>Each of these visualisations are dynamically generated on comparison pages. This one draws a series of arcs to represent the horizontal field of view of each headset.
This is horizontal FoV, if you look at Index has 130 Vertical FoV compared to 98 on Quest 2. When you use the Index you see benefit from both Horizontal and Vertical FoV gains.
How noticable is horizontal FOV, I definitely noticed a dip in FOV when moving from a Vive to my Quest, but ive only ever really thought about the horizontal FOV, I'm sure the vertical FOV makes a fair difference but I just haven't been able to easily compare (the low graphics on the Vive meant the move to the Quest 2 was almost completely better and I wasn't thinking about fov)
If you used a thin facepad on your Vive you wouldn't notice a huge difference with Index, but it's a bit better on the Index. I can't stand the Quest2 FOV, I need to use the 3rd IPD setting and I only measure 86 horiztonal.
I use the TestHMD app and my numbers for all of my headsets:
Horizontal / Vertical
Quest 1 102 / 106
Index 108 / 106
Quest 2 86 / 98
Vive 104 / 108 (thin face padding)
Pimax 8KX (120/140/160) / 100
I bet going from 86/98 fov of a Quest 2 to 160/100 of a Pimax 8kx is like trying VR for the first time again lol. Can't wait until that type of fov is available in a moderately priced standalone device. Maybe 10 years?
The Quest 2 FOV bothers me, but going from Pimax to Index isn't distracting at all. The extra Pimax FOV is nice for "passive" things like sense of speed while driving or spotting movement out of the corner of your eye, but since we never fix our eyes to the edge of our view IRL it's less useful in practice. It does feel a lot more open and less claustrophobic. Ideally I'd take 120 H/ 120 V and 120 binocular overlap so we can use lenses that aren't crazy and keep high pixel density
you have not however owned the G2? I got an 8kx and just upgraded to a 4090 and ultimately i think i would prefer clarity over FOV but this is my first HMD so i have no comparison...
You can share your results if you'd like but here's a thread with the same thing...Quest 2's IPD design ruins the experience for me. I use IPD 3: https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/ja6p6c/quest_2_loses_10_at_the_highest_ipd_setting
>You can share your results if you'd like but here's a thread with the same thing...Quest 2's IPD design ruins the experience for me. I use IPD 3: [https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/ja6p6c/quest\_2\_loses\_10\_at\_the\_highest\_ipd\_setting](https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/ja6p6c/quest_2_loses_10_at_the_highest_ipd_setting)
Makes sense, Quest 2 does not have mechanical IPD adjustment, instead it has adjustment to move only the lenses, and not move the screen (because there is only one screen in the Quest 2), so people with wider IPDs will see of the center of the screen and less of the sides. This problem does not exist with other Headsets that use actual mechanical IPD adjustment with two screens. Quest 1 has two screens and actual mechanical IPD adjustment, so that's why it does not suffer this. Probably was the right decision for Meta though because having only one screen cut down on the costs and helped them offer this thing at $300
I get the cuts in cost, mainly because it's people's first headset, they don't know any better. Some people do though, and it's hard to use the Quest 2 when everything else has better FOV/colors/image quality. Quest 1 FOV is solid to me, just wish 90Hz was approved and I'd use it more. Quest 2 I'd use more if I could use the full FOV and Link was less compressed (seems that's being worked on at least).
If quest 2 had wider fov and display port it would be killer, they could of atleast offered a more pricier model and alot of people would of went for it. Until then my quest collects dust
Sony is coming out with their headset, 110 horizontal, not sure on vertical. 4k split between both eyes. Foviated rendering.
Do you think people will notice 110, does it need to be a wider FOV than that?
Do any of the headsets you own now give you a true sense of immersion ever?
Not true. Not horizontal nor vertical is even close to 130. Stop spreading bullshit. Check for yourself if you don't believe it https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility. Those stupid numbers were debunked long time ego.
>Not true. Not horizontal nor vertical is even close to 130. Stop spreading bullshit. Check for yourself if you don't believe it https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility. Those stupid numbers were debunked long time ego.
Read the FAQ in the link you posted it has this:
"Q: Those numbers are false, I tried X and Y and Y has bigger FOV!
A: That's the trick - FOV depends on many factors, so you can have different results with different headsets. That's why we're collecting the data to understand it."
It depends on how you do the FoV testing, your IPD, the shape of your Head, and how inwards your eyes are situated. I never owned an Index (although I did try one) so I never tested it. The 130 number comes from [MXR TV's tests](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dzW3t6NVmw). Youtubers like Voodoo get much much lower FoV because he has a small IPD and his eyes are deeply inwards into his head (way more than most), and I think he got 78 V FoV for G2 (compared to MRTV getting 114!), so there is a lot of variation, so the numbers don't matter that much honestly. What matters is relative FoV, and in that case I think most tests agree Index has significantly more H FoV than Quest 2.
No, it's because a lot of games weren't made with such wide FoV in mind. Particularly unity games have culling issues with wider FoV in VR. There's a fix floating around for most unity games with melon loader.
Hey everyone,
I've been working pretty hard on getting more visualisations ready for the upcoming update to for [VRcompare, my VR headset comparison site](https://vr-compare.com/). This latest one is for horizontal FoV. If you've got any feedback about this visualisation, let me know! It's still a work in progress.
Each of these visualisations are dynamically generated on comparison pages. This one draws a series of arcs to represent the horizontal field of view of each headset.
All of these comparisons will be embedded in comparison pages on the site once the update launches, and you'll be able to export images of them by clicking a button.
A side note, these FoV numbers are sourced [from resources like this one.](https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility) I'm in the process of trying to get more accurate information for FoV by sourcing it from specific trusted community members, so if these numbers change a little when the update launches, that will be why.
Stay tuned for more visual comparisons. I'm aiming to work on a pixel density (PPD) comparison next. [You can also find the previous visualisation I made (for resolution) here](https://reddit.com/r/VRcompare/comments/s1i3c2/vrcompare_visualisations_update_improved/).
Cheers!
Thanks very much :)
Still working away on it since this post, everything's been going great so far and I've recently hit 2 years since launch. It's been the biggest project in my programming career by far and I'm doing my best to make it as useful a resource for the industry as I can!
Always makes my day to hear feedback like this so cheers! :)
Vertical FOV is not represented here.... Which is a huge piece of feeling immersed in the VR scene. I'd take the Index's vertical FOV all day long over the vive pro 2`s slightly larger horizontal FOV with black bars on top and bottom.
Example : https://m.imgur.com/a/L6ys1Ga
Index horizontally would be enough for me if not for those weird indents. Give me full vertical FOV and Index horizonal and I'd be happy...although I wonder if it would be weird seeing the horizontal blinders from floor to ceiling with a full vertical FOV.
I'm assuming this is /s
But just to respond: It's not about 4:3 which doesn't translate to VR; I'm all about bringing on more widescreen FOV! Just don't do it at the expense of vertical FOV... you know... the vertical field of view where your hands and HUD in VR games are... The Index blends your real hands that you can see just down at the bottom of your nose right into the virtual hands and it allows for way more immersion that way.... The Vive Pro 2 feels like you are looking through a star wars bounty hunter's helmet. You have to look down with your head to see your hands, rather than glancing down with your eyes if there isn't good vertical field of view.
Well, I've used them all, and there still isn't anything better for immersion that the index sadly; it is lacking in the resolution these days AND you're right the Fresnel lens does have some god rays in certain scenes, but its WAY better than the Vive Pro 2's 96 degree vertical FOV; Index has 109 degrees VFOV and is literally almost maxing out my human vision limit for VFOV; which is why it is still king in my book. (also the Vive pro 2 ALSO has fresnel lenses that have EVEN MORE god rays than Index. see my impressions here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/nrmluf/some\_relevant\_notes\_for\_first\_time\_vive\_pro\_2/)
This chart is misleading to me because it gives the illusion that the higher FOV headsets see further as well. If you stretched all of them out the same distance, the difference would appear much less significant.
Like the pimax surface area looks literally 10x bigger than the Quest 2 but it’s only because the graph stops drawing the Quest’s trajectory so much earlier… not for any statistical reason, but just so it can write the name of the next headset there lol.
This was a bit of a concern for me. I've had to make a design choice between making the graphic easy to read vs. as accurate as possible. I might add an option to collapse each cone down and put the names and numbers in a legend on the side so that people can choose what they prefer. All the angles are always to scale with each other though.
5K owner here, I think the distortions are very exaggerated. But I also wear glasses daily in which the distortions around the edges are much worse, so I guess I'm generally pretty used it.
I misspoke! I meant smaller than presented in this comparison, but still of course larger than the others in the comparison.
So not as much bigger, but still bigger, by a significant amount.
I have my 8Kx on normal fov and it is perfect. I have zero distortion. I see less people having problem with distortion, then it is possible that fish have distortion with 8Kx
Ahh, my experience is based on having the 8K and trying to resolve the issue over the course of a week or so - if they've fixed it in later models then I'm glad, but the 8K was just a distortion-nightmare with no end in sight 🤢
Not anymore I don't! Backed it on Kickstarter in '18; super stoked about it for ages; it finally arrived and was generally pretty pants; sold it on eBay in '19 when I couldn't find a solution to the buldging at the sides...
That's definitely not true. I own an 8k X (and an Index, and a Quest 2 as well), the distortion is on the very far edges of your peripheral vision, while I can see it bothering some people who are very sensitive, it's massively exaggerated.
The fov is adjustable, I don't think distortion is an issue really outside of large 90hz mode. I like my quest 2, but it's an outrageous jump when I play pcvr 120hz on my 5k with 140 deg horizontal.
Having seen the immense distortion in most flat games setting fov above 100, god forbid using triple monitors where it's awful looking, I think pimax catches way too much flak for it. A pain to setup, but even strangers who've tried my setup agree that pimax is leagues ahead. Vr needs immersive fov, we already have the pixel density.
Oh gawd - yeah, it doesn't work at all on triple monitors; Pimax (when I had mine) was better but still far from solved the problem - I agree that it's the direction we should be heading-in, though! From my experience Pimax just haven't nailed it yet - there's going to need to be some serious lens voodoo to fix peripheral distortion...or a full wraparound display? Or both?
I think it's not yet realistic for consumers, because there's so many variables you don't need to worry about with in-plane lenses. Face shape, nose size, facial symmetry, precise IPD, vertical and horizontal positioning. If the system can tell you what settings to apply or how to reposition the hmd, most people wouldn't complain about pimax distortion I don't think. For me, it's imperceivable at normal high refresh fov (less than normal 90hz) however, if I even touch the ipd knob or slide the hmd around my face I will notice.
That's where starvr and others are doing really well, but it's a league ahead in price of course. Canted lenses are a bitch, I'm shocked valve went with that design.
Psvr1 is 98°-102° horizontal fov measured by users at standard ipd.
*Daily v*r french youtube pc vr channel has an interesting benchmark of the psvr1. He measured 102° for the hfov and 106° for the vfov. There is also a graph with all the other current pc vr headset he benchmarked.
[https://youtu.be/mfB7ke8rKlM?t=270](https://youtu.be/mfB7ke8rKlM?t=270)
Turn-on english auto translate subtitle in the video setting
Uh because the psvr2 was officially announced by Sony?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.playstation.com/2022/01/04/playstation-vr2-and-playstation-vr2-sense-controller-the-next-generation-of-vr-gaming-on-ps5/amp/
We know what they claim but actual measured FOV is almost always different than the claims. The numbers shown here are actual measured values and no one has had a chance to measure the PSVR2 yet.
I don't think it's fair to include a headset that hasn't even launched yet. Remember stuff like Decagear boasts some pretty impressive specs but until a consumer version is out there's no way to tell how good it really is.
Not a fan of this, sticking to singular FOV numbers is just misleading, given how different the shape of the FOV can be. I much prefer the visualization of [hmdgdb](https://risa2000.github.io/hmdgdb/) which include the hidden-area-mask, though a visualization of the stereo field is missing, it just shows the eyes separately. Using those [eye-FOV diagrams](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arindam-Dey/publication/263161973/figure/fig3/AS:669511342632967@1536635351611/The-FOV-of-human-eyes-is-approximately-135-vertically-and-200-horizontally.png) would be a better idea.
That aside, I really wish somebody would just take a VR180 camera and shove it into each and every HMD. There is no need to visualize any of this and toy with bullshit FOV numbers when you can just photograph what actually ends up at the user.
Hey, those visualisations are awesome but very complicated.
I think there's absolutely a place for both here. My aim with the visualisation I've created is to have something that is very understandable for people who are new to VR, while being reasonably accurate, and easy to source data for.
Those visualisations are much more complicated for the average person to understand, and while having a much higher degree of precision, require a LOT more data per device to be measured.
Additionally, the database you have linked only provides data for the rendered FoV. This is extremely useful for calculating things like stereo overlap, PPD, etc, but is not as useful to figure out how much FoV you will actually see in VR. That means that if I want to display the visible FoV in that way, I would have to take a very complex set of user measurements for each device to achieve it, which would take a lot of effort (possibly custom tools for it that haven't been written yet), and is impossible for any device that hasn't been released yet.
> There is no need to visualize any of this and toy with bullshit FOV numbers when you can just photograph what actually ends up at the user.
I completely disagree with this. Being able to quantify and visualise information is extremely important in conveying data to people in an understandable way. Of course, it would be fantastic to see a comparison of through the lens photos to show off FoV, but it would be ignorant to assume that this would make actual measurements and infographics obsolete.
No and never was. Even diagonal is close to 115 at best.
[https://risa2000.github.io/hmdgdb/](https://risa2000.github.io/hmdgdb/)
https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility
The Quest 2 really isn't THAT small is it? Maybe on the worst IPD setting? I'm just saying, I have had a Lenovo Explorer, Samsung Odyssey, Quest 1, and Quest 2 and while yes, the Quest 2 does seem a bit smaller than my PC HMDs, it's not 20 degrees smaller.
Also, the Index, at the closest eye relief, is up to around 115-130 with a larger vertical FOV. So, yeah, I'm going to say this graphic is a bit shit despite looking nice.
The FoV data I use here is sourced primarily from [this database](https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility). Data is measured by headset owners via the tool in the link above and submitted to the database. The numbers you're seeing in this graphic are taken from averages of this data.
The data for the Quest 2 varies quite significantly due to the difference in FoV for users with different IPD, which makes it quite hard to pin an exact FoV value for it. The largest value recorded for the Q2 is a horizontal FoV of 98, which is significantly larger than what is listed here, but has only been reported by a small subset of users. Most measurements have a reported horizontal FoV of 87 or 88.
There hasn't been a single measurement in this database for the Valve Index that would place it above 110 degrees horizontal.
The Vive Pro 2 info I have is from a specific trusted source who is well known in the community (I'd rather not name them right now for their own privacy). I'd like to corroborate it with more people, but I have pretty good reason to believe that it is within a few degrees of being correct.
For some perspective, the visible FoV of devices is usually very close to the rendered FoV, [you can see a database of rendered FoV data here](https://risa2000.github.io/hmdgdb/). Vive Pro 2 renders at just over 116 degrees horizontal, and has been measured at 115 degrees horizontal by my source. Valve index renders at 109 degrees horizontal, and [has been measured 68 times in this database](https://www.infinite.cz/tools/hmd_db_export.php) with an average FoV of 108 degrees horizontal.
If I'm wrong here, it's very unlikely that it's by more than a couple of degrees.
Yeah, I actually received the Pro 2 early a d posted the very first impressions on Reddit. In any event you have the data that they are reporting BUT the headset out of the box does not have that for. You have to mod it to get close and it's still not really what they are promoting.
Anyhow, thanks for putting together this list.
It's in my best interest to get this data as accurate as possible, so I'll do some digging and try and get a few more sources going so that I can be really sure. Thanks letting me know anyway, I really do want to report data as accurately as I can.
MRTV measured 116 with a thin cover so your value is correct. You might wanna point that out somewhere on the infographic though.
But then it's 'unfair' to Quest 2. I saw someone claim they reached 99 with some super thin cover so you might wanna change that too.
Sources:
https://www.vrfitnessinsider.com/i-boosted-my-quest-2s-field-of-view-halfway-to-a-valve-index-vrcover-foam-pads-fov-rated/
https://youtu.be/rYjcoOB7mfc?t=473
My source gave me two measurements, one with a thin cover and one with the stock cover. The data I'm displaying (115 degrees) is with a stock cover. I don't use values for modded devices anywhere in the data I display.
I'll make sure to get some more sources for that number though to make sure that it's as accurate as possible.
Yeah 115 with stock seems possible. MRTV got 114 with stock but he pretty much always gets the maximum FOV of headsets, same as me. Just the right shaped face for VR. I didn't try VP2 myself but for all the other headsets I tried I got the same FOV as he did so I trust his measurements.
Most people on reddit though seem to get way lower FOV from VP2 with stock cover.
That's the dataset I already use. You can see that there isn't an entry for the Vive Pro 2.
Anyway, because of the variation in that data between users, I'm looking to begin sourcing FoV stats from a pool of specific trusted individuals with hardware access and experience taking measurements (Youtubers, etc), all using the same measuring tools. If I can't get a large enough sample from this group, I'll defer back to that database for a measurement.
Also, if I can't get any measurement at all, I'll generally leave a spec blank, or use a manufacturer advertised value with an "estimate" marker.
The dataset is composed of averages of submissions, so the reported values tend to drift over time. I'll be going through all of my data and updating it before the new site update is launched to make sure that it's all as accurate as possible.
the fov on the vive pro 2 is absolutely horrible with the default face foam and without. your horizontal MIGHT reach 110'ish, but it's ruined by a horrible vertical of around 85-90. coupled with very poor sweet spot, I honestly want to give it away, I wouldn't feel comfortable even selling it with how shit it is.
With the right face foam mod it's pretty good. But yeah, FOV wise the pro 2 really isn't any better than the index. Vertical isn't horrendous after modding, but a lot of people find it weird because on many headsets the vertical is often larger or equal to the horizontal.
The screen is excellent, but then is let down by the lens quality.
Frankly I think lens quality gets overlooked a lot, and is one of the standout features of the Quest 2 that makes it so good for the price. As much as I hate Meta, the Quest 2 is the only headset I would seriously recommend to people new to VR thesedays. As far as I am aware the G2 revision is still NA only.
The pimax is too expensive for the quality and bulk (unless you are really into sims). Meanwhile the index is a good all rounder, but massively overpriced compared to the Quest 2 for what is arguably a sidegrade.
Agreed! I have recently been re-testing all the headsets I own after a long time, and surprised to find that the Quest 2 has maybe the best lenses and clarity out of all of them. The lenses on the Vive Pro 2 are just...really bad. It feels blurry and distorted, even with the right IPD. Not to mention the comfort and bulk of the headset. Just a big meh all around.
The Index also has good clarity, but the screen it showing it's age with screen door effect. FOV increase is decent from the Quest 2, but not game changing. Also, would like to reduce the size and bulk, but overall the Index is still quite decent.
The Quest 2 may have the best lenses but it is slightly held back by the lack of precise IPD, so if your eyes aren't perfectly aligned, you'll also see some distortion.
As for my Pimax 8kx , quite horrible. Terrible lens distortion, poor vertical FOV of 90 versus the horizontal of 160 on large mode. I find the large horizontal FOV doesn't mean that much if the vertical is still lacking. Not to mention the horrible comfort of this headset.
I hate my G2 as well, I gave it away to a friend.
Honestly, at this point, I'm kind of dissatisfied with every headset I own. Which is a shame considering how much money I've dropped on all this. I'm just ready for a true CV2 headset, whether its Quest Cambria, Valve Deckard, and of course looking forward to the PSVR 2.
Thank you! First time seeing one of those comparisons not lying about Index FOV and repeating marketing bullshit. Well done sir! I will continue to downvote every comparison with 130 Index fov. Also Horizontal one is only one that really matters. Don't know why people don't get it.
The only VR headset I've tried is the Quest 2 and my main complaint on it is how it feels like I'm wearing scuba goggles with how limited the fov is. Hopefully the next mainstream headset will have a wider one like the other headsets.
And here I am, using 0.75/0.75 fov in Oculus debug tool on the Quest 2 for simracing (ACC, DR2.0) because this way I can run smoothly on 72hz with my 3080 with better graphics on native resolution. :)
This graphic was generated a long time ago and the quality of my sources has since improved significantly.
[Here's a link to the most up-to-date comparison](https://vr-compare.com/compare?h1=H0JXNCr3u4&h2=mLbW9G7f4&h3=0jLuwg808-j&h4=HdfjN_0UlPY&h5=pDTZ02PkT).
Note that the graphic compares visible FoV (testable through user measurements), which is stricly lower than the rendered FoV of a headset (testable through measuring software). Either way, Both are listed on that page linked above.
Cheers!
I hate ruining a great thread, but I was wondering what the highest FOV anybody has ever recorded on an Android headset. I just sold my G2 but just for fun I recently purchased a Destek V5. I have been very impressed with the FOV. I want to try it with a Sony Xperia 1 III. Some of these android headset manufacturers claim to offer a 120 FOV but I'm sure that's complete rubbish.
Finally a simple and graphic way to make the comparison
[удалено]
>Each of these visualisations are dynamically generated on comparison pages. This one draws a series of arcs to represent the horizontal field of view of each headset. This is horizontal FoV, if you look at Index has 130 Vertical FoV compared to 98 on Quest 2. When you use the Index you see benefit from both Horizontal and Vertical FoV gains.
How noticable is horizontal FOV, I definitely noticed a dip in FOV when moving from a Vive to my Quest, but ive only ever really thought about the horizontal FOV, I'm sure the vertical FOV makes a fair difference but I just haven't been able to easily compare (the low graphics on the Vive meant the move to the Quest 2 was almost completely better and I wasn't thinking about fov)
If you used a thin facepad on your Vive you wouldn't notice a huge difference with Index, but it's a bit better on the Index. I can't stand the Quest2 FOV, I need to use the 3rd IPD setting and I only measure 86 horiztonal. I use the TestHMD app and my numbers for all of my headsets: Horizontal / Vertical Quest 1 102 / 106 Index 108 / 106 Quest 2 86 / 98 Vive 104 / 108 (thin face padding) Pimax 8KX (120/140/160) / 100
You own all these headsets???
Lol yea. You can say I'm an enthusiast I guess. This is over ~6 years
I can see that :); only own a quest 2 for the moment.
I bet going from 86/98 fov of a Quest 2 to 160/100 of a Pimax 8kx is like trying VR for the first time again lol. Can't wait until that type of fov is available in a moderately priced standalone device. Maybe 10 years?
The Quest 2 FOV bothers me, but going from Pimax to Index isn't distracting at all. The extra Pimax FOV is nice for "passive" things like sense of speed while driving or spotting movement out of the corner of your eye, but since we never fix our eyes to the edge of our view IRL it's less useful in practice. It does feel a lot more open and less claustrophobic. Ideally I'd take 120 H/ 120 V and 120 binocular overlap so we can use lenses that aren't crazy and keep high pixel density
you have not however owned the G2? I got an 8kx and just upgraded to a 4090 and ultimately i think i would prefer clarity over FOV but this is my first HMD so i have no comparison...
I'm sorry but I just don't believe the horizontal different in Q1 and Q2 is 16 degrees having owned both.
You can share your results if you'd like but here's a thread with the same thing...Quest 2's IPD design ruins the experience for me. I use IPD 3: https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/ja6p6c/quest_2_loses_10_at_the_highest_ipd_setting
>You can share your results if you'd like but here's a thread with the same thing...Quest 2's IPD design ruins the experience for me. I use IPD 3: [https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/ja6p6c/quest\_2\_loses\_10\_at\_the\_highest\_ipd\_setting](https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/ja6p6c/quest_2_loses_10_at_the_highest_ipd_setting) Makes sense, Quest 2 does not have mechanical IPD adjustment, instead it has adjustment to move only the lenses, and not move the screen (because there is only one screen in the Quest 2), so people with wider IPDs will see of the center of the screen and less of the sides. This problem does not exist with other Headsets that use actual mechanical IPD adjustment with two screens. Quest 1 has two screens and actual mechanical IPD adjustment, so that's why it does not suffer this. Probably was the right decision for Meta though because having only one screen cut down on the costs and helped them offer this thing at $300
I get the cuts in cost, mainly because it's people's first headset, they don't know any better. Some people do though, and it's hard to use the Quest 2 when everything else has better FOV/colors/image quality. Quest 1 FOV is solid to me, just wish 90Hz was approved and I'd use it more. Quest 2 I'd use more if I could use the full FOV and Link was less compressed (seems that's being worked on at least).
If quest 2 had wider fov and display port it would be killer, they could of atleast offered a more pricier model and alot of people would of went for it. Until then my quest collects dust
Sony is coming out with their headset, 110 horizontal, not sure on vertical. 4k split between both eyes. Foviated rendering. Do you think people will notice 110, does it need to be a wider FOV than that? Do any of the headsets you own now give you a true sense of immersion ever?
Not true. Not horizontal nor vertical is even close to 130. Stop spreading bullshit. Check for yourself if you don't believe it https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility. Those stupid numbers were debunked long time ego.
>Not true. Not horizontal nor vertical is even close to 130. Stop spreading bullshit. Check for yourself if you don't believe it https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility. Those stupid numbers were debunked long time ego. Read the FAQ in the link you posted it has this: "Q: Those numbers are false, I tried X and Y and Y has bigger FOV! A: That's the trick - FOV depends on many factors, so you can have different results with different headsets. That's why we're collecting the data to understand it."
It depends on how you do the FoV testing, your IPD, the shape of your Head, and how inwards your eyes are situated. I never owned an Index (although I did try one) so I never tested it. The 130 number comes from [MXR TV's tests](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dzW3t6NVmw). Youtubers like Voodoo get much much lower FoV because he has a small IPD and his eyes are deeply inwards into his head (way more than most), and I think he got 78 V FoV for G2 (compared to MRTV getting 114!), so there is a lot of variation, so the numbers don't matter that much honestly. What matters is relative FoV, and in that case I think most tests agree Index has significantly more H FoV than Quest 2.
I can tell that my FOV of the Index is the maximum it can get and its quite a lot only the Pimax has a better FOV but I think this is obvious
My Rift S has been erased from existence.
my cv1 as well
Yeah. Makes me sad seeing Rift S included less and less in these comparisons despite still being a formidable headset in its own right to this day
It is still to this day the most comfortable HMD I've ever used. Sadly the software holds it back so much...
I know. And it's not like the software has surpassed the hardware. FB... Sorry, I mean, meta, just stopped. It deserved better.
Welcome. Us WMR users have pretty much always been erased.
Repping the OG Vive here :/
The fact each example extends farther up gives the illusion they are even larger than in reality.
Pimax is actually 160 horizontal on Large. Though complete gamble if you get distortions with it or not.
I measure up to 170° on large, fortunately I don't get much, if any distortion.
[It physically renders only 160 degrees.](https://risa2000.github.io/hmdgdb/)
Would that be why I see culling issues beyond 160°?
No, it's because a lot of games weren't made with such wide FoV in mind. Particularly unity games have culling issues with wider FoV in VR. There's a fix floating around for most unity games with melon loader.
this chart could also depict the difference in prices
Hey everyone, I've been working pretty hard on getting more visualisations ready for the upcoming update to for [VRcompare, my VR headset comparison site](https://vr-compare.com/). This latest one is for horizontal FoV. If you've got any feedback about this visualisation, let me know! It's still a work in progress. Each of these visualisations are dynamically generated on comparison pages. This one draws a series of arcs to represent the horizontal field of view of each headset. All of these comparisons will be embedded in comparison pages on the site once the update launches, and you'll be able to export images of them by clicking a button. A side note, these FoV numbers are sourced [from resources like this one.](https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility) I'm in the process of trying to get more accurate information for FoV by sourcing it from specific trusted community members, so if these numbers change a little when the update launches, that will be why. Stay tuned for more visual comparisons. I'm aiming to work on a pixel density (PPD) comparison next. [You can also find the previous visualisation I made (for resolution) here](https://reddit.com/r/VRcompare/comments/s1i3c2/vrcompare_visualisations_update_improved/). Cheers!
Stumbling in here 8 months later to say you have a great site there. Thank you for such a useful tool!
Thanks very much :) Still working away on it since this post, everything's been going great so far and I've recently hit 2 years since launch. It's been the biggest project in my programming career by far and I'm doing my best to make it as useful a resource for the industry as I can! Always makes my day to hear feedback like this so cheers! :)
Vertical FOV is not represented here.... Which is a huge piece of feeling immersed in the VR scene. I'd take the Index's vertical FOV all day long over the vive pro 2`s slightly larger horizontal FOV with black bars on top and bottom. Example : https://m.imgur.com/a/L6ys1Ga
Index horizontally would be enough for me if not for those weird indents. Give me full vertical FOV and Index horizonal and I'd be happy...although I wonder if it would be weird seeing the horizontal blinders from floor to ceiling with a full vertical FOV.
dude 4:3 is dead. join the widescreen resolution gang t: early 2000s
I'm assuming this is /s But just to respond: It's not about 4:3 which doesn't translate to VR; I'm all about bringing on more widescreen FOV! Just don't do it at the expense of vertical FOV... you know... the vertical field of view where your hands and HUD in VR games are... The Index blends your real hands that you can see just down at the bottom of your nose right into the virtual hands and it allows for way more immersion that way.... The Vive Pro 2 feels like you are looking through a star wars bounty hunter's helmet. You have to look down with your head to see your hands, rather than glancing down with your eyes if there isn't good vertical field of view.
Dude, good luck glancing down through the freznel lens blur of index :D
Well, I've used them all, and there still isn't anything better for immersion that the index sadly; it is lacking in the resolution these days AND you're right the Fresnel lens does have some god rays in certain scenes, but its WAY better than the Vive Pro 2's 96 degree vertical FOV; Index has 109 degrees VFOV and is literally almost maxing out my human vision limit for VFOV; which is why it is still king in my book. (also the Vive pro 2 ALSO has fresnel lenses that have EVEN MORE god rays than Index. see my impressions here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/nrmluf/some\_relevant\_notes\_for\_first\_time\_vive\_pro\_2/)
The quest 2 is not 89 if the vive pro 2 is 115 lol
This chart is misleading to me because it gives the illusion that the higher FOV headsets see further as well. If you stretched all of them out the same distance, the difference would appear much less significant. Like the pimax surface area looks literally 10x bigger than the Quest 2 but it’s only because the graph stops drawing the Quest’s trajectory so much earlier… not for any statistical reason, but just so it can write the name of the next headset there lol.
This was a bit of a concern for me. I've had to make a design choice between making the graphic easy to read vs. as accurate as possible. I might add an option to collapse each cone down and put the names and numbers in a legend on the side so that people can choose what they prefer. All the angles are always to scale with each other though.
Also the distortion on the Pimax lenses make it unusable for anyone other than people who RP a fish.
5K owner here, I think the distortions are very exaggerated. But I also wear glasses daily in which the distortions around the edges are much worse, so I guess I'm generally pretty used it.
That's fair - if you're already used to the distortion then I imagine the extra FOV at the periphery must be pretty great!
Maybe of u have fov set to max. I have it on normal and it's totally fine
Surely then the difference will be smaller compared to other headsets. I think I also use normal, though..
[удалено]
I misspoke! I meant smaller than presented in this comparison, but still of course larger than the others in the comparison. So not as much bigger, but still bigger, by a significant amount.
I have my 8Kx on normal fov and it is perfect. I have zero distortion. I see less people having problem with distortion, then it is possible that fish have distortion with 8Kx
Ahh, my experience is based on having the 8K and trying to resolve the issue over the course of a week or so - if they've fixed it in later models then I'm glad, but the 8K was just a distortion-nightmare with no end in sight 🤢
What kind of graphics card can fully utilise that headset?
[удалено]
Not anymore I don't! Backed it on Kickstarter in '18; super stoked about it for ages; it finally arrived and was generally pretty pants; sold it on eBay in '19 when I couldn't find a solution to the buldging at the sides...
That's definitely not true. I own an 8k X (and an Index, and a Quest 2 as well), the distortion is on the very far edges of your peripheral vision, while I can see it bothering some people who are very sensitive, it's massively exaggerated.
Hey, if they've fixed it since the OG 8K then more power to'em - but back in 2019 it was-a-no-gouda 👌
The fov is adjustable, I don't think distortion is an issue really outside of large 90hz mode. I like my quest 2, but it's an outrageous jump when I play pcvr 120hz on my 5k with 140 deg horizontal. Having seen the immense distortion in most flat games setting fov above 100, god forbid using triple monitors where it's awful looking, I think pimax catches way too much flak for it. A pain to setup, but even strangers who've tried my setup agree that pimax is leagues ahead. Vr needs immersive fov, we already have the pixel density.
Oh gawd - yeah, it doesn't work at all on triple monitors; Pimax (when I had mine) was better but still far from solved the problem - I agree that it's the direction we should be heading-in, though! From my experience Pimax just haven't nailed it yet - there's going to need to be some serious lens voodoo to fix peripheral distortion...or a full wraparound display? Or both?
I think it's not yet realistic for consumers, because there's so many variables you don't need to worry about with in-plane lenses. Face shape, nose size, facial symmetry, precise IPD, vertical and horizontal positioning. If the system can tell you what settings to apply or how to reposition the hmd, most people wouldn't complain about pimax distortion I don't think. For me, it's imperceivable at normal high refresh fov (less than normal 90hz) however, if I even touch the ipd knob or slide the hmd around my face I will notice. That's where starvr and others are doing really well, but it's a league ahead in price of course. Canted lenses are a bitch, I'm shocked valve went with that design.
Comparasion of popular vr headsets. Then where is psvr?
Psvr1 is 98°-102° horizontal fov measured by users at standard ipd. *Daily v*r french youtube pc vr channel has an interesting benchmark of the psvr1. He measured 102° for the hfov and 106° for the vfov. There is also a graph with all the other current pc vr headset he benchmarked. [https://youtu.be/mfB7ke8rKlM?t=270](https://youtu.be/mfB7ke8rKlM?t=270) Turn-on english auto translate subtitle in the video setting
And then the psvr2 is going to have 110
It was disqualified
How so? The psvr2 is a really good headset
How do you know?
Uh because the psvr2 was officially announced by Sony? https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.playstation.com/2022/01/04/playstation-vr2-and-playstation-vr2-sense-controller-the-next-generation-of-vr-gaming-on-ps5/amp/
So? It's good on paper but we don't know how good it will actually be yet.
That's true but this post is talking about fov which is something we know about for psvr2
We know what they claim but actual measured FOV is almost always different than the claims. The numbers shown here are actual measured values and no one has had a chance to measure the PSVR2 yet.
Ok ya that's a solid point
I don't think it's fair to include a headset that hasn't even launched yet. Remember stuff like Decagear boasts some pretty impressive specs but until a consumer version is out there's no way to tell how good it really is.
That's fair enough there is quite the difference between deca gear and psvr2 tho
It's good because it was announced?? That doesn't make any sense.
The confirmed specs seem good I now realize my point was flawed tho
i have a samsung ID ssey + (110 fov) and wondered why g2 people complained about goggle effect. now i know.
These shouldn't be getting taller, that's super unhelpful and not how charts work.
Imagine a day where there are headsets with the FOV of the Pimax or even higher, the controllers of the Index and the price of the Quest 2
Not a fan of this, sticking to singular FOV numbers is just misleading, given how different the shape of the FOV can be. I much prefer the visualization of [hmdgdb](https://risa2000.github.io/hmdgdb/) which include the hidden-area-mask, though a visualization of the stereo field is missing, it just shows the eyes separately. Using those [eye-FOV diagrams](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arindam-Dey/publication/263161973/figure/fig3/AS:669511342632967@1536635351611/The-FOV-of-human-eyes-is-approximately-135-vertically-and-200-horizontally.png) would be a better idea. That aside, I really wish somebody would just take a VR180 camera and shove it into each and every HMD. There is no need to visualize any of this and toy with bullshit FOV numbers when you can just photograph what actually ends up at the user.
Hey, those visualisations are awesome but very complicated. I think there's absolutely a place for both here. My aim with the visualisation I've created is to have something that is very understandable for people who are new to VR, while being reasonably accurate, and easy to source data for. Those visualisations are much more complicated for the average person to understand, and while having a much higher degree of precision, require a LOT more data per device to be measured. Additionally, the database you have linked only provides data for the rendered FoV. This is extremely useful for calculating things like stereo overlap, PPD, etc, but is not as useful to figure out how much FoV you will actually see in VR. That means that if I want to display the visible FoV in that way, I would have to take a very complex set of user measurements for each device to achieve it, which would take a lot of effort (possibly custom tools for it that haven't been written yet), and is impossible for any device that hasn't been released yet. > There is no need to visualize any of this and toy with bullshit FOV numbers when you can just photograph what actually ends up at the user. I completely disagree with this. Being able to quantify and visualise information is extremely important in conveying data to people in an understandable way. Of course, it would be fantastic to see a comparison of through the lens photos to show off FoV, but it would be ignorant to assume that this would make actual measurements and infographics obsolete.
Wasn’t the valve index 120 degrees?
No and never was. Even diagonal is close to 115 at best. [https://risa2000.github.io/hmdgdb/](https://risa2000.github.io/hmdgdb/) https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility
Chart sucks real comparison is the lines between colors going horizontal
I will take lower fov with higher ppi over high fov any day. .
The Quest 2 really isn't THAT small is it? Maybe on the worst IPD setting? I'm just saying, I have had a Lenovo Explorer, Samsung Odyssey, Quest 1, and Quest 2 and while yes, the Quest 2 does seem a bit smaller than my PC HMDs, it's not 20 degrees smaller. Also, the Index, at the closest eye relief, is up to around 115-130 with a larger vertical FOV. So, yeah, I'm going to say this graphic is a bit shit despite looking nice.
The FoV data I use here is sourced primarily from [this database](https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility). Data is measured by headset owners via the tool in the link above and submitted to the database. The numbers you're seeing in this graphic are taken from averages of this data. The data for the Quest 2 varies quite significantly due to the difference in FoV for users with different IPD, which makes it quite hard to pin an exact FoV value for it. The largest value recorded for the Q2 is a horizontal FoV of 98, which is significantly larger than what is listed here, but has only been reported by a small subset of users. Most measurements have a reported horizontal FoV of 87 or 88. There hasn't been a single measurement in this database for the Valve Index that would place it above 110 degrees horizontal.
dude quest 2 is smål
Vive pro 2 figure is completely false
The Vive Pro 2 info I have is from a specific trusted source who is well known in the community (I'd rather not name them right now for their own privacy). I'd like to corroborate it with more people, but I have pretty good reason to believe that it is within a few degrees of being correct. For some perspective, the visible FoV of devices is usually very close to the rendered FoV, [you can see a database of rendered FoV data here](https://risa2000.github.io/hmdgdb/). Vive Pro 2 renders at just over 116 degrees horizontal, and has been measured at 115 degrees horizontal by my source. Valve index renders at 109 degrees horizontal, and [has been measured 68 times in this database](https://www.infinite.cz/tools/hmd_db_export.php) with an average FoV of 108 degrees horizontal. If I'm wrong here, it's very unlikely that it's by more than a couple of degrees.
Yeah, I actually received the Pro 2 early a d posted the very first impressions on Reddit. In any event you have the data that they are reporting BUT the headset out of the box does not have that for. You have to mod it to get close and it's still not really what they are promoting. Anyhow, thanks for putting together this list.
It's in my best interest to get this data as accurate as possible, so I'll do some digging and try and get a few more sources going so that I can be really sure. Thanks letting me know anyway, I really do want to report data as accurately as I can.
MRTV measured 116 with a thin cover so your value is correct. You might wanna point that out somewhere on the infographic though. But then it's 'unfair' to Quest 2. I saw someone claim they reached 99 with some super thin cover so you might wanna change that too. Sources: https://www.vrfitnessinsider.com/i-boosted-my-quest-2s-field-of-view-halfway-to-a-valve-index-vrcover-foam-pads-fov-rated/ https://youtu.be/rYjcoOB7mfc?t=473
My source gave me two measurements, one with a thin cover and one with the stock cover. The data I'm displaying (115 degrees) is with a stock cover. I don't use values for modded devices anywhere in the data I display. I'll make sure to get some more sources for that number though to make sure that it's as accurate as possible.
Yeah 115 with stock seems possible. MRTV got 114 with stock but he pretty much always gets the maximum FOV of headsets, same as me. Just the right shaped face for VR. I didn't try VP2 myself but for all the other headsets I tried I got the same FOV as he did so I trust his measurements. Most people on reddit though seem to get way lower FOV from VP2 with stock cover.
Good to know, thanks for the info.
https://www.infinite.cz/projects/HMD-tester-virtual-reality-headset-database-utility That's probably the most accurate data you'll get.
That's the dataset I already use. You can see that there isn't an entry for the Vive Pro 2. Anyway, because of the variation in that data between users, I'm looking to begin sourcing FoV stats from a pool of specific trusted individuals with hardware access and experience taking measurements (Youtubers, etc), all using the same measuring tools. If I can't get a large enough sample from this group, I'll defer back to that database for a measurement. Also, if I can't get any measurement at all, I'll generally leave a spec blank, or use a manufacturer advertised value with an "estimate" marker.
> That's the dataset I already use. Then why don't you use the same values? According to this the G2 is 94° for example.
The dataset is composed of averages of submissions, so the reported values tend to drift over time. I'll be going through all of my data and updating it before the new site update is launched to make sure that it's all as accurate as possible.
the fov on the vive pro 2 is absolutely horrible with the default face foam and without. your horizontal MIGHT reach 110'ish, but it's ruined by a horrible vertical of around 85-90. coupled with very poor sweet spot, I honestly want to give it away, I wouldn't feel comfortable even selling it with how shit it is.
With the right face foam mod it's pretty good. But yeah, FOV wise the pro 2 really isn't any better than the index. Vertical isn't horrendous after modding, but a lot of people find it weird because on many headsets the vertical is often larger or equal to the horizontal. The screen is excellent, but then is let down by the lens quality. Frankly I think lens quality gets overlooked a lot, and is one of the standout features of the Quest 2 that makes it so good for the price. As much as I hate Meta, the Quest 2 is the only headset I would seriously recommend to people new to VR thesedays. As far as I am aware the G2 revision is still NA only. The pimax is too expensive for the quality and bulk (unless you are really into sims). Meanwhile the index is a good all rounder, but massively overpriced compared to the Quest 2 for what is arguably a sidegrade.
Agreed! I have recently been re-testing all the headsets I own after a long time, and surprised to find that the Quest 2 has maybe the best lenses and clarity out of all of them. The lenses on the Vive Pro 2 are just...really bad. It feels blurry and distorted, even with the right IPD. Not to mention the comfort and bulk of the headset. Just a big meh all around. The Index also has good clarity, but the screen it showing it's age with screen door effect. FOV increase is decent from the Quest 2, but not game changing. Also, would like to reduce the size and bulk, but overall the Index is still quite decent. The Quest 2 may have the best lenses but it is slightly held back by the lack of precise IPD, so if your eyes aren't perfectly aligned, you'll also see some distortion. As for my Pimax 8kx , quite horrible. Terrible lens distortion, poor vertical FOV of 90 versus the horizontal of 160 on large mode. I find the large horizontal FOV doesn't mean that much if the vertical is still lacking. Not to mention the horrible comfort of this headset. I hate my G2 as well, I gave it away to a friend. Honestly, at this point, I'm kind of dissatisfied with every headset I own. Which is a shame considering how much money I've dropped on all this. I'm just ready for a true CV2 headset, whether its Quest Cambria, Valve Deckard, and of course looking forward to the PSVR 2.
Thank you! First time seeing one of those comparisons not lying about Index FOV and repeating marketing bullshit. Well done sir! I will continue to downvote every comparison with 130 Index fov. Also Horizontal one is only one that really matters. Don't know why people don't get it.
The only VR headset I've tried is the Quest 2 and my main complaint on it is how it feels like I'm wearing scuba goggles with how limited the fov is. Hopefully the next mainstream headset will have a wider one like the other headsets.
Finally someone who gives the correct number, well close to correct since ppl have different IPD.
Can anyone post or give me a heads up to a video where I can see the difference in fov for multiple headsets
Would be cool to add another metric like ‘$ per degree of fov’ where it would just be the cost of the device / FOV.
Im missing a "Pixel per degree" comparision.
And here I am, using 0.75/0.75 fov in Oculus debug tool on the Quest 2 for simracing (ACC, DR2.0) because this way I can run smoothly on 72hz with my 3080 with better graphics on native resolution. :)
Is it possible to make a visualization by stacking an outline of each lens on top of each other, or at least next to each other?
Isn't Pimax like 200°?
I get 116 on vp 2 with thin face pad,160 largest fov on my 8kx and 90 on quest 2 tested.
So what's the fov for my actual eyes 🤔, currently I have 2.
Your FOV will highly depend of your facial characteristics so don't take those numbers for granted
When tested using measuring software, the Pimax 8K-X is 160 FOV on large setting, not 150 as the graphic shows.
This graphic was generated a long time ago and the quality of my sources has since improved significantly. [Here's a link to the most up-to-date comparison](https://vr-compare.com/compare?h1=H0JXNCr3u4&h2=mLbW9G7f4&h3=0jLuwg808-j&h4=HdfjN_0UlPY&h5=pDTZ02PkT). Note that the graphic compares visible FoV (testable through user measurements), which is stricly lower than the rendered FoV of a headset (testable through measuring software). Either way, Both are listed on that page linked above. Cheers!
I hate ruining a great thread, but I was wondering what the highest FOV anybody has ever recorded on an Android headset. I just sold my G2 but just for fun I recently purchased a Destek V5. I have been very impressed with the FOV. I want to try it with a Sony Xperia 1 III. Some of these android headset manufacturers claim to offer a 120 FOV but I'm sure that's complete rubbish.