As we all already know the new Meta Quest 3 is coming this fall.
It will be 2 x faster than Quest 2 and will have better resolution (even better than Quest Pro).
Many of us use VR headset connected with PC using wired connection (Quest Link).
I’m really curious if:
higher headset resolution (comparing to Quest 2) = lower performance when using MSFS in VR (wired PC connection) with the same GPU, render resolution and MSFS settings,
doubled headset performance (comparing to Quest 2) = better performance when using MSFS;
I’m afraid after buying Quest 3 I (we) will have to decrease render resolution (= worse image quality) or lower MSFS settings with current GPUs to get decent performance.
Maybe some of you know more about all these technical stuff and dependence, so I would be thankful for explaining this.
I am not aware of cases of the Quest 2 decode chip bottlenecking Link performance in MSFS - the PC is always the bottleneck and therefore I would expect lower performance when running Quest 3 at its maximum (native) resolution, when compared to running Quest 2 at its maximum resolution.
However it could be that the optics design of the Quest 3 means that it looks visually better than the Quest 2 when running at equivalent resolution and therefore by downscaling(either via MSFS render scaling, scaling via Link or Virtual Desktop, or other tech like DLSS) it could be possible to have similar or better performance while maintaining similar visual quality to Quest 2. It will depend on the optics and how the Q3 panel deals with running at a non-native resolution. That’s my guess anyway!
“even better than Quest Pro” - I mean, the Pro’s resolution is really low for a 1200euro headset in 2022/2023. Even the 400 Euro Pico4’s is higher.
So it’s a much needed improvement and if you are already upscaling now, it shouldn’t cause a performance hit but simply look better. Unless you are really just running native right now,in that case yes.
On another note with the Quest 3 would it be possible to use your fingers to changes knobs and dials in the cockpit - not using the controllers - just your hands as it shows in this video.
Up to the aircraft devs to make this possible, I would think, just as with the Q2 and other VR controllers. But as I am not a programmer, I’m not 100% certain…
I’m currently very happy with my QPro/i913900k/rtx4090 with msfs using Air Link. By combining the right amount of super sampling with dlss/balanced (or TAA) I get very good clarity (esp. in the cockpit), no SDE, and everything runs a nice smooth 40-45fps. Really kinda hard for me to imagine it getting much better than this. I can get slightly better clarity of distant objects using a Link cable but I prefer the freedom of being wireless with Air Link. Virtual Desktop also works well but my personal preference is to use Air Link.
I can only imagine that the Crystal and Bigscreen Beyond higher res headsets should further improve the clarity of very small cockpit switches (some which I need to move my head in a little to see) and the clarity of distant objects. Both of these headsets are on my radar and once they are both fully functional and reviewed by independent users I’ll probably pick up one of these. I already run a wired Vive Pro1 with Etsy lens mod, 2x2.0 base stations, and Index controllers so running either of those other headset with SteamVR isn’t going to be an issue. Once the Crystal is fully functional and it’s inside out tracking is fine tuned, together with its proposed wireless wigig module I wouldn’t even need to rely on my base stations and I could still go wireless. That would be nice!
I intend to order a Q3 as soon as it is released. I plan to mainly use it for standalone VR/MR and as a backup for my QPro. I don’t think it will work better in PCVR as my QPro, but you never know. I don’t think that the Q3’s higher res is going to make much difference to PPD because it appears to be a single screen so after adjusting for IPD not all pixels are going to be visible like they are with the QPro’s dual screens. Also, it’s lower quality screens do not allow for Local Dimming so blacks/contrast in dark environments is not likely to be as good. I’ve been very impressed with how well my QPro local dimming works when night flying in msfs. Almost as good as my Vive Pro1’s amoled screens imho. Anyway, I guess I’ll find out soon.
BTW, the Q2, Pico 4, Pico 3 neo link, and Vive Elite XR headsets do not have high enough quality screens to allow for local dimming.
Just bought two Quest 3 headsets, one for my brother also. I can’t comment from a Quest 2/3 performance. However I can speculate on a Quest 3/HP Reverb G2 performance.
From what I’ve read the edge to edge clarity, class leading glare / distortion handling and huge eyebox of the Quest 3 really means you should not need to run the headset beyond native resolution. In fact as the optical stack is so good, it’s highly likely you can run at 90% or even 80% resolution and still get pretty clear visuals.
Therefore, because of the lens design, I’m expecting the net performance of the Quest 3 to improve, I.e. even ignoring extra processing power for encryption handling compared to the Quest 2, to actually give you better clarity/performance ratio, so you can interpret that how you will.
As a long standing Reverb HP G2 user, I know that I’ve not engaged in VR as much outside of MSFS since I owned the Oculus CV1, and I’m hoping the Quest 3 brings back mainstream VR play as well as of course continuing my love affair with VR in MSFS.
I’ll start some testing next week after Oct 10 but I am not setting my expectations much higher than my Quest2 - except for a somewhat clearer image with a tiny bit wider FOV and a more generous sweet spot that should provide a better focused eye gaze from center and less sensitive position on my head.
I’m really curious about performance with Q3 compared to Q2 when using native render resolution (in my case 5408x2736 for 72Hz). Waiting for your reviews.
@B738Cpt ,
Yes - difficult to accurately compare. I wanted to start with the same ODT parameters that I currently use and then alter them.
Oculus(Meta) App set at 72Hz Render Resolution = 5408x2736
ODT Paramters:
PPDPO 1.6 - can this be lowered
Off
0
0.75;0.75 - maybe adjust these
Auto
Off
Default
Force 45fps, ASW Enabled - 3080ti and can stay above 36FPS without ASW - so locked at 36
Disabled * 3
Low, H.264
Default
3840 - adjust??
Disabled
0
400 - adjust ? - I will first test with Link cable
0
Normal (Link Sharpening) - will that be needed?
…
I’m not expecting any PCVR/msfs improvements compared to my current QPro/rtx4090 but you never know, lol! I’ve mainly ordered a Q3 for standalone VR/MR and as a backup to my QPro.
I’ll post these once I get my preordered Q3 , hopefully late next week, after I’ve got it working with msfs. I’ll note any differences I see compared to my +11mo Quest Pro. Since this is a Q3 thread I think that posting my current QPro settings right now is off topic.
The AV1 Encoding decoding streaming aspect of Quest 3 will be interesting on Nvidia 4000 and AMD 6-7000 series GPUs. I believe Standalone Q3 will beat Quest Pro but for Wired PCVR and possibly Streaming Wireless, there will be little difference. PCVR puts the pressure on the GPU/CPU vs the HMD. Wired or Wireless WIFI 6 etc all seem to be quite solid already and not the bottleneck. Compression decompression artifacts on AV1 vs 264 or HEVC 265 etc all can be a differentiator.
I would consider dropping that render resolution to compensate for the higher Hz as 72Hz is no longer supported, only 90Hz and the experimental 120Hz option. Also it’s a completely different system in the Quest 2 with a single panel and dual frensel lenses.
I don’t know if the 1.7x resolution to address the distortion profile is as bad in the Quest 3, that’s something we’re going to have to try out and see for ourselves.
Like the Q2 and QPro, the Q3 will support 72Hz refresh rate. This was confirmed during the developer sessions at last months Meta Connect. It may still be a good option for lower spec’d gpu’s.
