HP Reverb G2 - The Hype is real
- Thread starter Balmung
- Start date
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
8. they take market feedback so seriously that they halted the entirety of G1 production, for ~4 months, to address customer complaints and then released the G1v200 ( my version ) for which I've had precisely '0' issues in the year I've been using it.
Personally, I do think it important to distinguish between G1v100 and G1v200 because the G1v100, rightly, gets panned however people making comments, almost, never say if they're talking about G1v100 or G1v200 whereas the quality issues don't apply to the latter.
I can't help but wonder; all of us like to wax lyrical ( myself included ) about the comparative display quality of headsets however yesterday I had a long spree in SkyrimVR and NMS Desolation and on my PC both games, and in particular SkyrimVR, look much closer to monitor quality than ED, XPlane or even Cliffhouse. e.g. Sweet spots are 'supposed' to be a headset facet so how is it on my G1v200 that Skyrim is sharp across most of my headset display whereas ED gets a sweetspot letterbox? Surely that shouldn't be possible. How is it on near distance, there is no aliasing at all and I mean nothing, yet SteamVR SS is 100% and ingame SS is off and dynamic SS is disabled, whereas in ED I can max everything out and it helps but doesn't completely cure aliasing even on near objects. How old is the SkyrimSE engine?
NMS Desolation is not quite SkyrimVR territory ( mainly because it's AA is garbage next to Skyrim IMO ) but it's a far better display quality than ED on my own setup.
So, my question good people: Should we be questioning the headset or the headsets and the game engines? Maybe I'm a special case but SkyrimVR shows me that epic display quality is already possible.
I think going forward, if someone says to me, this headset or that headset is good/cr@p ( and I've done it too ), my reaction more and more will be - depends on the game.
NMS Desolation is not quite SkyrimVR territory ( mainly because it's AA is garbage next to Skyrim IMO ) but it's a far better display quality than ED on my own setup.
So, my question good people: Should we be questioning the headset or the headsets and the game engines? Maybe I'm a special case but SkyrimVR shows me that epic display quality is already possible.
I think going forward, if someone says to me, this headset or that headset is good/cr@p ( and I've done it too ), my reaction more and more will be - depends on the game.
I think part of ED’s problem is that it has a helluva lot of parallel lines, straight edges and rectangle textures in its gameworld which makes the “shimmer” very noticeable.
ED’s anti-aliasing options aren’t much good in VR - whether TAA like in SkyrimVR would help, dunno. I’m hoping to get one of the new nvidia 3-series cards later this year, which might let me reduce the issue in Elite with a bit more supersample & HMDquality in my Rift S.
So in answer to your question regarding headsets or game engines being the issue - bit of both?
It depend also on the game engine. Some engines make a good work to avoid Aliasing and some not... like the ED Game Engine. I also notice that on my 4K monitor when i played ED on it. But another problem are also the high contrasts in ED, near white thin lines surrounded by very dark colors, a dream for Aliasing and pur horror for AntiAliasing.
So Skyrim benefits somewhat from its age, here.
Aside from the already mentioned contrast differences in environments and lighing making artifacts that more prominent, there are two main causes for the aliasing disparity, as far as I can surmise:
* Although the SE-, and consequently VR -versions of Skyrim switched to deferred rendering, just like Elite: Dangerous, their "inherited" vanilla assets remain rather chunky, with relatively low-poly geometry, letting mainly diffuse texturing do the detail work, whereas Elite has a lot of actually modelled thin rods and such. Solid, non-alpha textured surface output is inherently antialiased through mipmapping, whereas geometry is where things become difficult, given (because deferred) you can not have multisampling forms of antialiasing, leaving you with jaggy polygon edges. Different things fare differently well even in Skyrim, with wicker fences seen in the distance being an infamous offender. Skyrim offers temporal antialiasing, which uses information from prior frames (EDIT: ...to retain/fill-in lacking detail). TAA is better than other post-effect antialiasing methods, but comes with its own quirks. (... Also: The Reverb headsets (as well as the Pimax 8kX) are about twice the resolution of the first HTC Vive (from 12-ish pixels per degree, to 22-ish (The "retina" monicker that is bandied about as a minimum-human-capability-like goal to aim for, is 60PPD)) -- that can not but help. :7)
* Elite Dangerous has quite a bit of shiny objects, which both reflect an environment map, and are made to look smoother than their actual geometry-, and/or given thin detail texture -by a normal map, which constitutes a multiply recursive sampling situation, which is infamous for producing so called "specular aliasing". I'd say this is actually a greater problem in ED, than just the polygon edges; It is what gives us those thick bright lines that are not only jagged, but outright broken up. Now, Skyrim too had normal maps and cubemap reflections (...and Fallout 4 kept going and went PBR), but less of it, and typically, again, used in a more "chunky" and less "3D-look, especially-with-dynamic-lighting" manner -- not so much of shiny thin wire gratings, and such; More generous convex hulls.
Aside from the already mentioned contrast differences in environments and lighing making artifacts that more prominent, there are two main causes for the aliasing disparity, as far as I can surmise:
* Although the SE-, and consequently VR -versions of Skyrim switched to deferred rendering, just like Elite: Dangerous, their "inherited" vanilla assets remain rather chunky, with relatively low-poly geometry, letting mainly diffuse texturing do the detail work, whereas Elite has a lot of actually modelled thin rods and such. Solid, non-alpha textured surface output is inherently antialiased through mipmapping, whereas geometry is where things become difficult, given (because deferred) you can not have multisampling forms of antialiasing, leaving you with jaggy polygon edges. Different things fare differently well even in Skyrim, with wicker fences seen in the distance being an infamous offender. Skyrim offers temporal antialiasing, which uses information from prior frames (EDIT: ...to retain/fill-in lacking detail). TAA is better than other post-effect antialiasing methods, but comes with its own quirks. (... Also: The Reverb headsets (as well as the Pimax 8kX) are about twice the resolution of the first HTC Vive (from 12-ish pixels per degree, to 22-ish (The "retina" monicker that is bandied about as a minimum-human-capability-like goal to aim for, is 60PPD)) -- that can not but help. :7)
* Elite Dangerous has quite a bit of shiny objects, which both reflect an environment map, and are made to look smoother than their actual geometry-, and/or given thin detail texture -by a normal map, which constitutes a multiply recursive sampling situation, which is infamous for producing so called "specular aliasing". I'd say this is actually a greater problem in ED, than just the polygon edges; It is what gives us those thick bright lines that are not only jagged, but outright broken up. Now, Skyrim too had normal maps and cubemap reflections (...and Fallout 4 kept going and went PBR), but less of it, and typically, again, used in a more "chunky" and less "3D-look, especially-with-dynamic-lighting" manner -- not so much of shiny thin wire gratings, and such; More generous convex hulls.
Last edited:
The point of his benchmark in my opinion is to compare various headsets and how will reverb work in 1080x1080 mode compared to them. To answer the question: "are you able to run the reverb on half resolution if you already have headset X"? In many cases, reverb's half resolution mode will still look better than other headset's native image because of less screendoor effect and better optics.
As for openvr benchmark itself, he explains it at the beginning - it's used to compare headsets, not to be indicative of any performance like 3dmark for example. It's just a standardized measurement / comparison tool. As for settings, I believe it should be set to defaults for every headset, whether he did it or not we wouldn't know.
As for openvr benchmark itself, he explains it at the beginning - it's used to compare headsets, not to be indicative of any performance like 3dmark for example. It's just a standardized measurement / comparison tool. As for settings, I believe it should be set to defaults for every headset, whether he did it or not we wouldn't know.
But i ask me how it does compare, because the render resolution is very different from headset to headset, you can see it in the video, and it often have nothings to do with the native resolution of the headset itself.
Makes not much sense for me, from where did this render resolution come from? Magic?
And yes i know that this FPS did not mean anything, would better shown as Points than FPS.
Code:
Rift CV1 : native 1080 × 1200 (render 1344 x 1600)
Rift S : native 1280 × 1440 (render 1648 x 1776)
Index : native 1440 × 1600 (render 2016 x 2240)
Odyssey+ : native 1440 × 1600 (render 1444 x 1804)
G2 : native 2160 x 2160 (render 2196 x 2152)Makes not much sense for me, from where did this render resolution come from? Magic?
And yes i know that this FPS did not mean anything, would better shown as Points than FPS.
By writing "native image" I meant the experience with the headset out of the box, without tweaks. He is kinda assuming that if you have headset X and it works well for you on default settings, then based on the score of G2 in "half res" settings, you'll still be better off using the G2. Kinda smelly comparison, and completely subjective, but the numbers seem to support that hypothesis.
Yes got an email today.
Yes, got it yesterday. Not too bothered as I will be matching it up with one of the new GPU offering from AMD or Nvidia. Both should be nearer to release then.
In the U.K. we could only preorder though a company called ‘SystemActive’ (that I doubt any of us had heard of before). It’s them that sent the email.....
“Again, thank you for pre-ordering the HP Reverb G2. We have been informed by HP that shipments will take place in October. The demand worldwide has been extremely high, so there has been an impact on production, and it will be shipped at that time for all regions across the world.
Please feel safe in the knowledge that you will still be amongst the first to receive your order. All pre-orders will be delivered on Day 1. We will inform you immediately we hear any further news from HP.”
Same for me, can take a bit more time deciding what GPU to get.
I have a 2080Ti so hoping that I can run it at least at High, since I doubt I'll get it to Ultra
I’ve only got a 1080 so I’m gonna be struggling, I dread to think what it’s gonna take to run FS2020 well in VR when they add support!