Occulus or Vive
Discussion
Looking to upgrade to VR, mainly for PC2,AC, DCS & War Thunder flight sims, so no real jumping about with arms waving like a loony 
All those games are via Steam,except DCS, and I wonder if the Rift will do OK for them all. I know the Vive will be compatible with all Steam stuff,will the Occulus?
Is one particularly better than the other?
Would prefer the OR as it saves me some cash for a new HOTAS
Cheers
ETA:Can you wear glasses under them?Or do they adapt to your prescription(specs are varifucals)
All those games are via Steam,except DCS, and I wonder if the Rift will do OK for them all. I know the Vive will be compatible with all Steam stuff,will the Occulus?
Is one particularly better than the other?
Would prefer the OR as it saves me some cash for a new HOTAS
Cheers
ETA:Can you wear glasses under them?Or do they adapt to your prescription(specs are varifucals)
Edited by kowalski655 on Friday 21st September 21:47
As long as you have the latest windows version that supports WMR, and a fast video card, look at getting a windows mixed reality headset: no external sensors, and it works with glasses too. Steam has an extra App for WMR headsets. I drive PC2, AC, and R3E in VR and it is brilliant.
I have this one: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-Reality-Headset-Wire...
There are similar ones from Samsung and Lenovo, and HP too, but they're all built after the Microsoft specification, there is not much difference between them.
VR is a game changer, at least in driving sims: the first time you drive out of the pits in VR mode, it is just sooo fantastic, I can't put it into words, and after that you'll be ruined forever when comparing VR with a flat screen. On my system it runs superbly: I have an i5 6600K @ 4.6Gb, 16Gb memory, and a GTX 1080 video card. You really need something with around those specs so that it really runs well, but then you need a hefty video card for triple screens too, and a VR headset is cheaper
I have this one: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-Reality-Headset-Wire...
There are similar ones from Samsung and Lenovo, and HP too, but they're all built after the Microsoft specification, there is not much difference between them.
VR is a game changer, at least in driving sims: the first time you drive out of the pits in VR mode, it is just sooo fantastic, I can't put it into words, and after that you'll be ruined forever when comparing VR with a flat screen. On my system it runs superbly: I have an i5 6600K @ 4.6Gb, 16Gb memory, and a GTX 1080 video card. You really need something with around those specs so that it really runs well, but then you need a hefty video card for triple screens too, and a VR headset is cheaper
Edited by GuitarTech on Friday 21st September 22:48
I had a WMR headset, the HP one, it was okay but I returned it and picked up a Rift instead which I massively prefer.
The only WMR headset with headphones built in is the Samsung and that one is a lot more expensive than the rest although it does have the bonus of OLED screens.
Also don't expect to play PC2 on anything above high settings @90 FPS in VR with a 1080, I have an OC 1080Ti paired with an i7-8700k and I can only run a few ultra and high setting with the rest at medium and a decent SS rate.
The only WMR headset with headphones built in is the Samsung and that one is a lot more expensive than the rest although it does have the bonus of OLED screens.
Also don't expect to play PC2 on anything above high settings @90 FPS in VR with a 1080, I have an OC 1080Ti paired with an i7-8700k and I can only run a few ultra and high setting with the rest at medium and a decent SS rate.
I run PC2 with everything maxed out,and it looks stunning. I don't know how many frames I'm getting in VR, as I can't get the FPS counter to work. Don't care anyway, as long as it's smooth and looks good which it is and does.
My decision to buy a WMR headset was, in the end, because I have nowhere to mount the external sensors that Oculus or Vive need to work far away enough so they'd work properly, as I have an Omega Racing rig in the corner of the room,
The WMR headsets are a godsend in this respect, as they have sensor cameras mounted on the visor itself.
The fact that my Acer doesn't come with headphones doesn't bother me either: I already had a good bluetooth headset. I just hoped that it would fit over the VR headset, and that is indeed the case..
Another poster said that people always recommend what they have themselves: in my case this is definitely not so, I spent ages comparing the different systems and weighing up the pros and cons. In the end the WMR system won, due to no sensor problems, and the steam support for it. I only play racing sims, whether it's as good as an Oculus or Vive in other areas is for me completely irrelevant. And the WMR glasses have a better resolution as well. What's not to like?
My decision to buy a WMR headset was, in the end, because I have nowhere to mount the external sensors that Oculus or Vive need to work far away enough so they'd work properly, as I have an Omega Racing rig in the corner of the room,
The WMR headsets are a godsend in this respect, as they have sensor cameras mounted on the visor itself.
The fact that my Acer doesn't come with headphones doesn't bother me either: I already had a good bluetooth headset. I just hoped that it would fit over the VR headset, and that is indeed the case..
Another poster said that people always recommend what they have themselves: in my case this is definitely not so, I spent ages comparing the different systems and weighing up the pros and cons. In the end the WMR system won, due to no sensor problems, and the steam support for it. I only play racing sims, whether it's as good as an Oculus or Vive in other areas is for me completely irrelevant. And the WMR glasses have a better resolution as well. What's not to like?
Shadow R1 said:
Threads like this, people are going to recommend what they have.
I have a rift.
I have a rift.
mp3manager said:
^^ This.
I have no experience with a Vive but I do have a Rift, so erm yeah. Get a Rift!
In the interest of balance, I have a Vive so, a Vive is clearly the one to go for I have no experience with a Vive but I do have a Rift, so erm yeah. Get a Rift!
Seriously though, get a Vive.
GuitarTech said:
I run PC2 with everything maxed out,and it looks stunning. I don't know how many frames I'm getting in VR, as I can't get the FPS counter to work. Don't care anyway, as long as it's smooth and looks good which it is and does.
My decision to buy a WMR headset was, in the end, because I have nowhere to mount the external sensors that Oculus or Vive need to work far away enough so they'd work properly, as I have an Omega Racing rig in the corner of the room,
The WMR headsets are a godsend in this respect, as they have sensor cameras mounted on the visor itself.
The fact that my Acer doesn't come with headphones doesn't bother me either: I already had a good bluetooth headset. I just hoped that it would fit over the VR headset, and that is indeed the case..
Another poster said that people always recommend what they have themselves: in my case this is definitely not so, I spent ages comparing the different systems and weighing up the pros and cons. In the end the WMR system won, due to no sensor problems, and the steam support for it. I only play racing sims, whether it's as good as an Oculus or Vive in other areas is for me completely irrelevant. And the WMR glasses have a better resolution as well. What's not to like?
Not a chance in hell you're running everything at ultra with any supersampling (1.1 or above) and a locked frame rate of even 60, let alone 90.My decision to buy a WMR headset was, in the end, because I have nowhere to mount the external sensors that Oculus or Vive need to work far away enough so they'd work properly, as I have an Omega Racing rig in the corner of the room,
The WMR headsets are a godsend in this respect, as they have sensor cameras mounted on the visor itself.
The fact that my Acer doesn't come with headphones doesn't bother me either: I already had a good bluetooth headset. I just hoped that it would fit over the VR headset, and that is indeed the case..
Another poster said that people always recommend what they have themselves: in my case this is definitely not so, I spent ages comparing the different systems and weighing up the pros and cons. In the end the WMR system won, due to no sensor problems, and the steam support for it. I only play racing sims, whether it's as good as an Oculus or Vive in other areas is for me completely irrelevant. And the WMR glasses have a better resolution as well. What's not to like?
Not even the new 2080Ti will be capable of that.
I maintain that all sliders are to the right, and I don't use supersampling at all. Neither do I lock the framerate to any limit. I have 16 x AA, MSAA is set at high, no post effects. In normal screen mode ( LG 34" @ 2560 x 1080 60Hz ), I'm getting between 130fps with up to 170fps with 49 AI cars in LeMans by night, with good weather.
If I set bad weather, with rain and storm etc, same track, same number of cars, the fps goes down to under 70fps at times, which is to be expected.
But I hardly ever race with really heavy weather, at the most light rain. The wet weather grip physics in PC2 are rubbish anyway, and I just want to have some fun racing.
PC2 runs smooth as glass, looks fantastic and doesn't stutter. Btw, if I'm not testing something, I don't have the fps counter turned on anyway, as long as it's smooth I don't give a rats ass how many frames I'm getting. I'm 64 years old, and grew out of this pointless " my computer is better / faster than yours" a long long time ago, I really don't care how other people delude themselves...
In VR mode I really can't say how many frames I'm getting, as I can't get the fps counter to work in VR mode, no matter, I really don't care anyway.
All I know is, without changing any settings, it looks just as good in VR, visually sharp and no stutters. Exactly how many frames I'm getting is for me fully irrelevant, the main thing is no jaggies and no stutters.
I built the computer myself, using only the finest components, in the end it cost nearly €2500. It is only used for driving sims, and I don't spent hours tweaking this and that searching for the last 2fps. The graphic settings are set to "let the application decide", the GPU is an MSI 1080 which is 6% overclocked from the factory anyway, and my i5 6600K is overclocked to 4.6Ghz, and runs at 57°C max, 25°C min as I have a good cooling system.
Other than what I've described here, I havn't tweaked anything at all. If you have good components you don't need to do anything else. A lot of people tune their gaming PC to death, till in the end it's running slower than if they'd just left it alone after configuring it properly.
I just want to go racing and have some fun, I haven't got the time to waste hours on programms like Nvidea Inspector and similar programms, trying to get blood out of a stone.
I'm not the only one getting these results in driving sims btw, you just have to know how to build and configure a gaming computer.
If anybody with similar hardware isn't getting similar results, they're doing something wrong, it'as really as easy as that.
Btw, the new RTX cards will not be so much better in driving sims ( which is all I do ), to justify dropping around a grand to swop it for my GTX1080,
They won't be any quicker, they'll just look prettier.
If I set bad weather, with rain and storm etc, same track, same number of cars, the fps goes down to under 70fps at times, which is to be expected.
But I hardly ever race with really heavy weather, at the most light rain. The wet weather grip physics in PC2 are rubbish anyway, and I just want to have some fun racing.
PC2 runs smooth as glass, looks fantastic and doesn't stutter. Btw, if I'm not testing something, I don't have the fps counter turned on anyway, as long as it's smooth I don't give a rats ass how many frames I'm getting. I'm 64 years old, and grew out of this pointless " my computer is better / faster than yours" a long long time ago, I really don't care how other people delude themselves...
In VR mode I really can't say how many frames I'm getting, as I can't get the fps counter to work in VR mode, no matter, I really don't care anyway.
All I know is, without changing any settings, it looks just as good in VR, visually sharp and no stutters. Exactly how many frames I'm getting is for me fully irrelevant, the main thing is no jaggies and no stutters.
I built the computer myself, using only the finest components, in the end it cost nearly €2500. It is only used for driving sims, and I don't spent hours tweaking this and that searching for the last 2fps. The graphic settings are set to "let the application decide", the GPU is an MSI 1080 which is 6% overclocked from the factory anyway, and my i5 6600K is overclocked to 4.6Ghz, and runs at 57°C max, 25°C min as I have a good cooling system.
Other than what I've described here, I havn't tweaked anything at all. If you have good components you don't need to do anything else. A lot of people tune their gaming PC to death, till in the end it's running slower than if they'd just left it alone after configuring it properly.
I just want to go racing and have some fun, I haven't got the time to waste hours on programms like Nvidea Inspector and similar programms, trying to get blood out of a stone.
I'm not the only one getting these results in driving sims btw, you just have to know how to build and configure a gaming computer.
If anybody with similar hardware isn't getting similar results, they're doing something wrong, it'as really as easy as that.
Btw, the new RTX cards will not be so much better in driving sims ( which is all I do ), to justify dropping around a grand to swop it for my GTX1080,
They won't be any quicker, they'll just look prettier.
Edited by GuitarTech on Saturday 22 September 21:56
Its not a contest from me, I just know for a fact it's not possible with any current (single) graphics card to achieve those settings at 90fps with SS at ~1.2+. If you're not using supersampling and not locking the frame rate to 90 then it's possible to max the sliders as you may get 35-40fps.
Supersampling though is the best thing you can run in VR to make the experience as good as possible, unfortunately it is extremely GPU intensive and it'll be another generation of GPUs before it might be possible to get the most out of PCars2 in VR by which point it will probably have been replaced with PC3 and maybe RT to complement Nvidias new tech.
Supersampling though is the best thing you can run in VR to make the experience as good as possible, unfortunately it is extremely GPU intensive and it'll be another generation of GPUs before it might be possible to get the most out of PCars2 in VR by which point it will probably have been replaced with PC3 and maybe RT to complement Nvidias new tech.
Either will be fine.
If you only want to do sitting not room scale then the OR is probably better mainly as it's a bit cheaper. Don't disregard the WMR headsets though for this use case.
I personally prefer the Vive, that's what I use the most for both room scale and sims . I have owned the DK1, DK2, and PSVR headsets and currently have a Vive and an OR. I've ordered the Pimax as well.
If you are in the market I'm thinking about moving my Occulus on, it's only had a few hours use, still boxed up.
If you only want to do sitting not room scale then the OR is probably better mainly as it's a bit cheaper. Don't disregard the WMR headsets though for this use case.
I personally prefer the Vive, that's what I use the most for both room scale and sims . I have owned the DK1, DK2, and PSVR headsets and currently have a Vive and an OR. I've ordered the Pimax as well.
If you are in the market I'm thinking about moving my Occulus on, it's only had a few hours use, still boxed up.
PHuzzy said:
Its not a contest from me, I just know for a fact it's not possible with any current (single) graphics card to achieve those settings at 90fps with SS at ~1.2+. If you're not using supersampling and not locking the frame rate to 90 then it's possible to max the sliders as you may get 35-40fps.
Supersampling though is the best thing you can run in VR to make the experience as good as possible, unfortunately it is extremely GPU intensive and it'll be another generation of GPUs before it might be possible to get the most out of PCars2 in VR by which point it will probably have been replaced with PC3 and maybe RT to complement Nvidias new tech.
I've never tried supersampling to be honest, but now I'll try it out after what you've said: it's intirely possible that I'm only getting 35-40fps, I have never seen the framecount in VR mode, it'd interest me too. If it is only 35-40 fps, then it looks good enough for me, no jaggies, and no stutters, it's totally smooth. The sense of immersion is quite amazing, and stutters are the one thing for me that kill the immersion stone dead. I'll try it out, I'm always willing to try something newSupersampling though is the best thing you can run in VR to make the experience as good as possible, unfortunately it is extremely GPU intensive and it'll be another generation of GPUs before it might be possible to get the most out of PCars2 in VR by which point it will probably have been replaced with PC3 and maybe RT to complement Nvidias new tech.
GuitarTech said:
PHuzzy said:
Its not a contest from me, I just know for a fact it's not possible with any current (single) graphics card to achieve those settings at 90fps with SS at ~1.2+. If you're not using supersampling and not locking the frame rate to 90 then it's possible to max the sliders as you may get 35-40fps.
Supersampling though is the best thing you can run in VR to make the experience as good as possible, unfortunately it is extremely GPU intensive and it'll be another generation of GPUs before it might be possible to get the most out of PCars2 in VR by which point it will probably have been replaced with PC3 and maybe RT to complement Nvidias new tech.
I've never tried supersampling to be honest, but now I'll try it out after what you've said: it's intirely possible that I'm only getting 35-40fps, I have never seen the framecount in VR mode, it'd interest me too. If it is only 35-40 fps, then it looks good enough for me, no jaggies, and no stutters, it's totally smooth. The sense of immersion is quite amazing, and stutters are the one thing for me that kill the immersion stone dead. I'll try it out, I'm always willing to try something newSupersampling though is the best thing you can run in VR to make the experience as good as possible, unfortunately it is extremely GPU intensive and it'll be another generation of GPUs before it might be possible to get the most out of PCars2 in VR by which point it will probably have been replaced with PC3 and maybe RT to complement Nvidias new tech.
I must admit I was spouting bullsh*t about the performance I'm getting in VR. I assumed that I was getting about the same fps in VR, as it looked just as good as normal screen mode, and without an fps counter I didn't notice any difference. But after seeing how the fps went down ( not 35-40, more like 60-70, but still..),in normal screen mode, where I do have an fps counter, I'm now prepared to believe that the fps is really so low in VR if it's anything like the flatscreen performance with supersampling switched on:
I can't prove it one way or the other, as I still haven't found a way to display the fps counter in VR...
No matter, it looks smooth and doesn't stutter, I've decided to ignore how many frames I'm actually getting, as I can only guess as long as the fps counter refuses to display in VR.
I'll just go racing, and have fun. And thanks for teaching me something new.
It seems that VR is very different,with new problems to solve. I still have a lot to learn about VR it seems, Not to worry.
I'm glad you're enjoying it, I love mine too and even though I can't push everything to ultra it still looks great.
However, I really can't wait until we have the GPU capability to be able to really push the settings up and then see what it really looks like with everything at maximum including supersampling, it will look incredible.
Anyway, it's only really PCars 2 that I've come across this problem, pretty much every other game I've tried can be run at maximum and look fantastic.
I wholeheartedly recommend that people who are interested in VR just take the step, you won't go back to screens unless absolutely necessary!
I'm glad you're enjoying it, I love mine too and even though I can't push everything to ultra it still looks great.
However, I really can't wait until we have the GPU capability to be able to really push the settings up and then see what it really looks like with everything at maximum including supersampling, it will look incredible.
Anyway, it's only really PCars 2 that I've come across this problem, pretty much every other game I've tried can be run at maximum and look fantastic.
I wholeheartedly recommend that people who are interested in VR just take the step, you won't go back to screens unless absolutely necessary!
PHuzzy said:
Not to worry.
I'm glad you're enjoying it, I love mine too and even though I can't push everything to ultra it still looks great.
However, I really can't wait until we have the GPU capability to be able to really push the settings up and then see what it really looks like with everything at maximum including supersampling, it will look incredible.
Anyway, it's only really PCars 2 that I've come across this problem, pretty much every other game I've tried can be run at maximum and look fantastic.
I wholeheartedly recommend that people who are interested in VR just take the step, you won't go back to screens unless absolutely necessary!
I'm mainly using PC2 at the moment, despite its shortcomings in other areas, the VC is just stunning. The VR in rF2 is a bit clunky, you always have the feeling that they nailed the VR on as an afterthought, which in actual fact they did I'm glad you're enjoying it, I love mine too and even though I can't push everything to ultra it still looks great.
However, I really can't wait until we have the GPU capability to be able to really push the settings up and then see what it really looks like with everything at maximum including supersampling, it will look incredible.
Anyway, it's only really PCars 2 that I've come across this problem, pretty much every other game I've tried can be run at maximum and look fantastic.
I wholeheartedly recommend that people who are interested in VR just take the step, you won't go back to screens unless absolutely necessary!
I'm hoping it'll become a bit more useable when the new UI comes ( if it ever comes, they announced it last September as " coming soon" )And I can't get R3E to start in VR using the Steam App at all, it starts up, and then I get a blank screen. And then nothing happens, and I wait and wait, nothing: the only way to get out again is to kill it in the task manager. In normal screen mode it runs fine, go figure..
I've tried a vanilla install, a file integrity check etc, all the usual stuff, nope, R3E isn't having it. It bloody worked last week, and has stopped working without me having done anything at all
Back to the drawing board, Carruthers
In two weeks the next update for ACC is coming, with VR support, be interesting to see how that runs: It's older brother, Assetto Corsa, runs OK in VR, but I could never really get on with AC, and VR doesn't make it any better, YMMV
One thing I do know: once you've used VR there's no going back to flatscreen: Since I have VR I haven't used AMS or Dirt Rally at all. Why? No VR
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff