OCULUS RIFT, QUEST AND QUEST 2: THREE GENERATIONS OF VIRTUAL HEADSETS TO THE TEST
2020 is a pivotal year for the gaming world. The arrival of PS5 and Xbox Series X lays the foundations for the next generation of games, we will have to wait to see the features of the new consoles fully exploited, but the technological advancement compared to the past is there for all to see. Among many TFLOPs and very fast SSDs, however, we have forgotten about virtual reality . Sony is continuing to support PSVR, a viewer that has had the great merit of lowering the cost of accessing this world, but which is born outdated by the models available for PC and which does not yet have an heir. Microsoft, on the other hand, is carrying out the Mixed Reality project on computers, while on Xbox there are no indications of the arrival of a compatible viewer.
Even on PC, virtual worlds have suffered a setback. In 2016,
the year of arrival of Oculus Rift, all hardware manufacturers focused strongly
on VR, from GPUs to peripherals the " VR Ready " logo was practically
everywhere, but today it is not even shown on the sales packs of video cards .
A strange choice, above all because compared to 2016
practically everything has changed, the viewers cost less and the availability
of games, although not enormous, has increased and can count on masterpieces
such as Half Life: Alyx . Today, Oculus is leading the development of VR on PC,
thanks above all to the funds of a giant like Facebook: after the acquisition
of Oculus in 2014, Mark Zuckerberg's company is focusing heavily on virtual
reality to create an alternative business, but not without connections, to the
social world.
To understand how much the world of virtual reality on PC
has changed, we compared three very different viewers, Oculus Rift, Oculus
Quest and Quest 2, of the products that marked these first years of the life of
VR on computers.
A design in continuous involution
There is a gulf between the build quality seen on Oculus
Rift, Quest and Quest 2. It could not be otherwise, just look at the list price
of the three viewers to understand where Oculus has cut production costs. The
Rift cost 699 euros when it was launched in 2016, but to have it in Italy you
had to shell out around 750 euros , as it was shipped directly from the United
States. To this it was then necessary to add an additional economic outlay for the
Oculus Touch controllers and for the motion detection sensors, necessary to
have a virtual Room Scale experience, which allowed you to move in space. Also
not to be underestimated was the price of a PC at the height of VR, in 2016 the
power of the GPU was far from the current one.
Already from the economic aspect it is possible to
understand why, in the period of maximum push of the technological world
towards a greater diffusion of virtual reality, this did not meet the favor of
the mass public . Too high the prices, configuration for use in uncomfortable
Room Scale mode and high hardware demands have stopped the propulsive impulse
of VR, which after a period of high hype has almost ended up in oblivion.
Having an Oculus Rift in your hands, however, allows you to
observe the work done at the time: the viewer was covered with fabric, even the
sales pack conveyed a distinct feeling of exclusivity, it almost seemed to have
a luxury prototype in your hands .
After the Rift, the VR in Oculus sauce has undergone a
split. On the one hand, the Rift S arrived, designed to work in tandem with a
PC, on the other hand, the Quest range was born, designed to work without the
need for external hardware and above all without the need for connection
cables. It took three years to see the successors of the Rift, obviously if we
exclude Oculus Go, released in 2018 but no longer on sale.
Rift S and Quest both arrived in 2019 and brought in dowryan
important lowering in the price (449 euros), a higher resolution but above all a
tracking system of the controllers and the integrated movement, which does not
require external sensors.
In a single shot some of the limitations seen with the first
model were gone, it was no longer necessary to equip a special space to play
with VR, it was simply an area free from obstacles, the Oculus Touch
controllers were included in the price and also the resolution. higher allowed
a better view of the contents.
All this without particular limits to the build quality,
with the use of good quality materials and a fabric cover still present in the
case of the Quest. Having not tried the Rift S we cannot express ourselves on
this model, but the first Quest was well done on the constructive front.
Today, with the Quest 2, the cost reduction process decided
by Facebook and Oculus has come to fruition, bringing the price of the headset
to just 349 euros. A decidedly accessible figure, but which required the use of
materials of a much lower quality than in the past, starting from the rigid
plastic of the body (goodbye fabric) to the elastic support for the head, less
comfortable than that of the Quest and above all with a tendency to let go
during use, it is no coincidence that a higher quality support is sold
separately. The adjustment of the intrapupillary distance has also been limited
and can now be set to only three positions.
During use we had no problems in this respect, the more
difficult it is instead to adjust the elastic head support , it is difficult to
find a position that allows the best sharpness of the images and just lower the
head to see the viewer move from the chosen setting. .
In short, the cost of Oculus virtual viewers has dropped a
lot but the price to pay is lower build quality and less effective head support
. Despite this, reaching the 349 euro list price allows the Quest 2 to become
much more competitive on the market, especially if you look at the technical
aspects, which offer good visual quality and the ability to play from a PC even
without the need for cables.
Constant technical evolution
The involution of the Facebook viewers in the build quality
is clear, however this has allowed us to concentrate all the resources on the
visual experience, again in the name of compromise, but in any case
significantly improved over time. To simplify, we will analyze what are the
fundamental technical elements for a virtual viewer, namely the type of panel,
resolution, field of view and refresh rate. The panel factor is central to best
represent virtual worlds, from this point of view a step backwards has been
taken, since Rift and Quest use an OLED screen, while the Quest 2 has an LCD..
Translated into practice, the Quest 2 has a lower contrast than the other
models and a less deep black. OLED screens can turn off pixels completely to
represent black, with the Quest 2's LCD display instead the darker areas are
represented as gray.
Where the Quest 2 beats the previous versions is instead in
the resolution. The Rift uses two 1080x1200 AMOLED screens manufactured by
Samsung, for a total of 2160x1200 pixels. The rendering of this solution is
excellent in terms of contrast, but the pixel grid remains clearly visible
during use, diminishing the sense of immersion during the game. Oculus Quest
instead uses two OLED panels of 1600x1440 each, for a total of 3200x2880
pixels, while the Quest 2 uses a single LCD panel capable of generating
1832x1920 pixels per eye, therefore 3840x3664 pixels.
In this context, the Quest 2 wins hands down against its
predecessors, the pixel grid has become almost invisible to view , for a truly
excellent definition and graphic cleanliness. We remind you that this test was
carried out exclusively with the viewers connected to the PC, to exploit the
maximum possible graphic potential, and we must admit that the games we tested,
from Half Life: Alyx to Vader Immortal, enjoy a much higher definition on the
latest model. Another strong point of the Quest 2 is the refresh rate, of 90 Hz
, the same as the Rift, against the 72 Hz of the Quest. A high refresh rate is
important for better comfort during use, thus avoiding unpleasant
inconveniences, such as motion sickness.
In our case, after more than a year of using virtual
reality, we noticed a progressive decrease in the feeling of discomfort that
can affect during the use of VR, now completely disappeared. Using a Quest 2 at
90 Hz we never experienced any problems, even after an hour and a half of
continuous use , we never went further simply because a little break every now
and then is necessary in order not to detach too much from reality. Too bad for
the slightly lower field of view compared to the Quest and the Rift, however,
nothing that can ruin the visual experience.
Ultimately, even on the video quality front, the Quest 2 has
to deal with some small compromises, if it had had an OLED screen we would have
been faced with an even more interesting product, but already in this way it
allows high-quality virtual experiences at a price. which seemed impossible
until a few years ago.
Wireless VR from PC for 349 euros
Rift owners should switch to Quest 2 without a second
thought. Net of the limitations we have described so far, one of the greatest
advantages of this version is the ability to connect wirelessly to the PC . You
got it right, what until a few years ago required an expensive accessory and a
state-of-the-art network equipment is now possible at a cost of only 349 euros.
Before explaining this function better talk about the
evolution brought by Quest and Quest 2 in this field. The Rift needed an HDMI
connection and a USB 3.0 connection to the PC to work, the two Quests, on the
other hand, were designed as stand alone viewers, with a catalog partly shared
with the PC one, but for example, without a computer they cannot be exploited.
titles on Steam.Facebook has therefore created Oculus Link , a connection cable
based on USB Type C to connect the Quests to the computer, which can thus be
used as a replacement for the Rift and Rift S.
It should be noted that the Rift range will no longer be
produced , replaced right from that Quest, which will remain the only one that
can also be used on PC. Having only one connection cable is already a nice
advantage, the only limits are the cost (€ 99, but there are also cheaper
third-party cables compatible) and the maximum refresh rate of 72 Hz in the
first Quest, while the Quest 2 it also recently manages 90 Hz, a functionality
reached with the end of the beta of the Oculus Link project.
Where Facebook and Oculus do not arrive, however, the
international community and developers take care of it. Right from here comes
the Virtual Desktop program , which can be purchased directly from the Oculus
store for about € 30.
This software was designed to stream the PC desktop directly
into the viewer, a useful but incomplete solution, because it does not allow
screen sharing while playing. This is where SideQuest comes into play , an
alternative store designed for independent developers. To use it you need to
activate developer mode on Quest or Quest 2, it works on both models; from here
you can then download a patch for Virtual Desktop that allows game streaming.
The result is simply exceptional, just think that, through
this method, it was possible to unlock the 90 Hz from the PC even before the
arrival of the function on Oculus Link. Playing Half Life: Alyx free from
cables is an experience that must be tried, also because the wireless
transmission quality is so high that it is indistinguishable from the result
obtainable with Oculus Link , all using a simple 5 GHz connection, without even
the need for Wi-Fi 6. This possibility alone has given us made to forget in one
fell swoop the compromises that the Quest 2 had to make in terms of design and
specifications.
The Facebook question
At the end of this test that lasted almost a year, between
one viewer and another, it is also right to talk about an aspect that has not
convinced everyone: to use a Quest 2 you need a Facebook account , without it
it is not even possible to finish the first. viewer configuration. Anyone who
creates a new Oculus account today will have no problems, just use your
Facebook profile to log in and everything is ready to use. Those who already
had an Oculus account are obliged to link it to their Facebook profile.
This has led to some serious problems, just look at the
thread dedicated to technical support on the Oculus website to understand it.
The biggest difficulty derives from the choice, imposed by Facebook, to make
the two accounts inseparable, once merged, it is no longer possible to divide
them, except by deleting the Oculus account. If you accidentally log into the
Oculus site with your Facebook account without first merging it with your
Oculus account, the system creates a new Oculus account, thus blocking the next
merge.
This is exactly what happen to us during the trial, which
prevented us from using the Quest 2 for several days after the headset was
delivered.
A problem that should be easily solved by technical
assistance, it was enough to delete the new Oculus account created by mistake,
thus freeing the Facebook profile used during the test, but that Oculus
customer care was unable to solve in a short time. In the end, through a small
trick, we were able to use the viewer anyway without merging the two accounts,
but Facebook needs to improve a lot in this field, negative experiences in the
support phase can change the perception of the product and in general of the
brand, we need a greater speed in replying, especially if such a simple problem
prevents the use of a product.
The mandatory nature of a Facebook profile also poses other
dilemmas, especially for those who have made purchases on the Oculus store
before this novelty. If one day they wanted to delete their Facebook profile
they would lose all purchases made on Oculus, for example, because this account
would also be deleted. In short, in our opinion Facebook should be more
flexiblein this field, a flexibility which, however, still seems very far away.
