GreenHell VR also has the 180 unity rotation bug

It’s all (basically) just number of pixels. We need less pixels for same quality for same FOV on canted displays. This means we need less gfx processing power for the same quality on canted displays. Are you disputing this, or do you think something else is going on in PiTool / SteamVR or whatever which has a greater effect?

IDK what excuses you’re talking about? What do you mean by “leaving a up on steam”?

What do you mean by “percieved res”? Your subjective impression or actual values from steam or similar? If you mean your imprssion then you really also need to account for so much more. The different screens, for a start.

Also I’m not sure if you’re arguing over whether the canted displays have benefits or over whether there is any point to the 12K at all.

vive pro 2 has around 117 fov,8kx has around 120 fov on small,if you enable pp on on pimax you render at 3300x3950(without pp its 3130x3160) in steamvr at that fov,on the vive pro 2 at a similar fov you need to render like 3200x3200 at ultra in the vive console so not much different than 8kx without pp on,but vive pro 2 will have higher ppd and more pixels at those stats than the 8kx in the small fov because of different panels thats why its not really a fair comparision but still.
you get to render less pixels at a sharper image that you actually percieve and the resolution isnt wasted on the corners or whatever at the same fov as 8kx with PP on,also pitool aplying PP has to do some processing or something do you think its that effective?i dont think so,you can see that for yourself,when i got my 8kx,someone from pimax told me “its only a handfull of OLDER games that needs pp” cause i was aware of it reading threads here about performance yet now its like it is needed in most games coming out,and i dont believe that the performance you get with PP on at normal fov is acceptable for anyone that doesnt have a quantum computer,so all im asking is who is the 12k for?i dont even want to think about the resolution needed for 35 ppd at 140 fov with PP on,let alone 200 fov?specially in the usually demanding unity games,why they dont even aknowledge this bug?,maybe they should talk with unity or something?thats all im asking if youre fine with it great i dont,and i will keep mentioning it on the games forum and here like i did for blade and sorcery,hard bullet and table tennis,i mean it comes into the price tag of 1200$ to pls ask devs to support my premium headset,cant wait to do the same for the 12k qled for 2400$ or crystal so i actually have a chance at a playable experience on proly a 4090.

I think you’re talking about 3 related things and just mixing them together. Just because we disagree on one thing doesn’t mean we disagree on everything.

Nobody is fine with the 180 bug. We are already all asking them to fix it you are preaching to the choir here. It has been asked / reported here and on github and on unity forums and discords and on many games. I don’t know why you seem to think you are alone. Here I think everyone agrees. Thanks for helping in the fight you are doing a great job. If you want to help me convince the Population One devs that’d be great too. Sure Pimax themselves haven’t guaranteed anything, but they are aware, it is in their interest for it to be fixed, but there is possibly a limited amount they can do. IMO it is reasonable to assume that they are doing all they can to see that it is fixed.

This “argument” is different from how PP works and what it is. Here you and I do seem to disagree(?)

Then thirdly we have the discussion on whether there is a place for the 12K at all, given its requirements. Of course PP off will help with this. We agree on that at least. But my take is simply that we (12k users) will just need to get used to low gfx / shadow / etc., over use of DLSS type stuff, and better optimised FFR, etc… It’d be foolish to expect to play The Forest on 90 FPS Large FOV Ultra GFX, of course. Doesn’t mean the headset will be useless.

140 fov,PP on,35 ppd,yeah if the rumors about 4090 arent true with 2x performance im thinking im gonna have to turn the whole game off not just the shadows,as for pp there are no other large fov headsets to compare so its useless to argue cause headsets are very different but the performance with PP on at normal fov and even small is far from ok thats all i got to say.

1 Like

also where i can comment or leave an up for population one?have you posted the fix?

on their discord ( POPULATION: ONE ) :


PM to their devs (theoretically, according to a pinned msg) on discord :

Their support system that they ignore so far. Feel free to refer to my ticket if you start a new one :

https://support.bigboxvr.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

My ticket (3085) has the same text basically as my discord msg.

1 Like

damn 1 year ago…,i will make a post on steam as there isnt one and report a ticket,they dont care tho.

There seems to be this assumption that rendering resolution must always max out the panel resolution. With this reasoning, the mere existence of higher resolution panels in the HMD can actually be a negative. Because if the panel resolution is up there, we seemingly have no choice but to crank the rendering resolution up to match and to heck with everything else.

Only we do have a choice. And it wouldn’t be an unreasonable choice to run the 12K at the same rendering resolution that we were previously running the 8KX for the same game. It’s still going to look better than the 8KX. The higher pixel density of the panel will have more accurate sampling and will reduce SDE compared to the 8KX (which does not actually have zero SDE, by the way). The improved lenses will produce better sharpness and less distortion over a larger area. The colors will be more vibrant. The blacks will be darker. Etc etc. All of this without being one lick harder on the GPU than the 8KX was.

Only the 12K will actually be easier on the GPU at the same settings than the 8KX was. Primarily because of DFR. Which means that we actually will be able to run it at some level of higher rendering resolution without sacrifice… or don’t and run higher FPS than before instead.

So the 12K is going to provide a better display on the same GPU. And that display will only get better still as we get into 40 series and other future GPUs which are able to drive the rendering resolution higher over the probably 3 year lifespan of the product.

2 Likes

Well said, I turn my steamvr resolution down to 70% for some games in my 8KX and it still looks great. There is definitely a benefit to having a headset that already gives a great experience that can get even better as your hardware to drive it increases. My 8KX is better than ever since I upgraded from my 1080ti to a 3080. At the same time I really enjoyed games with it for the one and half years that I used it with my 1080ti.

For practical full claimed FOV with the 12k, there is going to have to be some changes engine- driver-, HAL/gfxAPI-, and runtime side, and some on the hardware side, too. Unfortunately history - both older and very recent (e.g. new UE5 shinies as yet not working in VR, and taking even screen-based gaming right back to “cinematic” 30fps), is not filling me with confidence that things needed, will come to be.

I put the “practical” qualifier there, because with that claimed FOV, we’re talking 159x135 degrees per eye, which is perfectly possible on a singular rectangular viewplane, since both dimensions are less than 180° (…or 2 times 90°), as long as you can render canted; It just won’t be remotely efficient, even then (…and over 180° with PP, on a single flat rectangle per eye is just a plain geometrical impossibility).

Games really need to start to render, or be “tricked” (e.g. by the APIs they work through, and/or drivers), into rendering in ways that optimises workload and memory use for each segment of FOV, and for lens- and foveation properties, instead of current wasteful practices, which were considered acceptable for <100° FOVs – there are many ways this could be done, including, to a degree, things that NVidia introduced with their 10x0 series (…in their typical proprietary manner), but which (effectively) nobody ever adopted, so… (EDIT2: Heck - there was a 360° version of Quake aaaages ago - way before the VR renaissance; Just six 90x90° views on a cube, which is pretty much what you have with dynamic envmaps anyway…)

I really feel that the sooner games graphics switches over to full raytracing, without any rasterisation vestages, the more ready we become to take the necessary steps forward, given how much better it can potentially lend itself to foveation, if the implementer has any forward thinking; Even if there will be a significant lapse in generational performance progress with the switchover to the more work-heavy methodology. It will never happen, of course, but…

On the brute-force approach side: Given how much better a potential RT workload has to being distributed, I would hope for multi-GPU to make a proper comeback, but with a main card that is like a regular card today, that can run all those “legacy” rasterised games, and an arbitrary number of “farm” daughter boards, with purely RT-and-parallelisation-optimised cores. Another thing that is unlikely to happen… (EDIT: …but if it were to happen, after all, it needs to be through a standard. -As long as every solution provider guards their own little kingdom, nothing will ever become properly adopted – maybe not even over in Apple-land, which is it’s own little galactic empire, apart from all the rest of humanity.)

i used to play on 0.77 resolution FSR,then the FFR version appeared and i switched to 1.00 native res and 0.7 fixed foveated rendering,the difference in that 23% was HUGE,there is something about native resolution that makes it look soo much sharper to me,if i pay for the 12k qled and crystal,the main selling point for me is the resolution and sharpness,so im gonna wanna use it ofc with a 4090,im afraid with PP on that wont be possible but well see,luckily unreal engine works great and i hope most games move to UE5 in the future and stop with unity.

There is no such thing as rendering at the native panel resolution on VR headsets. That’s a concept from computer monitors which does not apply to VR.

so the res in the center can never be at its native number or go past it ever?idc then whatever it is running at now at 1.0 its way better than 0.77 for me,maybe it fills the pixels perfectly,i care about what i see,at 1.0 its drastically better than 0.77,i wont lower the resolution on that 12k qled or crystal to anything less than 1.0 instead i will lower it on the sides with ffr,i had 0.77 openvr installed in all games then i switched with vrperf kit,and all the games i jumped back were suddenly much sharper,unless im really forced to like with green hell i will never go back to anything below 1.0 in the center for any headset.

It depends on what one mean, by: “rendering to native resolution”.

Obviously all involved demonstrate perfect understanding that the effective resolution varies across the FOV, due to a number of factors, and that even when one render 1:1 rendered:native PPD for a certain favoured spot within the FOV, no rendered:native spatial pixel relationships will be perfectly aligned (kind of akin to the difference between scrolling a screen 0.01 of the screen width every 0.01 seconds, or scrolling it a whole number of pixels every screen refresh - the latter subjugates itself to specifics of the hardware, and tends to come out very smoothly moving, and visually sharp, but is inherently fettered to those particular hardware specs).

I believe one can know all that and be of the opinion that PPD parity for the centre of the view for all intents and purposes counts as “rendering for native”, and one can be of a more pedantic persuation, without either opinon-holder being too sloppy with language. :7

I think I would add a bit of a caveat: I’d say one could could probably “render for native”, in the more literal sense, if one dispensed with rasterisation, and instead raycast for each screen pixel, with projection and lens distortions in mind right from the outset; That would match 1:1, and require no subsequent quantisation, nor sampling from an intermediate image.

When you’re talking about rendering to native resolution in the case of computer monitors, this has a specific meaning and special properties. The rendered pixels all line up with the physical pixels, and so rendering at this resolution both offers better video quality and reduced computational complexity (the scaling step is omitted). This only happens when rendering at exactly 100% (1.0). It doesn’t happen at 99% or 101%.

The concept does not apply to VR, and that is not just pedantic. There are no special attributes to rendering at 100% on the 8KX or any other VR headset. The actual resolution represented by 100% is arbitrarily chosen and is not the native resolution of the panel. In most cases, it’s actually around 130-140% of the actual panel resolution.

My point in bringing this up is to help people make better decisions about how to tune their display settings. Because a lot of people will incorrectly believe that 100% render resolution is a magic number that they should specifically aim for and sacrifice other settings to get because that was true for flat gaming on a PC monitor. But there is nothing special about 100% on a VR headset display. 99% will be slightly worse. And 101% will be slightly better. You’re free to choose 77%, 98%, 110%, 146%… any arbitrary resolution that gets you the results you’re looking for. There’s no particular reason to choose a round number or anything (other than your own OCD).

I absolutely agree with this. If it worked that way, then rendering at native resolution would indeed be a special case with special properties for the same reason as it was with flat gaming on PC monitors. And this is where we need to get to. Since right now the rendering pipeline is still designed around rendering to flat planes and then scaling and warping it for VR as a post-process step which both takes additional processing and is destructive to video quality thus requiring brute force rendering at higher resolution to compensate. It sucks that 100% isn’t actually special.

Well, yes… /My/ point was: “You know what he means”. :7

As far as I can tell, you both seem to grasp these fundamentals, even if you express them somewhat differently.

…and I piped up, because discussions on forums all too easily get switched to a particular side track which is all about semantics, where the actual topic becomes all but forgotten (quite frequently somebody does this on purpose, to bury unwelcome news).

Reading what I just wrote, I can’t shake the feeling that I have just made a massive contribution to exactly that which I was trying to steer off… :stuck_out_tongue:

It is good to be clear on the meaning of things, for the next person to stumble across a discussion, but maybe not so much worth getting into a holy war over… I am certainly guilty myself, of incessantly griping e.g. about people using the term “sweet spot” to mean two different things (…one of which is an effect of the other, which is probably how the misunderstanding arose)…

There exists MelonLoader which allows for mods to unity games. KoochyRat and I had worked together on a mod that fixed the culling issue eliminating need for PP in games like Boneworks. I’m sure there’s a way to fix the 180 rotation bug with a mod too. Just need the code sample.

yep thats what i was thinking,and that culling mod still works i have it in boneworks very good job.

1 Like

sorry jojon i dont get much of what youre saying(my language is not native english),1.0 beats 0.77 obviously as it shoud at least for me its a huge difference,and if i go to 120% in steamvr i dont see the same big difference that i see from 0.77 to 1.00 may or may not be “native” who cares i dont plan on going below that 1.0 in the center on any headset id rather go at the edges.

Same here. Sorry about my wierd run-on sentences, interjecting clarifications, and general confusion, etc; I am actually just as terrible at putting together an intelligible sentence in my own native language, as I am in English, and usually find myself unable to parse my own writing, when returning to it a week later…

I guess there is probably something not entirely negligible to be said for 0.77 to 1.0 on top of the 0.03 being a larger proportional increase (1/0.77=1.3), than 1.0 to 1.2 (a’la the deceptiveness of driving speeds, and so on)…

Just want to be clear on one thing… When you write “0.77”, you do mean as in 77% in SteamVR settings (although only even numbers are possible using the slider), right? …or do you mean 0.77 elsewhere?

This is an important distinction, because these days 120% in SteamVR (it was different in early days), means 120% the amount of pixels, total - over the area of the bitmap; Not, as it may be some other places: 120% the bitmap height in pixels, and 120% the bitmap width in pixels, which would correspond to 144% on the SteamVR slider (EDIT: …or with 0.77: 59%).