AVP Beta Feedback

[Small Baguette]

First off, thank you so much for supporting the AVP and I really look forward to the continued development of iVRy for AVP.

I got trying the beta yesterday and unfortunately the quality was quite poor. The latency and jitter were high and the image was very low resolution. I messed with a large number of combinations of the settings but could never get anything usuable, this is on a 5800x3D with a 5080 and a dedicated Wifi 7 router.

The setup process was very easy, easiest by far, that part is impressive and the connection seemed solid. It's a very good software package overall, just unfortunately not visually or latency wise usuable for myself currently but hopefully that will improve with the beta.

If there's anything you would like me to try in particular to see if I can get a better experience etc please let me know, it might be something in my setup that is causing issues. For reference I have been able to use ALVR and ClearXR with great results on this same setup.

I don't want this feedback to seem too negative or anything, just it's my honest experience so far but this is just the initial beta so I'm sure that's to be expected. Thanks!

[iVRy]

Thank you for the feedback. What is the result of doing throughput test in the iVRy Settings?

[Small Baguette]

It gave me about 60mb per second.

[iVRy]

And latency? Both for the throughput test and the latency displayed in the status.

[allied.bark-9k]

Hi!

I think many people are having a similar experience, with jitters, low FPS, and shimmering even on decent hardware. It’s not ideal paying for software that doesn’t perform better than the free alternative—ALVR in this case.

That said, as it’s still a beta (post-alpha), I’m looking forward to seeing updates based on this feedback. It would be great to have a SteamVR/OpenVR solution that performs better than ALVR while we wait for native Steam Link VR support on visionOS.

Cheers ✨

[iVRy]

Has anyone that experienced these issues tried the most recent version? Are the issues still present, or have they been resolved?

[allied.bark-9k]

I’m only getting around 45 FPS with a 5060 Ti and 16 GB of VRAM when using iVRy, and the image noticeably shimmers compared with ALVR. With ALVR, I can set the resolution to 3660 × 3200 and still maintain a smooth 90 FPS, so I don’t understand why iVRy won’t go above 45 FPS.

This is just in SteamVR Home — in an actual game, especially something heavily modded like Skyrim VR (Mad God’s Overhaul), performance would be even more demanding. In this rig, this Skyrim modlist gives me little over 80FPS with ALVR and the modlist settings I like (DLAA, performance community shaders, and what-not).

It would be helpful if iVRy offered an option to set the resolution to 3660 × 3200 instead of being limited to 4016 × 3220. Every frame and resource counts.

For now, I’ve had to refund the Premium add-on until I hear that performance has improved beyond what I’m currently getting with ALVR. I also noticed it’s the most expensive of the iVRy drivers, yet it isn’t performing as well as expected.

[iVRy]

Thank you for your feedback. There is a reason why setting the resolution to the panel size does not make sense for headsets that do their own distortion correction:

"VR headsets apply (or have the compositor apply) distortion correction to counteract lens optics. Rendering the scene at exactly native panel resolution supplies only the minimum pixels needed for the final display grid. Because distortion correction + compositing involves non-1:1 pixel mapping and filtering, this results in undersampling artifacts, reduced effective resolution, and suboptimal sharpness.Instead, apps render at a higher resolution (supersampling, often 1.2–1.5× or more in the foveal region, adjusted dynamically). This provides extra pixels that survive the warping, resampling, and foveation processes, delivering maximum perceived clarity after the lenses. Rendering precisely at panel size wastes the opportunity for this compensation and is not optimal."

In addition, the resolution is set proportionately to what VisionOS recommends for the render resolution. Hardcoding preferred resolutions is not the correct way to do things.

[allied.bark-9k]

That’s interesting, in my experience here, it seems to behave differently. With ALVR, using a fixed native resolution looks sharp and stable, whereas iVRy (beta) appears more shimmery even with supersampling, in addition to the performance issues I mentioned. I wonder whether the shimmer might be related to dynamic bitrate management, even when it’s set to constant to 100mb in both iVry and ALVR. I could go with higher bitrate. In my setup, ALVR typically stays under 10 ms latency, often around 6 ms, whereas the iVRy performance tab was showing around 66 ms for some reason.

[iVRy]

Thanks, I'll need to dig around and see what's going on there.

I very much doubt iVRy and ALVR are descibing the same thing with "latency", because what iVRy is describing could never be less than the time for 1 frame (it is the amount of time from when a tracking sample is taken to when the resultant image is decoded - that means sending tracking sample to PC, PC rendering frame, compressing it, sending it back and then the AVP decompressing it).

Perhaps the ALVR latency is the network packet round trip? In that case, comparing it to what you see with the iVRy network test would be more appropriate. If ALVR latency never changes with resolution or bitrate changes, then it simply can't be anything other than round trip time.

[allied.bark-9k]

Thanks for looking into it! I appreciate it a ton! Fair point about the latency metrics potentially measuring different things. I’ll keep an eye out for updates and run some more tests when they’re available. Wishing you happy coding in the meantime!

[LowRider]

Originally posted by allied.bark-9k:

I’m only getting around 45 FPS with a 5060 Ti and 16 GB of VRAM when using iVRy, and the image noticeably shimmers compared with ALVR. With ALVR, I can set the resolution to 3660 × 3200 and still maintain a smooth 90 FPS, so I don’t understand why iVRy won’t go above 45 FPS.

This is just in SteamVR Home — in an actual game, especially something heavily modded like Skyrim VR (Mad God’s Overhaul), performance would be even more demanding. In this rig, this Skyrim modlist gives me little over 80FPS with ALVR and the modlist settings I like (DLAA and what-not).

It would be helpful if iVRy offered an option to set the resolution to 3660 × 3200 instead of being limited to 4016 × 3220. Every frame and resource counts.

For now, I’ve had to refund the Premium add-on until I hear that performance has improved beyond what I’m currently getting with ALVR. I also noticed it’s the most expensive of the iVRy drivers, yet it isn’t performing as well as expected.

In my case it was locked to 45 fps first to, disable motion smoothing in steamVR and you will get 90 fps.

[LowRider]

Originally posted by allied.bark-9k:

That’s interesting, in my experience here, it seems to behave differently. With ALVR, using a fixed native resolution looks sharp and stable, whereas iVRy (beta) appears more shimmery even with supersampling, in addition to the performance issues I mentioned. I wonder whether the shimmer might be related to dynamic bitrate management, even when it’s set to constant to 100mb in both iVry and ALVR. I could go with higher bitrate. In my setup, ALVR typically stays under 10 ms latency, often around 6 ms, whereas the iVRy performance tab was showing around 66 ms for some reason.

In alvr the latency is broken down in different areas - 66 ms is the end-to-end latency (to phonton I blieve)

[LowRider]

Originally posted by allied.bark-9k:

That’s interesting, in my experience here, it seems to behave differently. With ALVR, using a fixed native resolution looks sharp and stable, whereas iVRy (beta) appears more shimmery even with supersampling, in addition to the performance issues I mentioned. I wonder whether the shimmer might be related to dynamic bitrate management, even when it’s set to constant to 100mb in both iVry and ALVR. I could go with higher bitrate. In my setup, ALVR typically stays under 10 ms latency, often around 6 ms, whereas the iVRy performance tab was showing around 66 ms for some reason.

In alvr it really depends what NVENC quality preset you set. Up to 3400 W you probably get away with something like P4, but with higher resolutions (native+) you need to use P1 otherwise the image is also not very stable.

What NVENC quality preset does the ivry app use? Does it automatically adapt when using higher resolutions (like 4096 W)?

[Small Baguette]

Testing again on 1.1.95.

Bandwidth test gave me 60mb at 4ms, system is a 5080 with 5800x3D and using a dedicated router wired to the PC (high quality wifi 7 router, AVP is the only connected wireless device).


4096x3284 resolution
150mbps bitrate
Latency coming in at 70 to 80ms
H265

Image quality was good but the AVP can definitely push a much better image, and I have gotten a better usuable image from ALVR and ClearXR (not meant as a criticism, purely to give a point of reference). At these settings unfortunately the latency is too high and it's not really usable. A lot of potential here though, and it might be specific bottlenecks with my setup or such.

2816x2258 (chosen due to warning message)
100mbps bitrate (chosen due to warning message)
45 to 55ms latency
H265

Resolution is too low to be usable, should I be rendering at a higher resolution and this is just the transport resolution? Will test that next but at least in SteamVr the image is very low res. Latency is still too high even at this lower resolution and bitrate. Am I doing something wrong?


Render 3448x2764
Stream 2816x2258
100mbps
55ms
H264

Image quality seemed about the same as H265 with at 2816x2258. Rendering at a higher resolution didn't have much impact. I'm a bit confused by the recommendation to keep the headset locked to 2816x2258, keeping it at that resolution is honestly unusable visually so I don't understand the intention. I feel like something must be wrong on my end if the intention is to use it at that resolution, for reference I would say a Quest 3 looks visually much better. I hope none of this comes across harshly, just trying to provide honest feedback as I experience it.

Render 3448x2764
Stream 2816x2258
100mbps
50-60ms
H265

Same as the previous test pretty much.

Other notes: Worldscale seems off, controllers feel a bit too small and the floor seems too close (but leaning down and tapping the controller against the floor shows it to be the correct height, as in the controller doesn't go through the floor).

Overall again I must praise the usability of iVRy. The connection experience is excellent, the stream is solid and doesn't break, tuning the settings from within SteamVR is brilliant etc. It's a really well made and "pro" feeling streamer, as of right now the visuals and latency make it not an option for me but I will continue to test updates as they come and hopefully I can make this my go-to option. Thanks!

[iVRy]

Originally posted by Small Baguette:

Testing again on 1.1.94.

Thanks for the feedback. The latest version is 1.1.9.5 (released yesterday) and it would be useful to get your impressions on that version. You should (as the settings probably warned you) be keeping the render and output resolutions the same.