Ah ok thats fair, that makes sense. I run my Quest 2 at its barrel corrected render resolution too 5408 x 2736 but in MSFS I have to drop the in game render to 80. The Quest 2 panel resolution is 3664 x 1920, I think the Pro 2 is 4896 x 2448, do you know what the barrel correction render resolution is? I’m guessing its 7000 x 4000 or thereabouts?
The optimal display res for the VP2 is 7344x3672. Of course no game would run that at respectable framerate, and that is why downsampling is needed. It will be a few years until we have PCs capable of driving res that high. I did try MSFS at that res but it becomes a slideshow even though the image quality is spectacular.
I also have Quest 2, and I set it the same way. Leave display res at its optimal resolution (with supersampling), then use lowered rendering resolution in games.
1 Like
Yes me too for the Quest 2, I don’t use the OTT or anything though just slide the render resolution as far to the right a-5408 x 2732 and run at 72Hz. I was just running it at 72Hz for MSFS and 90Hz for everything else but I honestly can’t notice the difference, at almost 47 maybe my eyes are too old to tell.
I did buy a Pro 2 but I didn’t try it with MSFS as Talk Talk cut my internet off trying to upgrade me to fiber optic cable. It was so frustrating I had no internet for 12 days and of course it had to correspond to the week I had the Pro 2. I couldn’t get MSFS to load so could only try it with Half Life Alyx and Hellblade.
I couldn’t get the lenses to work for me at all. The binocular overlap was terrible, if I moved with my eyes I could see both screens. It also got so hot on top that I was worried it was a fire risk so I sent it back, Maybe because of the overlap issues I had the clarity wasn’t much better than my Quest 2. For example in Half Life Alyx I could read can labels, posters and see the chips on Alyx’s gloves just as clearly on my Quest 2 as with the Pro 2, plus with much better lenses, without the overlap.
I sent it all back for a refund but its a shame I never got to test it properly due to no internet.
With my Quest 2 I have excellent cockpit clarity in MSFS and can read all the instruments and dials without issues, but I get a flicker in the distance and shimmering on things like fences when I’m taxiing to the runway, or masts and plyons. Also if I view third person my plane’s wings are slightly aliased which I hate. Those are things I want to do away with, does the Pro 2 eliminate them?
Thanks for that
I was running 100% in Steam VR for FS2020 for perf reasons, will try keeping it 150% and lowering the render scale
The Quest 2’s performance is limited by USB-C 3.2 G1 bandwidth which is only 5 Gbps via Link (less via wifi). You can’t really transfer all that video data at 72 or 80 Hz with that bandwidth as it supports 4K60 Hz at most. So compressed video data is used which produces less than ideal image fidelity if you look carefully.
The Vive Pro 2 uses DisplayPort 1.4 with 25 Gbps bandwidth which means you won’t need to use video compression unless in 120 Hz mode. When used side to side there’s no comparison the image quality is so much better, but you have to counter its flaws and set it up correctly and because of less stereo overlap the default face pad is also not ideal for image quality as it is too thick pushing the face away from screen, the side holes also allows light leaking in from the side producing more glare. Switching to thinner pad will help minimize this problem.
Vive Pro 2 aside, I actually even prefer images on my Valve Index to that from Quest 2 even though it has slight SDE (much more vibrant and contrasty due to lack of video compression). The Quest 2 produced washed out image with inferior black levels although SDE is minimal and cockpit text are slightly easier to read). Now with my Vive Pro 2, it’s like Index with enhanced clarity without SDE and better LCD screen as contrast and black level is better than the Index.
At full settings (150% SS and 100% rendering scale), the image quality is at the level of my 4KTV, plus stereoscopic view, 116 degree HFOV, and everything is right in my face rather than a few feet away. It is too bad that I don’t have a PC powerful enough to run it at this setting, but hopefully in a few years.
1 Like
The 150% scale also varies depending on your GPU power, this is polled when you run SteamVR. With my rtx 3090 it typically gives me between 3900 to 4020, which is higher than the needed 3672. Basically set it to the number that would be the closest to 3672x3672 pixels in SteamVR if you want to be precise about it.
Even on my Vive Pro 2, 150% on 90 Hz mode is quite different from 120 Hz mode yielding higher predicted pixel numbers.
1 Like
I think IPD and head shape must lead to individual variance. I found the Pro 2 visuals to be really bad overall. Not the screens, but the lenses. The overlap issue was really significant for me. Whilst parts of the image looked sharp, the picture as a whole look misaligned and broken, like it wasn’t properly in focus, moving my eyes about the display would separate into two separate screens.
I couldn’t get the clarity anywhere near what it should have been, Alyx’s gloves and reading can labels for example looked every bit as clear on my Quest 2 running at 5408 x 2736.
Regarding the Quest 2’s compression, that hasn’t been an issue for me since buying my new 3090 powered PC and setting my encode bitrate to 500. The Vive Pro 2 screens obviously have a higher resolution but I didn’t notice any compression artifact improvement over the Quest 2.
I did like the colours on the Pro 2 but I had glare in all scenes even playing Half Life Alyx.
My face is quite slim and my IPD fairly low at around 61. With my Quest 2 I use VRCover’s new minimal foam pad, which boosts the FOV to about 99/100 both horizontal and vertical according to the ROV tool. I no longer see a circular, tunnel image but more of a square one.
For the Pro 2 I used my Quest XG cooling gel foam pad, the same one Sebastian Ang recommended. I could get right up close to the lenses but I couldn’t eliminate the glare.
I didn’t think much of the FOV, about 3 or 4 degrees less vertical compared to my Quest 2, about 10 degrees more on the horizontal, but I couldn’t make use of as looking with my eyes would cause the screen to separate into two lens views.
I expect your IPD is sufficiently different from mine that you don’t suffer the same overlap issues. For me the headset was unsuable, just realy uncomfortable visuals that looked broken, similar to what VoodooVE reported on his channel, and SadlyIt’sBradley on his.
I returned it and back to the Quest 2 for now, hoping for something better to come along in the next few months.
Dont overlook the original vive pro.
Ive swaped from HP Reverb to the vive pro with lens mod.
Ive come from Oled screens in the past. Vive OG, Samsung Oyssey+
Regarding the HP reverb, apart from resolution of always been disappointed with its god rays, poor sweet spot, washed out colours.
Oled panels make the sim feel so much more real and vibrant. night flying is epic!
The Vive pro 1600x1440 oled panels are just enough. and with the gear lens mod the sweet spot and lack of god rays are far superior to the hp reverb.
Ive been able to tweek more ingame graphics to ultra becuase of lower pixel count.
Ive got both heads sets still but the reverb G2 is boxed away in the cupboard. Vive pro OG is my go to now until HP release an oled model.
I dont think we need more pixel count but instead improved lenses with oled panels.
1 Like
It wasnt ready for prime time so I sent it back and ordered the Varjo Aero . The aero is a little bit clearer than my G2 so I kept it . I dont know if its worthy of the $2300 It cost 
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.