Weekend with Quest Pro and Reverb G2

[Michail71]

Normally I hate fussing with VR runtimes and tweak VR settings but I decided to give the Quest Pro a try.

System Specs: RTX 3080ti, 7500X, DX11, TAA

The Bad:

• For and equivalent FPS, I could not get the clarity of the Quest Pro to match that of the G2’s sweet spot.
• The Quest Pro is very uncomfortable for me. But I also have a 3rd party solution for my G2. I was able to move the comfort strap to the Quest Pro but some of that discomfort remained with the forehead pressure it creates.
• The Quest Pro always had some jittery look to the video. The G2 was just smooth.
• I would see occasional artifacts with the Quest Pro that I don’t see on the G2.
• The built in speakers are weak compared to the G2
• I frequently experienced garbled/warbled audio on the Quest Pro. Usually when transitioning on menu screens.
• Without a 3rd party cable, using a standard Link cable will not charge or keep the Quest Pro charged. I ran out of battery on multiple occasions.
• The open sides are distracting when flying at night and caused some disorientation. I would purchase side blinders.
• Dialogs about needing to charge the controllers would not go away. Also, controller messages persist unless you keep the controllers on the charging pad.
• Hand tracking works great but they don’t work in the Rift mode (at least that I could figure out).
• Exiting a VR session while in flight mode often messed up the PC so much it required a full reboot. I can do this with the G2 but it takes a minute to settle down.

The Amazing:

• Eye tracking on the Quest Pro works really well.
• The overall edge to edge clarity is way better than the G2 (although the G2 is better in the center). It’s nice being able to read a taxi sign with peripheral vision. It’s like putting on something that gives you a window into a new world where as the G2 feels like you are looking through a pair of glasses.
• No glare when flying at night.
• I liked the open bottom for being able to see notes, check phone, etc.
• Even without ASW on, it seemed like equivalent frame rates in the Quest Pro could look smoother. But this was often offset by lack of video stability.

I’m probably in the minority here but I think I’ll be sticking with the G2. The head pain, battery drain, glitchy video, and dealing with Meta’s afterthought PCVR software are the biggest detracting factors.

Perhaps if I had an RTX 4090 I might be able to drive the Quest Pro harder. I think it has some additional overhead to overcome given the Oculus Link. With all the Graphics and OpenXR settings the same (where appropriate) the details in the Reverb G2 were just sharper.

Also if the Quest Pro is supposed to be nearly as good as the varjo aero I don’t feel like I’ve been missing out on as much.

I wish there was a Reverb G3 with eye tracking and pancake lenses!

[SunlitAlpaca141]

Comparing VR headsets is soooo subjective imho (pun intended, lol!).

I think my 9mo preordered QPro is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I appreciate others may find other headsets work better for them. In your case it sounds like the G2 is a good place to park yourself for now.

The QPro does come with stock side blockers btw and I use these.

Also I can say that my PCVR performance with MSFS improved quite a bit when I replaced my old win10 pc (i9 9900k/rtx3090/32Gb 3000ram) 6 months ago with an nice new win11 pc (i9 13900k/rtx4090/32Gb 5200ram). Also, I have yet to notice any significant so-called compression artifacts with either Link or Air Link. I do find that distant objects tend to be a little clearer, and pop in a little earlier with Link but I still prefer the freedom of wireless with Air Link.

Like you say, dedicated DP headsets like your G2 are probably perform about 10-15% better than PCVR streaming headsets like the QPro than add conpression/encoding to your gpu workload. I even notice this difference with my Vive Pro1 that I still occasionally use. Pretty hard to beat night flying blacks/contrast with their beautiful AMOLED screens.

The main thing is to find whatever system, headset, and settings work best for you and most importantly, to extract as much fun out of them as possible. All this and keeping your $'s spend to what you can easily afford.

[SprungNickel427]

@Michail71

I wish there was a Reverb G3 with eye tracking and pancake lenses!

this! All the stand alones have their place but in sim use it is irrelevant. Stand alone units bring compromise, weight, size, batteries etc that complicate things. Please someone give me 105’ FOV Pancakes, micro OLED or Micro LED Local dimming, eye tracking and G2 comfort. stop trying to be every thing to everyone. G3… HP… if you’re still alive…

[Michail71]

@SunlitAlpaca141

Also I can say that my PCVR performance with MSFS improved quite a bit when I replaced my old win10 pc (i9 9900k/rtx3090/32Gb 3000ram) 6 months ago with an nice new win11 pc (i9 13900k/rtx4090/32Gb 5200ram). Also, I have yet to notice any significant so-called compression artifacts with either Link or Air Link. I do find that distant objects tend to be a little clearer, and pop in a little earlier with Link but I still prefer the freedom of wireless with Air Link.

The sad thing is my build was a $3,500 system a year and a half ago.

I’d probably be better of spending the money on a 4090 as a little bit over oversampling in either of those headsets can yield stunning clarity (if one is willing to have 7fps)! If I could tune sharpness more with the 4090 and still live with 35-45 FPS I’d probably be very happy.

I wish I knew the cause of the jittery video. I heard a reviewer of the Pimax Crystal complaining about the same thing. But he had it on all the cards he tested with, up to the 4090. I had the jitter no mater how low the quality settings were.

There is some brain adaption that goes on too. If someone puts in a ton of time at 70+ fps they probably aren’t going to deal well with sharpening up their video.

The G2’s sweet spot kind of feels natural to me now, like wearing glasses that need tweaking. I don’t like it but I seem to be able to ignore it enough.

[Michail71]

@SprungNickel427

this! All the stand alones have their place but in sim use it is irrelevant. Stand alone units bring compromise, weight, size, batteries etc that complicate things. Please someone give me 105’ FOV Pancakes, micro OLED or Micro LED Local dimming, eye tracking and G2 comfort. stop trying to be every thing to everyone. G3… HP… if you’re still alive…

Oh man, that’s a dream

I still Love my Quest 2 as stand alone system. But I don’t think Meta puts much effort on the PC VR experience.

[SprungNickel427]

sounds like the Bigscreen Beyond might be that ticket. $1300 after you get everything sorted.

[Kjaye767]

I’ve got both a Quest Pro and a Reverb G2, and had a 10850K, 3090 and now have a 13900K, 4090.

Your intial experience with the Quest Pro is pretty much identical to mine, at least with Microsoft Flight Simulator.

However, 9 months on, I wouldn’t touch my Reverb G2 again, I consider it near unusable compared to the Pro.

A 13900K, 4090 really brings the Pro to life. There are also ways to improve all other aspects of the Pro.

For comfort, it just needs a headstrap. I use the Creative Studioform top strap, it’s super comfortable for me now. The light leakage doesn’t need to be an issue at all. Just buy an IR illuminator and you can play in the dark. Having no facial interface, nothing touching your face and no lens fog is a revelation.
I love the open design of the Quest Pro so much.

Not sure how well you set the Quest Pro up. You need to use the Link cable for best visual quality, and then run the Oculus Debug tool, to set the encode bitrate to at least 400 to eliminat the compression.
You also need to run it at a higher resolution than a 3080Ti can manage to bring it up to the Reverb G2 centre clarity.
I run mine on maximum resolution in the Rift app, 5408 x 2736, and then 110 render resolution in MSFS itself. It’s about 3300 x 3200 per eye I think.

You have to set up the sharpening correctly as well, normal, not quality in the debug tool, as quality blurs things for some reason, and turn down the FSR sharpening in sim. Don’t use OpenXRtoolkit sharpening as it conflicts with Meta’s own in the debug tool.

The end results are superb relative to the G2, essentially G2 image quality, across the entire field of view, with better colours, contrast and blacks, much wider horizontal FOV.

The G2 still has better audio, and performs slightly better on the same hardware.

If you did return the Pro, I think, assuming you weren’t intending to upgrade your PC, that was probably a wise decision. I couldn’t make the Pro as good as the G2 on a 3090 in MSFS.

I can tell you, if I were you’d I’d upgrade my PC rather than a headset next. The 4090 is an incredible GPU. My system has improved by 85 percent in flatscreen and 101 percent in VR according to all the 3D Mark benchmarks. I have more than double my VR benchmark fps.
In MSFS it runs really well, so smooth, stunning visuals.

I strongly recommend a better GPU rather than a high priced headset, you just won’t get the best out of it in MSFS with your current setup.

[Michail71]

That’s what I figured, I think the Quest Pro needs the 4090 to get through the link cable compression and super sample up enough to deal with the lower resolution. But it’s crazy there is only once video card powerful enough to drive it at a resolution of 3840x1800.

As for what’s next, I’m not sure I’d want to waste some of the 4090’s power on making up for the link cable. I’ve suspected some of it could just be the Rift software. Back when I used a Quest 2, Virtual Desktop provided a way better experience.

I’ve been feeling iffy about the Pimax Crystal Star Wars helmet.

I have a really nice comfort strap for the G2 I was able to put on the pro. It basically converts a headset to a soft hat. It went from a torture device to mild headache for me.

[Kjaye767]

To be clear, I’m not running the Pro at 3840 x 1800. It’s supposed to be run at 2896 x 2618 per eye to correct for barrel distortion and provide a properly rendered image. For reference the Reverb G2 has a panel resolution of 4320 x 2160, and barrel distortion corrected to 3200 x 3100 per eye or 6400 x 3100 total resolution.

In MSFS I actually run the render resolution at 110 percent so my Quest Pro is running at 3185 x 2880 or 6370 x 2880 total resolution.

This gets the Pro very close to as sharp as what my G2 looked like with the 3090 in its tiny central cone of clarity, but that clarity is extended across the entire screen, meaning it’s a night and day upgrade over the G2.

However, as I say, you need a 4090 to drive that.

You’ll run into the same issue with the Bigscreen Beyond and Pimax Crystal with a 3080Ti. Those headsets need a 4090 to run at their barrel distortion corrected resolutions. If you don’t have a 4090 you’re better off sticking with your Reverb G2 and upgrading your GPU next. The GPU upgrade will make the G2 look much better as well of course.

If you primarily use VR just for flight sims, I’d say stick with a Display Port headset, but don’t invest in a higher spec one than your G2 until you sort the GPU.

I would pick a 4090 for £1600 over a Pimax Crystal for £1600 in your positon all day long. The 4090 will improve your VR experience more than a higher resolution panel that you can’t properly take advantage of.

[Michail71]

Makes sense!

Although the Fresnel lenses in the G2 are driving me crazy. I just want pancake lenses, oled-ish panels, and a simple Display Port connection. Basically a Reverb G3.

[Kjaye767]

Yes, that would be ideal. It’s a shame HP pulled out of the VR market

Sadly, no major company is offering Display Port anymore, all headsets have to have standalone capabilities to make them commercially viable, so the era of Display Port only wired headsets is over. You’ll have to buy from an indie company like Bigscreen, as Meta, Pico, HTC have all abandoned DP and HP are no longer in the VR business.

The Quest 3 for £500 might be a good choice. Faster XR2 Gen 2 chip should allow for better PCVR encoding than Quest 2/Pro, it has the Quest Pro lenses, and its resolution is 4128 x 2208 or 2064 x 2208 per eye, very close to the G2 2160 x 2160 per eye or 4320 x 2160 total.

[Michail71]

Keeping my eye on the Q3! Although I’m very suspicious of their PCVR software and commitment to it.

I’m also semi locked in to the apex of the DDR4 chipset, at least for a bit. That’s a whole other topic.

But I’m gathering a 4090 will blow me away, even on the G2,

[Precog6268]

I upgraded from a G2 to the quest pro a couple of weeks ago. During the first week i threatened to return it a few times. It took a lot of tweaking, but its working really well now…and im happy with the upgrade. I still think the G2 is a great PCVR headset if your on a budget.

As everyone else reports, the clarity of the panel from edge to edge is amazing. Not as sharp in the center as the G2. Colors, vibrancy, and FOV are better as well. I also like the fact that the lenses dont fog up like the G2 does. Motion reprojection, using ASW, is vastly superior as well. Comfort is fine, but could be better. Sound, however, is much better on the G2.

The main reason im sticking with the quest pro is performance. Im getting much better performance in MSFS compared to the G2. This is especailly true since using the FOV multipliler in the Oculus Tray Tool. I did a benchmark last night and i gained almost 20% improvement in FPS (from 30fps to 35fps). I run the headset at 80Hz, and with the flying i do im usually over the 40fps mark. With ASW enabled, its butter smooth on my system (5800x3d, nvidia 3080). I also fly DCS, and with eye tracking, quad views rendering and the FOV multiplier im getting double the performance in DCS. Hovering around the 90fps mark!

If your getting juttery video, then you need to check your quest link settings and using a good link cable. Im using the official one. Here are my OCULUS home and OTT settings.

Hope this helps.