PSVR2 vs the rest ?

[PIT_DEFENDER]

How does this compare to the rest of PC headsets in similar price range ?

[grzegorz77]

Originally posted by PIT_DEFENDER:

PSVR2 vs the rest ?

How does this compare to the rest of PC headsets in similar price range ?

When it comes to quality, the price of the vr2 crushes everything.

But you can buy the discontinued quest 2 even cheaper, unfortunately you will get less.
There are also vr sets used. But you won't find anything even close, at a similar price, even used.

But ps vr2 is not always the best choice, sometimes another vr set will work better. It depends on what games you want to play.

[PIT_DEFENDER]

Originally posted by grzegorz77:

Originally posted by PIT_DEFENDER:

PSVR2 vs the rest ?

How does this compare to the rest of PC headsets in similar price range ?

When it comes to quality, the price of the vr2 crushes everything.

But you can buy the discontinued quest 2 even cheaper, unfortunately you will get less.
There are also vr sets used. But you won't find anything even close, at a similar price, even used.

But ps vr2 is not always the best choice, sometimes another vr set will work better. It depends on what games you want to play.

I was thinking of playing mainstream games like SW Squadrons, Ace Combat, F1, Gran Toursimo, MS Flight Sim, maybe some Fallout or Skyrim, that kinda stuff ;p

I have PSVR1 and I was very happy with it except for the resolution ;p

If you say PSVR has all the qualities of other headsets I guess Ill stick with it :)

[apple cat]

I think currently the software is still flawed (poor tracking quality & other bugs) but I think the OLED display and crystal clear display-port connection more than make up for it. I used to use a quest and the compressed video signal drove me nuts. But its also very subjective. If you were happy with the PSVR1, this will blow that out of the water easily.

[grzegorz77]

Originally posted by apple cat:

I think currently the software is still flawed (poor tracking quality & other bugs) but I think the OLED display and crystal clear display-port connection more than make up for it. I used to use a quest and the compressed video signal drove me nuts. But its also very subjective. If you were happy with the PSVR1, this will blow that out of the water easily.

The tracking should be very good (at rift s level).
Reduce the amount of interference on the bluetooth frequency, and make sure you have very good diffused light (non-direct solar and non-direct led). Slam tracking also doesn't like empty spaces and solid colors.

[apple cat]

Originally posted by grzegorz77:

Originally posted by apple cat:

I think currently the software is still flawed (poor tracking quality & other bugs) but I think the OLED display and crystal clear display-port connection more than make up for it. I used to use a quest and the compressed video signal drove me nuts. But its also very subjective. If you were happy with the PSVR1, this will blow that out of the water easily.

The tracking should be very good (at rift s level).
Reduce the amount of interference on the bluetooth frequency, and make sure you have very good diffused light (non-direct solar and non-direct led). Slam tracking also doesn't like empty spaces and solid colors.

Nah, in comparison to my quest 1 it's far, far worse. My q1 works in low lighting, solid headset and controller tracking. The psvr struggles even in bright lighting conditions with the headset position especially. Its super noticable when creating a play-space. Even after just scanning my room it drifts around like crazy. (often 5-15 cm). If I stay seated and perfectly still it's fine. I guess it makes sense considering this is sony's first inside-out tracking headset so they probably don't have a lot of prior usage data to train on, but I do hope it improves, it gets really annoying.

[grzegorz77]

Originally posted by apple cat:

Originally posted by grzegorz77:

The tracking should be very good (at rift s level).
Reduce the amount of interference on the bluetooth frequency, and make sure you have very good diffused light (non-direct solar and non-direct led). Slam tracking also doesn't like empty spaces and solid colors.

Nah, in comparison to my quest 1 it's far, far worse. My q1 works in low lighting, solid headset and controller tracking. The psvr struggles even in bright lighting conditions with the headset position especially. Its super noticable when creating a play-space. Even after just scanning my room it drifts around like crazy. (often 5-15 cm). If I stay seated and perfectly still it's fine. I guess it makes sense considering this is sony's first inside-out tracking headset so they probably don't have a lot of prior usage data to train on, but I do hope it improves, it gets really annoying.

Based on what you write, it should be much better, use the advice for index, and for slam.
I don't know how the calculation of your height works, but when it fails many vr sets have serious problems.

[Jerricky Jebates]

PSVR2 Totally changed the game for me compared to my meta 2.

[PIT_DEFENDER]

Oh also, does PSVR only work with games I own on steam ?

[grzegorz77]

Originally posted by PIT_DEFENDER:

Oh also, does PSVR only work with games I own on steam ?

Steam does not limit what you run, you can add games from your computer disk.
You can also directly launch the game from a directory on your disc.
If the game supports vr, it will run steam vr on its own, or oculus vr, probably also ps vr app, or you will run it yourself before launching the game.

[PIT_DEFENDER]

Originally posted by grzegorz77:

Originally posted by PIT_DEFENDER:

Oh also, does PSVR only work with games I own on steam ?

Steam does not limit what you run, you can add games from your computer disk.
You can also directly launch the game from a directory on your disc.
If the game supports vr, it will run steam vr on its own, or oculus vr, probably also ps vr app, or you will run it yourself before launching the game.

Good stuff thanks :)

[Extra411]

I was expecting the PSVR2 to be better than Quest 3 all things considered...but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case.

For example, I've been using both for modded Skyrim VR. One would think PSVR2 would have performance advantage since it's direct output from the GPU rather than video streaming on the Quest 3, but that's not how it turned out. PSVR2 via SteamVR actually performed noticeably worse than Quest 3 on Virtual Desktop via VDXR, by a fairly significant margin. To hit 120 fps stable on PSVR2, I had to use DLSS on Balanced setting (this is on a 4090), while Quest 3 could use DLSS in Quality setting with still more headroom left over. I had to test this several times and the performance difference is definitely there.
(Edit: For additional reference, this person also mentioned the performance difference:
https://www.reddit.com/r/skyrimvr/comments/1f8390w/comparison_of_skyrim_vr_mad_gods_overhaul_between/ )

Additionally, in regards in SkyrimVR in particular, PSVR2 has a bug where the edges of the lenses (next to your nose) have black bars, so the rendered image doesn't fill the entire lens. This bug is not present on Quest 3.
(Here are some references to this issue:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/611670/discussions/0/4433318013267801286/
and
https://steamcommunity.com/app/2580190/discussions/0/4766585021981625988/ )


One more thing I noticed is that PSVR2 is most clear in the center of the lens, and the farther you go from the center the more blurry it gets. In short, if you rotate your eyeballs and look at the sides, you'll see that it's blurrier than the center, almost as if there's built-in foveated rendering. This is not the case with the Quest 3, where the entire lens is clear. I don't know if this is a result of lack of eye tracking and whether it's fixable in software or whatnot.

PSVR2 definitely has better colors and deeper blacks compared to the Quest 3, but it's also noticeably blurrier (especially when you take into account the edge blurring I mentioned above). This is a trade off that I didn't particularly anticipate. Of course it also has a much smaller sweet spot than Quest 3.

I also believe Sony made a tremendous mistake by not enabling HDR in PSVR2. Frankly HDR looked fantastic on the PS5 (such as in GT7), and in an ideal situation I would want it supported on the PC. Before people say "but most VR games don't support HDR", keep in mind that nVidia's AI RTX HDR works wonderfully for 2D games, and if Sony, Valve, and nVidia worked together I have no reason to suspect that it can't be done on PSVR2.

In summary, PSVR2 is NOT a definite win over Quest 3, with both being close enough in price. It's not like Quest 3 doesn't have its own share of problems either (Meta still hasn't fixed the random white pixels while streaming), but at this point I feel like Quest 3 has a slight edge if for nothing else other than the performance advantage.

[Jerricky Jebates]

Originally posted by Extra411:

I was expecting the PSVR2 to be better than Quest 3 all things considered...but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case.

For example, I've been using both for modded Skyrim VR. One would think PSVR2 would have performance advantage since it's direct output from the GPU rather than video streaming on the Quest 3, but that's not how it turned out. PSVR2 via SteamVR actually performed noticeably worse than Quest 3 on Virtual Desktop via VDXR, by a fairly significant margin. To hit 120 fps stable on PSVR2, I had to use DLSS on Balanced setting (this is on a 4090), while Quest 3 could use DLSS in Quality setting with still more headroom left over. I had to test this several times and the performance difference is definitely there.
(Edit: For additional reference, this person also mentioned the performance difference:
https://www.reddit.com/r/skyrimvr/comments/1f8390w/comparison_of_skyrim_vr_mad_gods_overhaul_between/ )

Additionally, in regards in SkyrimVR in particular, PSVR2 has a bug where the edges of the lenses (next to your nose) have black bars, so the rendered image doesn't fill the entire lens. This bug is not present on Quest 3.
(Here are some references to this issue:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/611670/discussions/0/4433318013267801286/
and
https://steamcommunity.com/app/2580190/discussions/0/4766585021981625988/ )


One more thing I noticed is that PSVR2 is most clear in the center of the lens, and the farther you go from the center the more blurry it gets. In short, if you rotate your eyeballs and look at the sides, you'll see that it's blurrier than the center, almost as if there's built-in foveated rendering. This is not the case with the Quest 3, where the entire lens is clear. I don't know if this is a result of lack of eye tracking and whether it's fixable in software or whatnot.

PSVR2 definitely has better colors and deeper blacks compared to the Quest 3, but it's also noticeably blurrier (especially when you take into account the edge blurring I mentioned above). This is a trade off that I didn't particularly anticipate. Of course it also has a much smaller sweet spot than Quest 3.

I also believe Sony made a tremendous mistake by not enabling HDR in PSVR2. Frankly HDR looked fantastic on the PS5 (such as in GT7), and in an ideal situation I would want it supported on the PC. Before people say "but most VR games don't support HDR", keep in mind that nVidia's AI RTX HDR works wonderfully for 2D games, and if Sony, Valve, and nVidia worked together I have no reason to suspect that it can't be done on PSVR2.

In summary, PSVR2 is NOT a definite win over Quest 3, with both being close enough in price. It's not like Quest 3 doesn't have its own share of problems either (Meta still hasn't fixed the random white pixels while streaming), but at this point I feel like Quest 3 has a slight edge if for nothing else other than the performance advantage.

I mean its subjective ofc, but I also had the quest 2 and then tried the quest 3, after playing the psvr2 I sold the quest 2 and then got a refund on the quest 3. It is what it is. I'd never ever touch a non-oled screen after this point. Many of your issues are because psvr2 just recently came to pc and has issues they need to fix, while quest has been on pc for years.

[Extra411]

I believe whichever headset you prefer is indeed subjective, however certain characteristics are quite objective, such as the overall image clarity. Quest 3 is objectively sharper than PSVR2. This particular post has some image comparisons:
https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1eoe8ic/psvr2_vs_quest_3_pcvr_through_the_lens/
And my own experiences also reflect this.

Personally, I'd prefer OLED over LCD, especially since my modded SkyrimVR is VERY dark - at night and inside dungeons it's almost pitch black 80% of the time, so OLED really helps here. But the trade offs are also substantial: performance and sharpness (and in skyrim's case, a particular bug), and it's enough for me to lean towards picking up the Quest 3 headset when I want to play SkyrimVR. Maybe the reverse could be true for another game. But at least in my experience, I certainly can't call PSVR2 a clear winner.

[Jerricky Jebates]

Originally posted by Extra411:

I believe whichever headset you prefer is indeed subjective, however certain characteristics are quite objective, such as the overall image clarity. Quest 3 is objectively sharper than PSVR2. This particular post has some image comparisons:
https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1eoe8ic/psvr2_vs_quest_3_pcvr_through_the_lens/
And my own experiences also reflect this.

Personally, I'd prefer OLED over LCD, especially since my modded SkyrimVR is VERY dark - at night and inside dungeons it's almost pitch black 80% of the time, so OLED really helps here. But the trade offs are also substantial: performance and sharpness (and in skyrim's case, a particular bug), and it's enough for me to lean towards picking up the Quest 3 headset when I want to play SkyrimVR. Maybe the reverse could be true for another game. But at least in my experience, I certainly can't call PSVR2 a clear winner.

Its not objective though. Thinking an image looks better is always subjective as some people don't like sharper images. The performance is also subjective too, as some people play at different detail and resolution. Also have different rigs. I have a 4090, all my VR games play at 120HZ with certain setting i "prefer". So obviously I dont have the same issue as you.

[Extra411]

No, you're conceptually confused.

Whether one image is sharper than the other IS objective.
Whether one PREFERS sharper image is subjective.

Performance differential is also NOT subjective. 120 fps vs 90 fps at the same settings is an objective difference. 4090 is objectively faster than 4080. Whether you PREFER 90 fps or 120 fps is subjective.

Lastly, there are plenty of VR games where a 4090 is insufficient for 120 hz refresh rate at native res. Modded SkyrimVR being one of them, but certainly not the only one.