Quest 2 only does wifi6 (2.4/5Ghz), not wifi6e (includes 6Ghz). The Quest 3 does support wifi6e 6Ghz though. Sorry but I’m not sure if there is much benefit going to 6Ghz with a Q3 unless you are in a very noisy 5Ghz environment.
I have a pretty standard wifi6 (not 6e) setup ethernet wired to my pc with a dedicated 5Ghz channel (ch36/80mhz in my case) I get very good wireless PCVR results with all wireless options (Air Link, VD, and Steam Link).
I also have to think for simple resolution reasons, the 2 probably doesn’t need to stream any faster than it already does.
Have a 7950x3D/4080and Quest 3. Literally tried 4 different usb c cables ‘made’ for Quest - link was always abysmal compared to Virtual Desktop, ‘if’ it worked consistently at all.
VD (via separate wifi 6 router used as access point) works out of the box, can change settings on the fly and can pop out and back in VR anytime you want. I get 40+ fps stable on Ultra, 120fps and most settings on ultra/high, no frame generation and fly helis and GA at 1-3,000 feet.
I have always found my official link cable connected to my z790 mb usb3.2 gen2 type-c port at 650mbps gives me better overall distance clarity and performance, with less latency than VD with both my Q3 and QPro/rtx4090.
With wireless msfs2020 PCVR I will admit that VD with hevc-10bit or av1-10bit does give me a little fewer compression artifacts (mainly just clouds) than Air Link with its stock hevc-8bit though. Hopefully meta will add these codecs soon.
I’m afraid the “VD vs Link” debate is endless, as it depends on each actual setup: for Wifi it’s obvious that’s VD is very dependent on the actual hardware, and I suspect that there might be some important differences as well for USB depending on the motherboard/cable/hub/version/drivers/…
I never tried VD for myself (as I don’t want to setup a specific Wifi just for this, and I don’t want to be limited by the battery), but basing on numerous reports maybe we can say that with appropriate hardware, the VD solution is more robust… But that doesn’t mean that it’s better than USB in every situation, neither that good results aren’t achievable with it.
Great detailed analysis and information sharing. You may want to upgrade the VR headset to be on par with your fairly strong PC configuration. Quest 2 was a no-go reason for me to go to VR, HP Reverb G2 was (and still is) great but on its way out. There are other good options.
Sky4Sim also has a tablet panel with maps, routes, weather and you can add you own charts.
In the VD / Cable debate, the hardware is not the issue. SteamVR and Metsa’s implementation of OpenXR are just very poorly optimized so you never see the benefit of the hardware connection. I have a Ryzen 7 3700x, 32 gigs of memory 4080RTX, I could barely get above 32 fps, and things were NEVER smooth even with all the software settings set to low / medium. My father’s computer was the same, and his is a much more robust machine than my own. Just could not get things better, the runtime software was the issue.
Virtual Desktops implementation of OpenXR (VDXR) is very well optmized (created by the author of OXRTK. Runs laps around the other two offerings.
Obviously if your network is not up to the task, you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
You dont need a dedicated router for VD to work well. I initially set it up with an Eero 5g mesh system running along side of 75+ smart home devices, 2 TV’s 5 PC’s (laptop and desktops) and 4 phones. Ran perfectly fine and much better than the cable link (again because of poorly optmised software)
Upping two of the nodes in the mesh system to 6E nodes and it has gotten even better.
The key, Your desktop running the simulator should be hardwired, and the router that its connected to should be as close as reasonably possible, Mine was about 20’ from the simpit at the time, its now 5’ in another room.
My father is now using a Pimax Crystal Light, and their implementation of OpenXR is very well optimised like VDXR (same person did the implementation of both, and wrote the toolkit softare everyone else uses) It beats the pants off my Quest 3 with VD while being hardware connected.
Again, its the runtime implementation thats the issue, not the hardware. 
Pretty debatable, your PC setup together with your settings may cause bigger issues imho. Trying to put it down to runtimes is maybe a bit over-simplistic.
Of course you are best to use whatever you’ve found works best for you. Everyone has different systems, setups, and flying styles so whatever works best for some, may not be best for all. Also, personal preferences can play a large part.
I think it’s great to see what users report works best for them, but there is no need to try to justify these. End of daily surmmon, lol! Cheers.
I find it depressing how hard it is to get a decent result with Oculus, however it is possible. Lots of tools, lots of settings and hours of testing. Then at that point assuming you’ve been successful it’s all worth it. However unless your a PC tester or YouTuber or ■■■■■■ then to go through that again with the alternative connection either Virtual Desktop or Cable is just not worth it. Way too much time and energy is spent setting these headsets up and way to many folks send people off down rabbit holes that result in dead ends causing people to quit.
For those interrested, after uprgading from Quest 2 to Quest 3 I can confirm that:
Same performances (as expected because since the “logical” resolution is the same), much better result (as expected because the “physical” resolution is better).
The end result is quite astonishing, with a good scenery and plane 
New DLSS 3.8 may help as well as secondary scaling setting:
