The state of VR technology

John117-

n00b
Joined
Jun 5, 2021
Messages
8
The Virtual Reality Technology is crossing a time very strange for us hardcore gamers. VR is grown like adoption thanks a Quest 2, that It's a amazing device for quality/price. Meanwhile the VR technology seems stopped. Ok, so We have streaming solution like Air Link/Virtual Desktop, rather than device standalone at 299 dollars. I think that if on the one hand it is a good thing the price and standalone market, on the other hand, the technology is stopped. PCVR seems stopped, Index wasn't a breakthrough, G2 also. I'm afraid that many manufacturers will wants developed standalone device, They could limit their plans for PCVR. In this moment I don't see close technology like Half Dome prototype, that include Eye Tracking, Foveated Rendering and Variofocal lenses. I could say that We're into a era PS2 for VR. I say "Thank u" Zuck for that you're doing with the VR, but the decision of abbandoned PCVR, It could be catastrophic for us entushiast VR. The power of the SoC don't compete with the GPU/CPU at the moment, obviously. This scenario could downgrade the VR in the mainstream?

What do you think?





View attachment oculus-rift-10-2015-mag-opener.webp
 

Skarth

Gawd
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
535
I'm failing to see what you mean by the technology being "stopped"? Theres still new headsets in development, new games, new methods of tracking going on.

PCVR is more popular than ever.
 

gsilver

Gawd
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
644
I'm failing to see what you mean by the technology being "stopped"? Theres still new headsets in development, new games, new methods of tracking going on.

PCVR is more popular than ever.
Though really, is there anything to even upgrade to if you've got a Vive Pro with a wireless adapter and Index controllers?
Changing anything in that setup will mean a downgrade on some level*, and the newest bit of that kit is from mid-2019.

* : Like giving up wireless for a higher resolution screen, oled with most headsets, and latency if you used a Quest 2 wirelessly. The Vive Pro 2 can't even match the same resolution as the Pro 1 with the wireless adapter.
 

John117-

n00b
Joined
Jun 5, 2021
Messages
8
Though really, is there anything to even upgrade to if you've got a Vive Pro with a wireless adapter and Index controllers?
Changing anything in that setup will mean a downgrade on some level*, and the newest bit of that kit is from mid-2019.

* : Like giving up wireless for a higher resolution screen, oled with most headsets, and latency if you used a Quest 2 wirelessly. The Vive Pro 2 can't even match the same resolution as the Pro 1 with the wireless adapter.
I'm failing to see what you mean by the technology being "stopped"? Theres still new headsets in development, new games, new methods of tracking going on.

PCVR is more popular than ever.
After Rift/Vive gen (I mean 1 gen of VR headset) what's the breakthrough in the VR technology?
Quest was breakthrough but the quality of videogames is less rather before. Half Life Alyx is released after Valve Index.
I'm not say that the segment standalone is wrong, I think that It's a amazing for the mass market. But the investment in PCVR are limited, now. HTC released Vive Pro 2, It's not a breakthrough, sorry.
Facebook could use PCVR and the line Rift like test bench for the new technologies. They has money e know-how but They don't want.
In this moment the only "GOD" for us hardcore gamers VR, It's Valve. They could launch a new Index with exciting technologies like Eye Tracking and the new tech for Full Body Tracking.

And hey, what's up at the FBD in Oculus company?
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,636
I used to be big into VR then it kinda faded for me. The VR headset image quality and poor games I think are the primary reasons. Half life Alyx was cool, but after about hour 6 into the game it got a bit redundant. Just killing enemies in hallways got old. VR really needs better games.
 

Chief Blur Buster

Owner of BlurBusters
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
144
I used to be big into VR then it kinda faded for me. The VR headset image quality and poor games I think are the primary reasons. Half life Alyx was cool, but after about hour 6 into the game it got a bit redundant. Just killing enemies in hallways got old. VR really needs better games.
I seem to play more on my Quest 2 than on the Rift, thanks to the quick RoomScale setup -- and the superior screendoorfree Quest 2 screen (despite lesser mobile GPU) -- I can tote it along and make any stranger room for up to a 25x25 RoomScale in a mere 10 seconds in an almost photogrammetry-like scan. And if it has scanned the room before, it auto-recognizes the room, tells me me to push a detected chair/stool out of the way. The multi-room AI RoomScale recognition memory is neat -- even remembers a room in a different country when I go back to it, the instant I put on the headset.

Some games, such as "Star Wars: Tales from Edge of Galaxy" have graphics that reminds me of a GTX 1070 despite being a Snapdragon XR2. Not much of a downgrade at all, given GPU pricing today! And Beat Saber is good winter exercise for Canadian winters. A hell lot more fun than a gym machine. And it makes a great IMAX screen in an airplane seat (BigScreen app with a 4K .MKV file). And virtually visiting my relative playing chess on a virtual table in the "Alcove" app. Pretty much Right Tool for Right Job kinda VR stuff.

I seem to not be playing FPS shooters in VR, just non-VR the PC -- except perhaps Half Life Alyx VR and Superhot VR. The type of apps I now seem to play on VR versus the types of apps I play on PC, are almost as different as PC app use versus smartphone app use. This seems to be the trend, VR creates its own niche of apps that traditional PC gamers may be mostly uninterested in; but well-loved by masses (e.g. the fishing app and the minigolf app is mega-popular, for example).

What it seems is that the VR mainstreaming is its own flavours of types of games people play, almost as dramatically different as PC games versus smartphone games. Oftentimes, longtime FPS players just download VR games that seem most similar to the games they play on PCs, but apparently, that isn't the popularization trend that VR is going in. A non-gamer friend of mine insta-bought a Quest 2 after listening to classical music on a virtual beach.

Seeing what I am witnessing of others and my own use -- I have to admit that the mass-market VR that Quest 2 is going in, is probably the Way of the Future -- seeing iPad-easy-to-setup headsets -- and that a future Steam Standalone VR, as well as a theoretical Standalone Android VR, as well as the rumored Apple VR, will probably follow a hybrid/standalone mold. High-quality FALD VR LCDs as well as Apple M2-league GPUs with frame rate amplification tech, will probably make a large difference.

PCVR will certainly improve, but marketshare is probably somewhat stalled for 2-3 years in terms of growth of the pie (VR market share). With the GPU crypto shortages, the VR market is more rapidly maturing via standalones now, thanks to their super-easy-setups, and PCVR will catch up when the boom of developers gets their hands wet on the standalones and powerful 3080+ series RTX GPUs are cheap again, especially after the new TSMC 2nm-3nm fabs built in the USA. A wild card is what Apple is planning to shock the VR ecosystem with.

For the next 2 years, chip fab shortages and GPU tulips. A boom of VR developers is still happening. The same developers will be able to program both on PC and standalones. Many developers will be able to program wireless UE5-quality PCVR once options presents (e.g. 8K streaming over H.266 over WiFi 6E by the second half of decade) but, today, these developers are getting their hands wet on standalones such as Quest 2.

Meanwhile, for better immersion, my #1 feature in any future VR headset is a locally dimmed VR LCD via a MicroLED FALD (preferably 10,000+ LED count), with a wide-gamut quantum dot backlight. I'd pay price multiples for such; I suspect Apple VR may attempt such crazy LED counts. The best VR OLED (2ms MPRT) has 6x more display motion blur than the current VR LCDs (0.3ms MPRT), and I'm more sensitive to motion blur than to the color gamut -- but I would love deep blacks, screendoor-free, great resolution and great gamut -- which does not seem achievable with OLED's due to Talbot-Plateau Theorem, a laws of physics issue (strobed OLED brightness versus strobed LCD brightness) -- so wide-gamut FALD LCD it is. Maybe Index 2 or Quest 3 or Apple VR, who knows?

I'm failing to see what you mean by the technology being "stopped"? Theres still new headsets in development, new games, new methods of tracking going on.
PCVR is more popular than ever.

Market share. I think we're on a temporary GPU-forced PCVR market share plateau because some people I know have given up trying to buy PCVR due to GPU tulip-pricing, and instead got a Quest 2.

Meanwhile, innovations in PCVR continues, I think that meaningfully significant PCVR marketshare growth delayed 2-3 years due to GPU scalper-league pricing. Although used GPU prices have fallen a little bit due to the crypto crash -- but at the GPU price peak, a $299 Quest 2 was generating much better graphics than a $299 real-world-purchase-price graphics card -- supply is a major problem facing PCVR. Most Average Joe's don't like to buy on Kijiji, chase them like sold-out concert tickets, and the Best Buy shelves are bare of VR-quality GPUs, so the "easy GPU purchase" days are on hold -- and the iPad-easy Quest 2 with boxes piled high on a pallet is beckoning. So, many went "hmm, why the hell not?" on the Quest 2.

Now, it's not all that bad. The standalone boom creates bigger numbers of new VR developers that will also bleed over to improved PCVR programming when supply crunches improve.

This is coming from me, an owner of an RTX 3080 GPU.
 
Last edited:

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,125
Seems like the technology for VR is there, but no big GPU to power them. I was hoping for maybe an sli/cf solution. Also I would love for VR to have both options for tracking. I really like the separate tracking like the Rift and Index.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,853
It's definitely advancing, just in a different direction. Cutting the cord is more liberating than I thought it would be, I only use my main PC with wired headset for driving/flying sims now. Otherwise the wire drives me nuts. On nice evenings, I can even take the whole shebang outside and play in my yard - PCVR wireless with no noticeable lag.

I've maintained that we've been at the right level hardware wise for a while now, but games have not caught up. Every AAA release with a 1st person mode should be VR enabled - there's no reason Cyberpunk 2077, f1 2021 or anything released in the last 3 years couldn't have VR enabled at a simple level that 90% of gamers would be happy with. Even then, the next level of VR experience has to emerge, which I think will be with adaptable environments (ie the game environment matches your play area so you no longer worry about locomotion or boundaries, the game keeps you in place. There are a couple of games that have managed it, thrill of the fight sticks out in my mind as one. The hardware is plenty good enough for immersion and suspension of disbelief, it's the software side that needs to catch up. Of course there are small improvements to be made in the hardware, but nothing that's going to be a total game changer anytime soon. Thinking back to the OG rift and Vive, there haven't been any game changing improvements other than visual clarity. Everything else has been pretty minor to insignificant and foveated rendering, eye tracking etc. won't be game changers, just minor improvements.
 

Chief Blur Buster

Owner of BlurBusters
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
144
Seems like the technology for VR is there, but no big GPU to power them. I was hoping for maybe an sli/cf solution. Also I would love for VR to have both options for tracking. I really like the separate tracking like the Rift and Index.
I like the idea of having *both* -- concurrent ability to have inside-out tracking and optional external-tracking.

Comparing the two, I find that the Quest 2 Inside-out tracking (in a brightly light room) is superior to my original Oculus Rift for hands-in-front situations for surgical manipulation right to the submillimeter. In a bright room, you can tell how accurate the Quest 2 "controllers-in-front" tracking is by touching the two controllers together at multiple random points (edges, top, underside, side-side, loop-loop, handle-loop, handle-handle etc) in a brightly lit room -- the controllers are zero-drift and submillimeter-touching each other without clipping/intersecting each other. It's remarkable how good the Quest 2 inside-out tracking has become. External sensors haven't been as accurate for surgical hands-in-front stuff as Quest 2 is in a bright room.

The problem is dark VR play rooms (more jitter than Rift) and behind-the-back situations (loss of tracking), where external sensors will come in. So I would like to have my cake and eat ti too. Inside-out default with optional add-on sensors for improved out-of-view controller tracking, and better dark-room tracking.
 

RagingSamster

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
2,960
All in for sims would be the G2, no?
Or PiMax if fancy money.
For now, quest 2, but I will upgrade when budgets permits if needed, (old eyes are not too particular) I just bought a rig that should run DCS and MSFS decently, it cost slightly over what I could buy it's graphics card for on eBay. I also bought some modules from DCS.. I've been around since
Pong was in beta and I'm blown away by the current vr technology.
 
Last edited:

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,705
For now, quest 2, but I will upgrade when budgets permits if needed, (old eyes are not too particular) I just bought a rig that should run DCS and MSFS decently, it cost slightly over what I could buy it's graphics card for on eBay. I also bought some modules from DCS.. I've been around since
Pong was in beta and I'm blown away by the current vr technology.
Good for you. Have some fun. I guess all-in as always is a variable slider (y)
I found DCS hard core on system requirements for me. Never got around to tweaking as I only tried out the demo. MSFS was very surprisingly nice with what I had. Very happy with it. Project Cars 2 and IL2-Sturmovik have also been VR sim stand-outs for me.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
929
Good for you. Have some fun. I guess all-in as always is a variable slider (y)
I found DCS hard core on system requirements for me. Never got around to tweaking as I only tried out the demo. MSFS was very surprisingly nice with what I had. Very happy with it. Project Cars 2 and IL2-Sturmovik have also been VR sim stand-outs for me.
I MP on Finnish mostly with my rift. You on there?
 

John117-

n00b
Joined
Jun 5, 2021
Messages
8
I seem to play more on my Quest 2 than on the Rift, thanks to the quick RoomScale setup -- and the superior screendoorfree Quest 2 screen (despite lesser mobile GPU) -- I can tote it along and make any stranger room for up to a 25x25 RoomScale in a mere 10 seconds in an almost photogrammetry-like scan. And if it has scanned the room before, it auto-recognizes the room, tells me me to push a detected chair/stool out of the way. The multi-room AI RoomScale recognition memory is neat -- even remembers a room in a different country when I go back to it, the instant I put on the headset.

Some games, such as "Star Wars: Tales from Edge of Galaxy" have graphics that reminds me of a GTX 1070 despite being a Snapdragon XR2. Not much of a downgrade at all, given GPU pricing today! And Beat Saber is good winter exercise for Canadian winters. A hell lot more fun than a gym machine. And it makes a great IMAX screen in an airplane seat (BigScreen app with a 4K .MKV file). And virtually visiting my relative playing chess on a virtual table in the "Alcove" app. Pretty much Right Tool for Right Job kinda VR stuff.

I seem to not be playing FPS shooters in VR, just non-VR the PC -- except perhaps Half Life Alyx VR and Superhot VR. The type of apps I now seem to play on VR versus the types of apps I play on PC, are almost as different as PC app use versus smartphone app use. This seems to be the trend, VR creates its own niche of apps that traditional PC gamers may be mostly uninterested in; but well-loved by masses (e.g. the fishing app and the minigolf app is mega-popular, for example).

What it seems is that the VR mainstreaming is its own flavours of types of games people play, almost as dramatically different as PC games versus smartphone games. Oftentimes, longtime FPS players just download VR games that seem most similar to the games they play on PCs, but apparently, that isn't the popularization trend that VR is going in. A non-gamer friend of mine insta-bought a Quest 2 after listening to classical music on a virtual beach.

Seeing what I am witnessing of others and my own use -- I have to admit that the mass-market VR that Quest 2 is going in, is probably the Way of the Future -- seeing iPad-easy-to-setup headsets -- and that a future Steam Standalone VR, as well as a theoretical Standalone Android VR, as well as the rumored Apple VR, will probably follow a hybrid/standalone mold. High-quality FALD VR LCDs as well as Apple M2-league GPUs with frame rate amplification tech, will probably make a large difference.

PCVR will certainly improve, but marketshare is probably somewhat stalled for 2-3 years in terms of growth of the pie (VR market share). With the GPU crypto shortages, the VR market is more rapidly maturing via standalones now, thanks to their super-easy-setups, and PCVR will catch up when the boom of developers gets their hands wet on the standalones and powerful 3080+ series RTX GPUs are cheap again, especially after the new TSMC 2nm-3nm fabs built in the USA. A wild card is what Apple is planning to shock the VR ecosystem with.

For the next 2 years, chip fab shortages and GPU tulips. A boom of VR developers is still happening. The same developers will be able to program both on PC and standalones. Many developers will be able to program wireless UE5-quality PCVR once options presents (e.g. 8K streaming over H.266 over WiFi 6E by the second half of decade) but, today, these developers are getting their hands wet on standalones such as Quest 2.

Meanwhile, for better immersion, my #1 feature in any future VR headset is a locally dimmed VR LCD via a MicroLED FALD (preferably 10,000+ LED count), with a wide-gamut quantum dot backlight. I'd pay price multiples for such; I suspect Apple VR may attempt such crazy LED counts. The best VR OLED (2ms MPRT) has 6x more display motion blur than the current VR LCDs (0.3ms MPRT), and I'm more sensitive to motion blur than to the color gamut -- but I would love deep blacks, screendoor-free, great resolution and great gamut -- which does not seem achievable with OLED's due to Talbot-Plateau Theorem, a laws of physics issue (strobed OLED brightness versus strobed LCD brightness) -- so wide-gamut FALD LCD it is. Maybe Index 2 or Quest 3 or Apple VR, who knows?



Market share. I think we're on a temporary GPU-forced PCVR market share plateau because some people I know have given up trying to buy PCVR due to GPU tulip-pricing, and instead got a Quest 2.

Meanwhile, innovations in PCVR continues, I think that meaningfully significant PCVR marketshare growth delayed 2-3 years due to GPU scalper-league pricing. Although used GPU prices have fallen a little bit due to the crypto crash -- but at the GPU price peak, a $299 Quest 2 was generating much better graphics than a $299 real-world-purchase-price graphics card -- supply is a major problem facing PCVR. Most Average Joe's don't like to buy on Kijiji, chase them like sold-out concert tickets, and the Best Buy shelves are bare of VR-quality GPUs, so the "easy GPU purchase" days are on hold -- and the iPad-easy Quest 2 with boxes piled high on a pallet is beckoning. So, many went "hmm, why the hell not?" on the Quest 2.

Now, it's not all that bad. The standalone boom creates bigger numbers of new VR developers that will also bleed over to improved PCVR programming when supply crunches improve.

This is coming from me, an owner of an RTX 3080 GPU.
Ok, thanks for your answer, It's very interesting.

It's a strange moment for the GPU market, the speculation is high and this could be one of the cause of decline of PCVR.
Beyond this, Facebook's deleting of the segment Rift is started before this crash of market GPU. The main reason is that Facebook wants more market and a standalone device at 299$ is obviously the right decision for the company. And It's not only for the company, because the mass market's happy to have a product like Quest 2 at 299 dollars. I'm happy to see after few time a device like Quest segment in the market but my post leave some doubts on the next future of this computer science platform.
The powerful of SoC isn't comparable at PCVR powerful. This scenario is negative for the enthusiasts of VR, imho. Because a experience like Half Life Alyx can't be developed only for segment Quest. I think that the VR needs of more AAA games, the last big Game was Alyx (March 2020)- So, I think that the hybrid solution was the best solution: continue Rift Segment for introduce new technologies like Eye Tracking, Variofocal, Fotovead Rendering and developing Full Body Tracking.
I hope not but the companies wants developing only more standalone device. The segment Standalone has compromises also for his heart: SoC architecture. For better standalone devices, We needs of better battery.
One of the more important engineering aspect of the SoC is the battery management, more power more consum of energy= less autonomy.
Another example is Full Body Tracking: Facebook in this moment has abbandoned this technology, I think that one of the consequences of the deleting Rift segment. FBD is very important for the VR, maybe not for the mass market.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,853
Ok, thanks for your answer, It's very interesting.

It's a strange moment for the GPU market, the speculation is high and this could be one of the cause of decline of PCVR.
Beyond this, Facebook's deleting of the segment Rift is started before this crash of market GPU. The main reason is that Facebook wants more market and a standalone device at 299$ is obviously the right decision for the company. And It's not only for the company, because the mass market's happy to have a product like Quest 2 at 299 dollars. I'm happy to see after few time a device like Quest segment in the market but my post leave some doubts on the next future of this computer science platform.
The powerful of SoC isn't comparable at PCVR powerful. This scenario is negative for the enthusiasts of VR, imho. Because a experience like Half Life Alyx can't be developed only for segment Quest. I think that the VR needs of more AAA games, the last big Game was Alyx (March 2020)- So, I think that the hybrid solution was the best solution: continue Rift Segment for introduce new technologies like Eye Tracking, Variofocal, Fotovead Rendering and developing Full Body Tracking.
I hope not but the companies wants developing only more standalone device. The segment Standalone has compromises also for his heart: SoC architecture. For better standalone devices, We needs of better battery.
One of the more important engineering aspect of the SoC is the battery management, more power more consum of energy= less autonomy.
Another example is Full Body Tracking: Facebook in this moment has abbandoned this technology, I think that one of the consequences of the deleting Rift segment. FBD is very important for the VR, maybe not for the mass market.

This ignores the fact that the Quest can also do PCVR at high quality. They just converged to a single headset that does both instead of keeping them separate - which makes sense imo given the quality they're able to achieve - and they've invested in that bringing 120hz refresh and wireless tethering, which I'd argue is as game changing as any other recent VR release, having tried it.
 

Chief Blur Buster

Owner of BlurBusters
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
144
Because a experience like Half Life Alyx can't be developed only for segment Quest.
I think the Quest 2 is theoretically powerful enough to run Half Life Alyx at its existing min detail with some foveated-rendering optimizations;

Valve probably should be able to make a standalone headset for it;

From that perspective, it is just a Valve "must sell headsets" thing. In my experience with some newer Quest 2 apps -- I think it is technically possible to port Half Life Alyx to Quest 2 at a slimmed polycount akin to "Minimum Spec" graphics.

If you play a game like "Star Wars: Tales from the Galaxy Edge", it is an open world game like Half Life Alyx with large outdoor spaces with decent detail (for a mobile SoC) and a game like Half Life Alyx can certainly be definitely ported to a Quest 2 at a reduced polygon count / half texture resolution(ish), combined with the centre-foveated rendering that Quest 2 supports, and ILMxLAB utilizes it in the Star Wars game to create 3D worlds as detailed as Half Life Alyx at "Minimum" detail

Mobile SoCs are getting more powerful. There's no reason why Half Life Alyx can't be ported to an M1-processor-league standalone platform. It won't be as graphically fancy as desktop, but the capabilities in a Quest 2 is sufficiently powerful today for a reduced-polycount Half Life Alyx, if Valve dared.

The Quest 2 is capable of being designed to produce a better Half Life Alyx experience, than, say, an older GeForce 960 2GB -- from the Quest 2 open-world games I've been playing.

As I've been saying, certain games on Quest 2 have been aggressively optimized to look like GTX 1070 league -- open world and shadows included. Nominally, the graphics detail of Star Wars on Quest 2 is roughly approximately similar to Half Life Alyx running at minimum detail on a GTX 1060. There will need to be some optimizing of the Half Life Alyx game, but there is enough memory on the 256 GB headsets to hold the whole game -- and enough capability in a Snapdragon XR2 to handle approximately low-to-mid 1000-series graphical-detail games with some foveated-rendering optimizations. Obviously not apples-vs-apples, but it produces similar poly counts and texture details as a low-memory desktop GPU near the minimum specs of Half Life Alyx, configured to minimum detail.

Now, extrapolate that to Apple M1 or a future Quest 3 -- and now the envelope just simply beckons Half Life Alyx games on standalone.

I think Valve is going to make their standalone SteamVR platform based off AOSP. I fully expect Valve to dive in the standalone market by ~2023-ish. The opportunity to create a new app store sector will be too irresistible to them. Not to sabotage the PCVR sector, but I think Valve is watching Quest 2 and are taking notes for a theoretical hybrid Index 2.

I have been impressed at how rapidly increasingly powerful mobile SoCs are becoming. In some of its optimized games, the graphics is within a stone throw of 900 and low-to-mid 1000s NVIDIA quality -- that ballpark of apparent graphics detail.
 
Last edited:

TheBuzzer

HACK THE WORLD!
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
12,830
vr is def not going away. however advances is slow because of cost and widespread use.

i finally got an oculus quest 2 and it is awesome compared to old 3d glasses etc.


too bad things now a days just cost so much or maybe the rent is just. too damn high
 

John117-

n00b
Joined
Jun 5, 2021
Messages
8
I think the Quest 2 is theoretically powerful enough to run Half Life Alyx at its existing min detail with some foveated-rendering optimizations;

Valve probably should be able to make a standalone headset for it;

From that perspective, it is just a Valve "must sell headsets" thing. In my experience with some newer Quest 2 apps -- I think it is technically possible to port Half Life Alyx to Quest 2 at a slimmed polycount akin to "Minimum Spec" graphics.

If you play a game like "Star Wars: Tales from the Galaxy Edge", it is an open world game like Half Life Alyx with large outdoor spaces with decent detail (for a mobile SoC) and a game like Half Life Alyx can certainly be definitely ported to a Quest 2 at a reduced polygon count / half texture resolution(ish), combined with the centre-foveated rendering that Quest 2 supports, and ILMxLAB utilizes it in the Star Wars game to create 3D worlds as detailed as Half Life Alyx at "Minimum" detail

Mobile SoCs are getting more powerful. There's no reason why Half Life Alyx can't be ported to an M1-processor-league standalone platform. It won't be as graphically fancy as desktop, but the capabilities in a Quest 2 is sufficiently powerful today for a reduced-polycount Half Life Alyx, if Valve dared.

The Quest 2 is capable of being designed to produce a better Half Life Alyx experience, than, say, an older GeForce 960 2GB -- from the Quest 2 open-world games I've been playing.

As I've been saying, certain games on Quest 2 have been aggressively optimized to look like GTX 1070 league -- open world and shadows included. Nominally, the graphics detail of Star Wars on Quest 2 is roughly approximately similar to Half Life Alyx running at minimum detail on a GTX 1060. There will need to be some optimizing of the Half Life Alyx game, but there is enough memory on the 256 GB headsets to hold the whole game -- and enough capability in a Snapdragon XR2 to handle approximately low-to-mid 1000-series graphical-detail games with some foveated-rendering optimizations. Obviously not apples-vs-apples, but it produces similar poly counts and texture details as a low-memory desktop GPU near the minimum specs of Half Life Alyx, configured to minimum detail.

Now, extrapolate that to Apple M1 or a future Quest 3 -- and now the envelope just simply beckons Half Life Alyx games on standalone.

I think Valve is going to make their standalone SteamVR platform based off AOSP. I fully expect Valve to dive in the standalone market by ~2023-ish. The opportunity to create a new app store sector will be too irresistible to them. Not to sabotage the PCVR sector, but I think Valve is watching Quest 2 and are taking notes for a theoretical hybrid Index 2.

I have been impressed at how rapidly increasingly powerful mobile SoCs are becoming. In some of its optimized games, the graphics is within a stone throw of 900 and low-to-mid 1000s NVIDIA quality -- that ballpark of apparent graphics detail.
"I think the Quest 2 is theoretically powerful enough to run Half Life Alyx at its existing min detail with some foveated-rendering optimizations;"
Ok, so, Alyx's not runs native for Quest segment. Because the SoC isn't enough power. The solution would be Alyx low quality. It's a right opinion, but you think if We would have only for Quest. I don't want a near future that It downgrade the quality of VR. We needs to undestand if developers wants works hard for the PCVR or they prefers the segment Standalone also if the quality's not the same.

Maybe Valve's developing a standalone headset, I hope a new hybrid model not a standalone headset. Remember that the main point for compete with Quest line, It's obviously the price. One of the main reason of the success of Quest segment is the price.
I don't know if Valve will can compete with Oculus for that. I have some doubt. I hope that I'm wrong, obviously.

Yes, the SoC's developing a good performances, not like PCVR obviously. The SoC is developed for mobile computing, so, the engineering team must be attention at consumy energy and We needs of improvement in the batteries.

Another thing on Valve: SteamVR store for standalone device will be a amazing opportunity for Valve for have more profit. Yes, I'm agree. I'm excited see the new SoC for a possible headset standalone of Valve. I think that They will not utilize XR2 platform.

I have a question for you: Without Index, would we have had Alyx? I mean that if without a good number of high performance VR, maybe Valve wasn't developing a AAA game like Alyx. Let me know what do you think.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,602
"I think the Quest 2 is theoretically powerful enough to run Half Life Alyx at its existing min detail with some foveated-rendering optimizations;"
Ok, so, Alyx's not runs native for Quest segment. Because the SoC isn't enough power. The solution would be Alyx low quality. It's a right opinion, but you think if We would have only for Quest. I don't want a near future that It downgrade the quality of VR. We needs to undestand if developers wants works hard for the PCVR or they prefers the segment Standalone also if the quality's not the same.

You know the answer to this. Just look at consoles.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
567
VR technology is stagnating because Oculus has cut the legs out of the market with the Oculus quest 2. For its price point, it blows away competitive products from a user experience standpoint, and I am fairly certain that FB is selling them at a loss. Additionally, the lack of AAA game development for VR is preventing any synergistic marketing and social awareness of the platform. Valve is not enough to carry the VR market, you need and additional player, someone big like Microsoft or Apple who is committed to the platform and willing to spend big bucks at considerable risk to drive user adoption.

Furthermore, as mentioned before, the GPU market conditions has prevented cost-effective upgrade paths for gamers wanting to move into the VR space.

I still think that more work needs to be done in UX design for VR platforms, we arent quite there yet with the controllers or software interfaces. The fact that Apple still hasn't entered this space yet speaks volumes to the platform's immaturity.
 
Last edited:

XenIneX

Gawd
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
769
VR technology is stagnating because Oculus has cut the legs out of the market with the Oculus quest 2. For its price point, it blows away competitive products from a user experience standpoint, and I am fairly certain that FB is selling them at a loss.
I don't buy it. VR was stagnant because it was largely priced out of the market. Quest and PSVR show what consumers are actually willing to shell out for, and it's not the >$500 techstraveganzas that enthusiasts pine for. Same reason the markets for decent racing wheels and flightsticks are super-niche: too expensive -> no-one buys -> too expensive.

Sometimes, the pricepoint is the breakthrough. Like how no-one was springing for $300 VR wireless display transmitters, but everyone explodes when AirLink lets you do the same thing on a $50 WiFi router. Maybe if people spent less time lamenting the fact that their headsets didn't have eye tracking modules making them 50% more expensive, and more (gently) leaning on John Carmack to implement that variable refresh rate that he said Quest 2 might be able to handle, people's VR experience would get better way faster than otherwise...

Additionally, the lack of AAA game development for VR is preventing any synergistic marketing and social awareness of the platform. Valve is not enough to carry the VR market, you need and additional player, someone big like Microsoft or Apple who is committed to the platform and willing to spend big bucks at considerable risk to drive user adoption.
True, but I'd say VR's core problem is that it's intrinsically a hard sell to the uninitiated. Like, "more immersive!" is a pretty unconvincing argument if someone doesn't understand how much more immersive it is. And when most of your defining mechanics are, "you can walk around, and pick stuff up!", you're not exactly impressing the plebs.


As for AAA powerhouses, I'm not sure who has the heft to get the job done. I mean, Valve has a certain rep for quality and cachet, but they don't have nearly the volume output to be anything more than an occasional pleasant surprise -- we need titles-per-year, not years-per-title. Microsoft spends more time fumbling in the game-space than executing, and it's hit-or-miss whether they could moneyhat this one -- you need vision to innovate. Apple could get there, but it'd probably be kinda pricey, and I'm tired of listening to nerds whine about Apple doing the same things as every other semi-proprietary platform holder. Nintendo's withered-technology approach does not lend itself to bleeding-edge hardware. I guess Sony's probably the big name I'd "trust" to be the bedrock of something like this, but you'd have to convince them to go all-in -- as opposed to going full-Vita.

Besides that who's left? EA showing Facebook what a real predatory business model looks like? Ubisoft with a stupid Assassin's Creed "Abstergo" lore tie-in? Good-guy Konami, rising from the ashes to redeem itself? Some new VC firm buying Atari's desiccated husk to try and squeeze one last dollar out of the name? Google's next stillbirth? Or does Devolver Digital's 2022 E3 presentation get really nuts?

Furthermore, as mentioned before, the GPU market conditions has prevented cost-effective upgrade paths for gamers wanting to move into the VR space.
The silicon shortage is a relatively new thing, and the PC-side barrier to entry has been low enough, for long enough, that I don't think it's an issue -- except insofar as the size of the PC gaming enthusiast market is. I mean, any $200 video card from the last 5 years -- or $300 from the prior 2 years -- will beat minimum requirements. I think the fact that the Quest 2 is blowing up in spite of current graphics hardware shortages is proof enough that something else was the constraining factor.

I still think that more work needs to be done in UX design for VR platforms, we arent quite there yet with the controllers or software interfaces. The fact that Apple still hasn't entered this space yet speaks volumes to the platform's immaturity.
Not wrong.
 

Chief Blur Buster

Owner of BlurBusters
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
144
VR was stagnant because it was largely priced out of the market.
That part, I certainly agree with — to a certain extent.

However, a large part is convenience.

the PC-side barrier to entry has been low enough, for long enough, that I don't think it's an issue -- except insofar as the size of the PC gaming enthusiast market is. I mean, any $200 video card from the last 5 years -- or $300 from the prior 2 years -- will beat minimum requirements.
I disagree that “PC side barrier has been low enough”. Even if GPU shortage never happened, Quest 2 would still be popular.

Know why?

I can walk into a random empty room — no computer, no sensors, headset never been in room — put the headset on, and play a game within 10 seconds.

That amazing convenience has allowed me to RoomScale ANY room spontaneously.

I can even walk into a brightly lit empty gym or conference room, and turn it into a 25x25 roomscale that’s (on average) more accurate than almost any Oculus Rift RoomScale setup I’ve ever used. The only tracking limitation is behind my back. But bright rooms make my hand tracking millimeter accurate, moreso accurate than my Oculus Rift. True 6dof with just the headset, no computer, no sensors, any room size.

I’ve even went bowling my backyard at night too — full running bowl freedom with no teleportation needed, as I can emulate the full bowling alley walkabout area.

All 100% spontaneous, cordless, 25 foot x 25 foot spontaneous 10 second roomscale setup — thanks to photogrammetry-like RoomScale autoconfigure.

And I don’t have to ask people to leave a room - I just go to a different room (even one that has had never had RoomScale) and begin playing VR. Or bring it to family/friend and use Quest 2 built-in WiFi chromecaster to let others watch the VR player view on their TV. Or bring your iPad/smartphone along and stream to the Oculus app on your device for them to watch if you can’t chromecast to their TV. As the Quest 2 user borrow your their for a bigger roomscale than your home (while letting them play too). Quest 2 makes VR less of a solitary activity with these neat watch-along features, spontaneous RoomScale anywhere, chromecasting built-in OS feature, and high ease (easy to tutor the player since you’re watching-along) makes it the world’s easiest “teach a VR newbie” RoomScale headset. So a much more funly-shared experience.

It even uses AI to automatically recognize the room, to automatically load the correct RoomScale memory. Even if it’s in a family’s room in another country.

Spontaneous-convenient RoomScale outweighs my very own RTX 3080 part of the time.

I can BeatSaber in whatever damn room I feel like BeatSabering within, in a mere 10 seconds flat. And if I’m within WiFi recpeptionshot, I can PCVR in any room not too far from my WiFi router. But obviously, many takealong games means I can play games visiting friends, family, hotel room, airplane seat, or anywhere I feel like spontaneously setting up a sitdown/standup/RoomScale game in.

No RoomScale reconfiguring needed, it automatically reconizes the room and loads the RoomScale layout for the room I currently play in.

And I don’t have to ask people to leave a room - I just go to a different room (even one that has had never had RoomScale) and begin playing VR.

Or bring it to family or friend and use Quest 2 built-in WiFi chromecaster to let others watch the VR player view on their TV. Or bring your iPad/smartphone along and stream to the Oculus app on your device for them to watch if you can’t chromecast to their TV.

As the Quest 2 user borrow your their for a bigger roomscale than your home (while letting them play too). Quest 2 makes VR less of a solitary activity with these neat watch-along features, spontaneous RoomScale anywhere, chromecasting built-in OS feature, and high ease (easy to tutor the player since you’re watching-along) makes it the world’s easiest “teach a VR newbie” RoomScale headset. So a much more funly-shared experience.

Can ANY other VR headset do this — truly spontaneous near-zero-configure RoomScale that consistently works? We need more competition for Facebook, stat.

This is why only half of my PCVR is internal-GPU generated, and why only half of my VR is RTX 3080 generated. I can’t do a 25x25 RoomScale in my house, but I can use my whole backyard for that (after sunset — Quest 2 doesn’t like light). Emoty parking lot with enough contrast (surrounding trees at edge) also work as a stand-in 25x25 spontaneous RoomScale.

Imagine bowling or minigolf or true walkabout VR, with no teleporting, no Guardian or Chaperone grid showing up. True Holodecky feel with actual RUN (not just walk, not just jog), like what I do to throw a bowling ball, with no fear of crashing into a wall.

To top it off, the Quest 2 GPU is more powerful than many of the $200-$300 PC GPUs, so having a whole headset for the price of a less capable low-end GPU, is pretty golden and priceless — it’s frankly jawdropping how they crammed $3K worth of tech (2015 prices) into a $300 gadget. Cameras. AI. Photogrammetry. 6dof. GPU that can run Crysis at high frame rates (if it was ported to it). True 0.3ms MPRT near-4K screen. Even hand tracking that syncs all 10 digits (you fold one finger, your VR hands folds that finger). It’s a tech masterclass what is crammed into a single-unit without any externals!

Thusly, I really want to see more competition for Facebook — it’s a bit scary, because THIS (my Quest 2) is that addictive. Any playspace can be a RoomScale in 10 seconds flat! Even far away from a WiFi router and far away from a computer tower.

You try on a friend’s Quest 2 for a 1 minute demo on a sofa; you haven’t tried Quest 2. Bring it out to an empty basketball gym room at your school on weekend, or your backyard (after sunset), or any big space you can temporarily borrow, and you turn it into an instant gigantic RoomScale. Now THAT is a Holodeck feel. With most of the others, you’ve got to setup (e.g. bring a computer or WiFi nearby, possibly setup Lighthouses or Sensors), but with Quest 2 it’s just 10 second RoomScale AutoConfigure.

This is why I want a SteamVR headset or some other competition so Facebook doesn’t have a monopoly on addictively ultraconvenient spontaneous multi-room-memory RoomScale with 10-second setup.

Even Apple VR (if cheap enough) would be welcome competition. No doubt, Apple will probably try to turn 10-second RoomScale setup into 2-second RoomScale setup (just look around the room to have the whole room photogrammetry scanned, and click — you can play immediately).

With eventual automatic passthrough VR for the silhoettes of people who walk into your VR playspace (and these people shows up as humans superimposed into your VR) — work is already being done on this.

Not for Quest 2 (or yet!?) but this is interesting real time photogrammetry work.

It’s possible within ten years, we just put on VR sunglasses-slim headsets to begin playing immediately, safely, anywhere we are. Corny if you try to do it in public — but legitimately convenient if we want to use a different room, or visiting a family, or elsewhere, or 3 players in the same room (auto photogrammetry to put eveyone else as nearby avatars in-VR). Or if you play solo, your kids/roommate/love currently using the living room or your computer room, you just play VR in the guest bedroom or backyard, or turn any random chair/sofa into a sit down VR if you are too tired to RoomScale. Oculus Quest 2 is the tantalizing entry to zero-friction RoomScale-anywhere;

RoomScale was so easy enough that a Quest 2 headset mailed to a nursing home (COVID jail at the time) with no computers there — the 70 year old resident leaped into VR more quickly than setting up an iPad — it’s that low-friction-setup in new locales by inexperienced tech neophytes, being over 10x easier to setup than traditional PCVR headsets with an in-VR WiFi setup wizard & in-VR app store, without any computer nearby.

Thusly, I really want to see more competition for Facebook — it’s a bit scary, because THIS (my Quest 2) is that addictive. Any playspace can be a RoomScale in 10 seconds flat! Even far away from a WiFi router and far away from a computer tower.

Though I am PC Master Race, the Quest 2 RoomScale “convenience factor” is superior to anything else, so much so, that it sometimes outweighs not playing on my actual working and installed RTX 3080 part of the time. (As explained in my Wall Of Text above)

Convenient spontaneous near-zero-effort RoomScale-anywhere is why Quest 2 would still have been popular even without the GPU shortages;
 
Last edited:

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
447
I'm in complete agreement with Chief Blur Buster. I've had a 3090 and an HP Reverb G2 since late 2020. My brother and my best friend both purchased Quest 2's, and convinced me to do so, right after Christmas as they were having a blast playing Top Golf, Walkabout Mini Golf and Eleven Table Tennis. I have not once put my G2 on in the last 8 months since getting my Quest 2 (aside from trying out MSFS 2020, which I'm waiting for the July 27 update to try again). My free time is limited, and I can only game late at night. We play one of the three aforementioned games 5-7x per week and have a complete blast. I put it on, and within 30 seconds we're in the game playing. The graphics are serviceable (nothing like my G2), but the ease of setup, my ability to play it anywhere in my house and the accessibility it brings to play online are unmatched. I can't wait for the Quest 3 to come out.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,688
I'm in complete agreement with Chief Blur Buster. I've had a 3090 and an HP Reverb G2 since late 2020. My brother and my best friend both purchased Quest 2's, and convinced me to do so, right after Christmas as they were having a blast playing Top Golf, Walkabout Mini Golf and Eleven Table Tennis. I have not once put my G2 on in the last 8 months since getting my Quest 2 (aside from trying out MSFS 2020, which I'm waiting for the July 27 update to try again). My free time is limited, and I can only game late at night. We play one of the three aforementioned games 5-7x per week and have a complete blast. I put it on, and within 30 seconds we're in the game playing. The graphics are serviceable (nothing like my G2), but the ease of setup, my ability to play it anywhere in my house and the accessibility it brings to play online are unmatched. I can't wait for the Quest 3 to come out.

Thanks for the tip on Walkabout Mini Golf - good timing as it just released on Steam yesterday, and I purchased for my 3090+G2. I can definitely understand the appeal playing it on Quest 2 when your friends are there and it's a multiplayer title; i.e. I bought a Xbox360 rather than PS3 because my friends were already on Xbox360.

That said, for all the things Quest 2 gets right, there are just too many dealbreakers for me. But it's great we have choices since VR is not zero-sum.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,853
Yeah, to say the VR market has stagnated is to ignore the most popular (by far) headset and ecosystem around it. A decent laptop + Quest 2 = a very good VR experience literally anywhere, anytime with any VR game made outside of a few psvr exclusives, and for under $1500, and you can still get a good experience with only a $300 outlay. That's way more important at this stage of maturity than FOV, eye tracking or whatever marginal resolution improvements 4x the cost gets you for just the headset. The Quest 2 is literally evolving it's capabilities over time, from the initial link at 90hz to now 120hz, hand tracking, air link etc. with the same $300 hardware, which really shows that there is tons of work happening (and left to happen) just on the software side. VRR on VR seems a no-brainer, I don't fully understand why it hasn't been done yet tbh.

Of course, there's still room in the market for the Varjo VR3 and the like. The high end keeps improving, but the evolution curve is a bit slower than it was. Everything technological is like that, the biggest steps happen early on. Look at the Rift vs. the DK1, now that was a massive leap. The Quest 2 to the Rift isn't quite the same massive leap, but things are maturing so the steps are smaller but more frequent. We may get another period of accelerated improvement but I think we need software to catch up and perhaps some more compute power for that to happen.
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,292
Yeah, to say the VR market has stagnated is to ignore the most popular (by far) headset and ecosystem around it. A decent laptop + Quest 2 = a very good VR experience literally anywhere, anytime with any VR game made outside of a few psvr exclusives, and for under $1500, and you can still get a good experience with only a $300 outlay. That's way more important at this stage of maturity than FOV, eye tracking or whatever marginal resolution improvements 4x the cost gets you for just the headset. The Quest 2 is literally evolving it's capabilities over time, from the initial link at 90hz to now 120hz, hand tracking, air link etc. with the same $300 hardware, which really shows that there is tons of work happening (and left to happen) just on the software side. VRR on VR seems a no-brainer, I don't fully understand why it hasn't been done yet tbh.

Of course, there's still room in the market for the Varjo VR3 and the like. The high end keeps improving, but the evolution curve is a bit slower than it was. Everything technological is like that, the biggest steps happen early on. Look at the Rift vs. the DK1, now that was a massive leap. The Quest 2 to the Rift isn't quite the same massive leap, but things are maturing so the steps are smaller but more frequent. We may get another period of accelerated improvement but I think we need software to catch up and perhaps some more compute power for that to happen.

I think the problem with VRR and VR is because of BFI. VR devices use black frame insertion to enhance the clarity of motion because blurry motion in VR is very bad for comfort and motion sickness. And all BFI implementations so far generally have not worked with VRR on. For example on LG OLED TV's you can either have either VRR or BFI on but not both.
 

Chief Blur Buster

Owner of BlurBusters
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
144
I think the problem with VRR and VR is because of BFI. VR devices use black frame insertion to enhance the clarity of motion because blurry motion in VR is very bad for comfort and motion sickness. And all BFI implementations so far generally have not worked with VRR on. For example on LG OLED TV's you can either have either VRR or BFI on but not both.
Theoretically you can have strobed VRR (ala 2nd gen ASUS ELMB SYNC).

And this may become viable over a narrow strobe range completely at frame rates far above flicker fusion threshold.

But right now, frame rate amplification (timewarp, reprojection, etc) is the preferred de-stuttering method for low VR frame rates for many reasons, including turning 45fps into 90fps or turning 30fps into 120fps.

30fps would flicker too much at 30Hz strobe (VRR BFI). I prefer 2nd generation ASW 2.0 which is pretty impressive. I bet the future Quest 3 will be able to have enough horsepower for 6dof reprojection with Z buffer. PCVR will probably move to ASW 3.0 or ASW 4.0 as some kind of DLSS+ASW combo capable of approx 4:1 increases in frame rate at same quality

By the end of the decade,we’ll have great quality at 5:1 or 10:1 frame rate amplification ratios.

Technology is eventually coming to allow 100fps to be amplified to 1000fps, without visible artifacts, it would be superior to both VRR and BFI, as a strobeless blur reduction method. It will be many years before we get there, even with PCVR GPUs, but it’s kind of the holy grail to have “low persistence sample-and-hold” become the blurfree method.

Real life does not have a refresh rate, real life does not BFI, real life does not VRR, so reality simulation (VR, Holodecks, etc) should approach analog frame rates as much as possible, someday.

However, since that requires still-unobtainium frame rates and refresh rates, the motion quality bandaids we do (BFI, strobe, VRR, etc) will have to suffice.
 
Last edited:

Koldur

n00b
Joined
Mar 4, 2021
Messages
13
Maybe a daft question, but what does BFI stand for? Searched for it on Google, but no real answer to be found there. Maybe state it unabbreviated once and after that write it down abbreviated? Makes it a more open conversation like that ;)
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,602
Maybe a daft question, but what does BFI stand for? Searched for it on Google, but no real answer to be found there. Maybe state it unabbreviated once and after that write it down abbreviated? Makes it a more open conversation like that ;)

It means Black Frame Insertion.
 

Chief Blur Buster

Owner of BlurBusters
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
144
Maybe a daft question, but what does BFI stand for?
It means Black Frame Insertion.
Yep. All these technologies do a similar thing to reduce display motion blur, to be much more similar motion clarity to a CRT tube:
  • BFI - Black Frame Insertion (generic term)
  • MBR - Motion Blur Reduction (generic term)
  • Strobe Backlight (generic term)
  • ULMB - Ultra Low Motion Blur (by NVIDIA)
  • ELMB - Extreme Low Motion Blur (by ASUS)
  • DyAc - Dynamic Acceleration (by BenQ ZOWIE)
  • PureXP - Pure Experience (by ViewSonic)
  • Aim Stabilizer (by AORUS Gigabyte)
  • LightBoost - the classic that launched it all for desktop monitors! (by NVIDIA)
  • Blur Busters Approved (okaaaaay, shamless plug - guilty) - the Blur Busters branding offered to high quality strobe backlights.
Also, these terms currently (with today's technology) implies a strobe backlight:
  • "Low Persistence" (generic term)
    Note: It is possible to do low persistence via strobeless methods (e.g. 1000fps 1000Hz)
  • "1ms MPRT" (generic term)
    Note: 1ms MPRT is only possible via strobe backlight at current sub-1000Hz refresh rates.
There are many other brand names. But you get the idea. The goal is to reduce the display motion blur by showing each frame (refresh cycle) much more briefly. It's metaphorically the display equivalent of a faster camera shutter, to eliminate panning blur. TestUFO also has a software-based BFI demo (Newer 4-UFO educational version).

Also, you may have heard of PWM dimming (the unsynchronized version), but a strobe-backlight-optimized PWM is only one precision pulse per Hz, which is more eye-friendly (at framerate=Hz) than unsynchronized backlight-dimming PWM. So you may see menu settings on some models such as "Pulse Width" adjustment setting, since it's a custom motion-blur-reducing PWM. Motion blur is also a source of nausea/headaches, so the motion improvement can outweigh the addition of flicker (of sub-100Hz strobing).

Motion like TestUFO and panning / scrolling / turning in games stop being blurry when you enable these features. These are usually driven by a hardware-based precision sychronized backlight flashing (at exactly 1 pulse per Hz). Another method is physical black refresh cycle between visible refresh cycles (either hardware-based or software-based).

That said, hardware-based BFI via backlight operation is usually superior (on most displays), because it has the advantage of being able to adjust fractions of a refresh cycles, such as 1ms flashes of each refresh cycle. Ideally, you want the hardware to flash the backlight after LCD GtG finishes in total darkness between refresh cycles, so your eyes don't even see the LCD slow pixel response at all; this requires LCD GtG to fully fit between refresh cycles. For a long time, that was not possible until the last decade.

These modes can reduce display motion blur by about ~90%, stopping the display from going blurry when things move. In fact, some strobe modes in the best models can reduce motion blur by over 97% -- from 16.7ms MPRT all the way down to less than 0.5ms MPRT -- to the point that the best strobe modes have less motion blur than an average medium-persistence-decay phosphor CRT tube.

For example, the Quest 2 VR display is a custom built LCD with a strobe backlight (ala BFI) that measures 0.3ms MPRT real-world measurement; capable of clearer motion than a CRT tube. No phosphor decay, no strobe crosstalk, no ghosting, no blur, just a darn near perfect 0.3ms real-world measured MPRT for every pixel color. Very few LCDs have been engineered and tuned that good; but the Quest 2 LCD and Valve Index LCD are among those.

It's possible that you knew at least one of the modes already -- but I still replied anyway for other newcomer readers to gaming monitors still unfamiliar with display motion blur reduction!

In the last 10 years, we've come a long way from naysayers that LCD can never have the motion resolution of CRT.
 
Last edited:
Top