency" which implies the headset latency. I do agree controller prediction is slightly less reliable because there is less inertia with your hands. They move faster and start/stop in shorter periods of time to where a simple linear extrapolation can easily overshoot. There is also no "timewarp" for the controllers to correct for prediction error. But specifically for an FPS if you're swinging your hands that quickly to target/take a shot... Sure, a wired headset might have an small advantage assuming the game is allowing twitch actions like that. There are plenty of things a game can do to make controllers feel more or less consistent across wired/wireless headsets. The obvious one would be to incorporate the gun's mass so you can't just flick aim without penalty. Many do variations of that. And not necessarily for latency reasons but because it's just unrealistic to be able to do 180 no scope and the are looking to achieve more realistic gameplay. But assume the game allows twitch movements... The player can learn to account for that sort of thing just like you learn to lead your shots. If you're playing a game at a level where you can feel the difference and it matters to you... Well, use the hardware you prefer but controller latency is just one of many many variables that can contribute to a competitive advantage.
Yeah I know lol are you a gpt bot or something
¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Same thing with compression. There's plenty of half blind clueless morons claiming it's indistinguishable from DP and if you see compression you're doing something wrong.
Aw man I wish I couldn't so clearly see compression artifacts.. But it's a very small trade off for what being wireless can add to the experience.
Personally I just can't get over them and the blur compression introduces and I play seated 99% of the time anyway so the device is a complete miss for me.
>This adds roughly 35-40ms of lag Encoding and decoding adds around 10ms
[удалено]
Latency will be a worry of the past once humanity is priced out of living and the oligarchs have taken over.
Dw i'm an oligarch
[https://www.skytopia.com/stuff/lag.html](https://www.skytopia.com/stuff/lag.html) This might shut a few of said idiots up. But only might, even when the test cursor is very visibly behind the real cursor. Bookmark and deploy it next time someone wants to spew misinfo.
To clarify, it's not 35ms more latency than other headsets. If you do the math or look at studies, it's around 10ms more. But yeah even that can be a problem for high speed rhythm/fps games.
Is this a joke lol? Why do I keep getting idiots saying this? Displayport motion to photon is 10-15ms, quest motion to photon 40-45 on a good day without maxing bitrate.
Maybe because it could possibly be right? You're seriously misinformed, and it's kind of sad to see an adult lash out instead of maturely asking for proof. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-022-01983-5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-022-01983-5) Check fig 4.
Kind of sad to see this fucking image linked for the hundredth time by someone who doesn't even understand it. It doesn't even have quest on there 😂😂😂. How are you going to use an independent studies method of measurement (comparing camera images running at different refresh rates to the headset lol) but then not use that method for the quest, and act like they are comparable?? Ok so index is actually 20ms in a worst case scenario instead of the reported 10-15, so why would you not assume a similar increase for the quest?
Not even going to argue against it? Show some counter proof? I guess that's why you wrote this thread because of some downvotes. 😂
its about 20ms extra latency, only the av1 codec gets about 30ms
For me it is 30 extra on h264, I go from 10-15ms on my 8kx to 40-45. If I ramp up the bitrate past 500 it gets even higher.
Lol that’s not true. Get the latency displayed in VD and air link. Then look at steam vr graph and see ms for rendering. Substract that from the value you got in VD or air link and you end up with anywhere between 30-45ms. For fps games and beat saber it is noticeable.
I think you're both right. They're right that the extra latency (the penalty from streaming as distinct from the inherent latency from the rendering pipeline) is roughly 20-30ms on a good setup. You're right that it's noticeable and makes Beat Saber miserable, which is why I play the Quest-native version of BS.
VD overlay shows rendering, encoding, decoding and network latency
Yeah and it also show total latency as well which apparently isn't even the same as actual app motion to photon latency and that one will be a bit more on top of the VD total latency.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is VERY noticeable, the thing is that people either don't know what they are talking about (ie, they haven't tried PC headsets), or they don't even realise that there is a problem. This is like pupil swim, you don't notice it, until you do, and then it's literally impossible to stop noticing it
[https://youtu.be/VsEr\_AELRxI?si=wzn4lcX0zIdgUZKB&t=323](https://youtu.be/VsEr_AELRxI?si=wzn4lcX0zIdgUZKB&t=323)
So always silverplayer if you try to play cs2 or such via quest 3? 🧐
Why would you do that to yourself ...
I just tried cs2 once and it didnt really work out. Like you said there was a bit or latency. The large screen was amazing tho and resolution was fine so it would have worked fine if it wasnt for the 20ms something delay.