-
Search Results
-
All the games I tried on UEVR had no issues with raytracing or graphical settings tbh… I haven’t tried a lot of them though. I definitely have had more issues with VorpX, but I’ve been using VorpX for like almost a decade, so its only logical lol
UEVR doesn’t handle raytracing with Unreal Engine 4. There are a lot of other visual glitches in most beautiful games. Anyway it’s nearly impossible to have max settings with most AAA games from the reviews. A lot of people, including me, have constant crashes depending on the game.
But as I already said, it’s really good if the game isn’t too ambitious, and I understand why you like it with third person game (I personnaly prefer to not have a true full VR view in TPS because I feel less immersed in the character I play).
But I enjoy UEVR with some minor games.
I definitely have had more issues with VorpX, but I’ve been using VorpX for like almost a decade, so its only logical lol
At worse, if G3D isn’t perfect, Z3D never really disable anything important, as far as I know.
??? what do you mean? It isn’t broken, automated or unused…?
It works pretty well and its nicely integrated into UE.It’s unused because the developper of the games didn’t use this to create a clean VR game. They didn’t care or relied on UEVR.
It’s broken because of a lot of reasons (raytracing doesn’t always work, 3D can be strange, it’s blurry at medium/long distance), but most of all, there is camera clipping, animation problems, HUD issues, cutscenes issues, etc.
Most of the time it feels like beeing the developer of an unfinished game when you play a first person shooter. You didn’t experience it because you mostly play third person games.
It’s automated because unless you use a profile, it is.
Without a profile, the gameplay isn’t adapted to VR. And even the camera doesn’t work well in a lot of cases.
Even with a profile, when it doesn’t crash, it’s usually far from perfect and you can feel the game wasn’t designed to be played in VR.VorpX may be less close to exclusive native games, but it relies more on the base game gameplay and animations, so it’s a much cleaner experience from a flat gamer perspective (especially with first person games and if you play seated).
I’m a gameplay programmer, and my role is to ensure games aren’t like UEVR conversions…
Also, didn’t UEVR build its own stereo views by intercepting DirectX drawcalls instead than using the two camera tricks, and thus becoming more “native”? That would be waaaay more performant, don’t quote me on it tho.
I just mean both programs do two renders. I have no way to know how and it doesn’t really matters. VorpX probably use several ways depending on the game.
So why people go to the cinema ? It’s easier to notice details on a giant screen.
Ah! I see what you mean now. I thought you were talking about just higher resolutions. You are talking about screen size!
Yeah, that is correct. In fact, that’s why 8K only is worth it when you start going over 70 inches, because unless you are literally at breathing distance from it, your eye won’t be able to resolve all the detail lolAnd as my G2 is afocal,
The hell does that mean? I can only find you saying “afocal” when I google the word together with g2!! hahahah
It should be a (little) waste of performence (because you still have headtracking). But in fact, in my experience with AAA games, UEVR’s performences and image quality are so much worse that VorpX is still better, whatever display mode you use (full VR or immersive screen).
Pretty weird like I said. Its very unlikely that VorpX runs better than UEVR in UE to be honest, or if it does is because it might be dropping some stuff (like g3d shadows being only processed once in one eye). In any case, it doesn’t matter, since VorpX works with literally everything else unlike UEVR (for obvious reasons).
And it’s not a waste of performance, because it’s very useful
Nonono, you are misunderstanding me. Its a waste in the sense that, the PC is processing data that it doesn’t have to.
(and accurate/immersive in first person games because UEVR can break easily when something is close to your head).
It does? It doesn’t for me in all games I tried… All of them are 3rd person though, I don’t play barely any FPS to be honest.
t’s true 3D stereo in hundred of games
Yeah, good stuff all around!
(it probably adds an additional camera and move the original one, exactly as UEVR does, except with VorpX it’s not a broken/automated/unused feature from Unreal Engine
??? what do you mean? It isn’t broken, automated or unused…?
It works pretty well and its nicely integrated into UE.
Also, didn’t UEVR build its own stereo views by intercepting DirectX drawcalls instead than using the two camera tricks, and thus becoming more “native”? That would be waaaay more performant, don’t quote me on it tho.All the games I tried on UEVR had no issues with raytracing or graphical settings tbh… I haven’t tried a lot of them though. I definitely have had more issues with VorpX, but I’ve been using VorpX for like almost a decade, so its only logical lol
In any case, going back to our post here. I still can’t reduce aliasing on high resolutions, sadly :(
In reply to: Higher resolutions?
Vegetation – Close-up full VR :
Arches High FOV full VR :
The arche in the background is already quite clean on the screenshot. It’s better in the G2 with VorpX’s magic. It’s what I like the most in VorpX with a displayport headset. Things don’t get blurry even if they are very far from you. With Metro Exodus it’s a lot better. It depends on the the game engine.Trees medium distance Edgepeek :
Ikran (dragon) Edgepeek Full VR display mode :
A few limited volumetric clouds (not lucky with the weather yesterday).Clouds Godrays Edgepeek :
This one is not so beautiful but it’s funny with the godrays.
(This area is less beautiful except sometimes there is some amazing volumetric clouds / fog but I had no chance yesterday).
It’s interresting because you can see the outlines of the 3D objects.In reply to: Higher resolutions?
I don’t know if it helps but I tried to capture VorpX the last time I played Frontier of Pandora.
I’m sorry : it’s not the best game to show large outdoors environements because LOD and textures aren’t the best at long distance (compared to Metro Exodus for example), but I’m playing this game right now.It feels actually a lot more realistic in VorpX because I hide some textures defects with AMD Fidelity FX at max quality (without removing too much details on close environments).
It’s quite impressive even if it’s not as photorealistic and perfectly detailed as Metro Exodus. Anyway you don’t really know where to look because of the insane amount of objects so it works very well if you want to instantly forget about reality for a while !
Pandora Moutains in VorpX full VR Without upscale, enhancement filters and 3D :
It’s a lot better in VorpX. I think this is because you can’t see VorpX’s enhancement filters (upscale, sharpening, maybe supersampling, etc.), even without considering there is no 3D here.
If I look at these screenshots in a VR viewer, I have to imagine something twice as detailed, sharp&clear (and with 3D) to be close to the quality of VorpX (even in 2880p without FSR/DLSS).
Even if those are 3840p screenshot without noticeable aliasing.Lower FOV :
I have to partially disagree.
Concerning details in VR vs monitor : if used normally, most people don’t really see pixels and details on a 4k/8k monitor.
This is objectively false.
So why people go to the cinema ? It’s easier to notice details on a giant screen.
Ok you can be very close to your 4k monitor, but I really don’t like that, and it’s not curved properly (vertically and horizontally) so it’s not as immersive as VorpX.
If I don’t use VorpX, I prefer video projector because comfort matters and 1080p is enough for me in this case, as long as the display is 2m60 large and not too close I’m happier than with a monitor.But I always play FPS/TPS with VorpX. It’s so good to be in the game, and it’s so much more detailed and beautiful ! And as my G2 is afocal, it’s like looking at a very long distance.
If you play in immersive screen, the displayed game can be larger than your FOV so it can be more detailed than a monitor with the same resolution than your VR headset.
It’s the difference between an hemispherical Imax theater (with headtracking and 3D in this case) and a monitor.Yeah, we agree there, it is also an absolute crazy waste of performance unless you have a way to cull the polygons you aren’t looking at directly though, which is why UEVR is so neat, it is able to use the native software built-in UE to show the game not as AER, but its full proper VR version, with all the software boosts that that means.
It should be a (little) waste of performence (because you still have headtracking). But in fact, in my experience with AAA games, UEVR’s performences and image quality are so much worse that VorpX is still better, whatever display mode you use (full VR or immersive screen).
And it’s not a waste of performance, because it’s very useful (for example if a first person camera is partially locked because for example your character is seated in the original game, it avoids clipping and broken animations you would have in UEVR, and it also avoids to rotate the entire world around you).
It also allow you to clearly see the HUD and to switch instantly between display mode with edgepeek.
It’s a great way to play ! Even if I usually prefer full VR, some games (or some part of them) would be too altered.
It’s the best compromise, and you can only do that with VorpX.Anyway, VorpX always do that, even in full VR (if you don’t want to see borders…)
The game is rendered at high resolution with high FOV and you look at a part of this render (most of it of course if properly configured).VorpX does so too in its VR form I believe, but don’t really know much about how @Ralf does his black magic on it. The fact it works in so many different engines is flatout baffling.
I guess there are several methods. It’s not AER (except Cyberpunk), It’s true 3D stereo in hundred of games (it probably adds an additional camera and move the original one, exactly as UEVR does, except with VorpX it’s not a broken/automated/unused feature from Unreal Engine and it actually performs better in some games, especially DX9 ones).
It’s great to be able to configure 3D settings and it’s more comfortable in a lot of cases (and accurate/immersive in first person games because UEVR can break easily when something is close to your head).But in my opinion, when G3D can’t be perfect, a good Z3D is better than a bad G3D, at least in large outdoors environments, so VorpX’s Z3D options can be the best choices sometimes (even better than UEVR’s G3D in some games because it avoids a lot of glitches and incompatibilties with raytracing, etc.)
And anyway with the most beautiful games if you want good graphics settings, you have no choice. G3D can be too demanding, even when it doesn’t break effects.I have to partially disagree.
PPD is not everything… but is most of what makes VR work, since it defines intrinsically the amount of detail your eye will be able to resolve in the image. Even at 45PPD we are still not getting close to the eye limit, which should still be 50% further up.
Again, I’m rendering games at 8000×7000 per eye, and I can still EASILY see the extra detail that wasn’t there at 5000×5000, its just about looking into the distance. It does hit the diminishing returns ceiling though after 6000×5000 fast, so I’m pretty sure we will plateau at around this PPD in most VR HMDs for the time being.
The 4 most important specs for VR are in no particular order; PPD (resolution of detail), FOV (immersion), lens tech (quality of vision) and panel tech (image quality). We could argue that comfort/weight is another one, depending on the kind of things you do, but image-quality wise, those are the important ones.
What is cool about a 45PPD HMD is, that because it matches the quality most 4K monitors, you effectively lose NO information when watching 99% of the content online.
Nevermind the boost to immersion having no screendor-effect is (not little, not subtle, 0). You can also use it as a real desktop replacement since any screen you put will have the same effective resolution than a 4K display anywhere you look at. If you pair that with a mOLED HMD, which are under 200g, then you really have no more use for monitors anymore…
Concerning details in VR vs monitor : if used normally, most people don’t really see pixels and details on a 4k/8k monitor.
This is objectively false. Even your average joe will see the difference of a 4K to 8K TVs when viewed at the apropriate distance. 8K does bump against the limit PPD our eyes have easily though, that’s why 8K in any screen under 70″ is really a waste and not done, and why its not happening anytime soon too.
4K monitors put to shame any other monitor under them with ease, so I guess you are not talking about that comparison.
If you play in immersive screen, the displayed game can be larger than your FOV so it can be more detailed than a monitor with the same resolution than your VR headset.
It’s the difference between an hemispherical Imax theater (with headtracking and 3D in this case) and a monitor.
Yeah, we agree there, it is also an absolute crazy waste of performance unless you have a way to cull the polygons you aren’t looking at directly though, which is why UEVR is so neat, it is able to use the native software built-in UE to show the game not as AER, but its full proper VR version, with all the software boosts that that means.
VorpX does so too in its VR form I believe, but don’t really know much about how @Ralf does his black magic on it. The fact it works in so many different engines is flatout baffling.PPD isn’t everything (It doesn’t actually improve graphics and as I said, it’s even not noticeable for a lot of people). Even actual resolution isn’t really useful above a certain limit depending of the game (because of textures).
And in my opinion, some games are actually more beautiful when they are a little bit blurry (because there can be details you don’t want to see).
Concerning details in VR vs monitor : if used normally, most people don’t really see pixels and details on a 4k/8k monitor.
You see a lot more details in VR because it fills your entire field of view.If you play in immersive screen, the displayed game can be larger than your FOV so it can be more detailed than a monitor with the same resolution than your VR headset.
It’s the difference between an hemispherical Imax theater (with headtracking and 3D in this case) and a monitor.
In reply to: Higher resolutions?
Both images look terrible in your pictures.
Well, they are raw images 2k images downscaled from almost 5000×5000 resolution output.
The UEVR looks worse (since its actually rendering at 4860p), the VorpX one… actually looks better than on the HMD.It can be a profile or configuration problem (maybe the wrong type of 3D, etc.)
It is in all games, in all types, from flat 2D to geo3D and any normal configuration.
Its like if VorpX internal resolution has an arbitrary ceiling it won’t go past for some reason.This is ugly even in 1080p. You shouldn’t be able to notice it on a 1080p monitor
Yeah, the image quality of VorpX is only SLIGHTLY better than on my VivePro… which has SIX times less pixels than my current HMD…
If the image quality is so bad, I guess it’s because you weren’t able to record correctly the output ? In this case I don’t see how we could compare.
I exported the raw output, that way they are comparable, its what its being fed to the HMDs.
I tried to take regular screenshots, but UEVR in 2D mode won’t play ball.Why do you want to use VorpX instead ?
I want to play all my games in VorpX (even the ones that won’t hook and will need to use the desktop viewer!).
I’ve been using VorpX for almost a decade now, and my dream since was “Having 4K-like resolution on an OLED HMD, so I can play all the games in VorpX!” … and its very sad to get finally the HMD that can do it… but now VorpX is the one that is bugging out (or limited in some internal way) :(I’m also a professionnal game developper (and I have advanced 3D modeling, animation and rendering skills too but it doesn’t really matter).
Awesome! A fellow gamedev and artist too to boot then!
I’m a professional indie and AAA game developer specialized in 3D Character creation! Moved to Japan and everything to make my gamedev dreams come true and everything hahaha
If this forum had DM’s I’d definitely send you a couple to chat about it lolThere is no way I can see blurry letters in VorpX.
I know right?
Even the G2 has more resolution than the image I sent! (you can even see the aliasing in the letters!)But as we said, you may be right on a PPD limit. I wouldn’t be able to tell with my current VR headset, which is already better than most.
Nah… far from the PPD limit still (sadly lol, its “only” around 45PPD).
Since you have a G2 it is easy to realize. For every 1 pixel the G2 has, the MeganeX8K has 3.
I’m not even getting to the 24PPD from the G2 in VorpX right now I’d bet :(I never use auto resolution, but most peope do, and as far as I know it limits resolution (it depends on game profiles).
Make sure you disable it if you want to play in very high resolution.
Of course, first thing I checked! I also disabled any sort of AA on both, to make the aliasing more obvious in both images and make comparisons better (very noticeable in the bridge ropes!).
Anyway, with hooked games, if you don’t see any difference between resolutions above 1440p or 2160p (or even 3200p), there is a problem somewhere, because it’s not the usual behavior.
I thought so too! That’s why I tried to reinstall a couple versions.
Reinstalled GPU drivers… and nothing.
The HMD is SteamVR native, so it should be acting just like the Index or any other native SteamVR HMD :/Everytime I tried, UEVR was particularly bad in 2D screen mode (a lot of aliasing and there is no curvature so there are distortions).
Dammit, weird again. That is exactly the opposite experience to what is happening to me.
In UEVR when I put it in 2D mode, not only the FPS boost up massively (due to all the processing that is not being done), but all aliasing instantly disappears (which… to be honest, makes sense, its stretching like a 4000×4000 image on a small square in front of me, instead of stretching it all over my FOV lol)——————————————————————————–
With the extreme resolutions you are mentioning, I think only the virtual monitor can reach, although it might currently be limited to 4860p max in the vorpX app.
That’s the thing. I made sure that in both instances, the game is running in 4860p. (I tried both by launching from the desktop, and the normal way without any differences)
The framerate matches 4860p on VorpX, the computer is using the GPU at an expected level… its just that VorpX isn’t showing the detail for some reason.
There may be be other special cases.
I tried many games, all of them max out at that very specific “VorpX” resolution. So does the desktop viewer (even when the desktop or the games are clearly set at 4860p!)
It’s important to note that you must have these custom resolutions created for a game to be able to recognize and display them. You test and create these in Nvidia Control Panel for your physical monitor, or the vorpX config app for the virtual monitor.
Forgive me if you already knew all this. I only mention this on the chance you are skipping something. like editing a game’s ini resolution without first creating the monitor custom res to match.
It’s the in game selected resolution that matters, not the SteamVR slider.
Nono, please, thank you for taking time to reply at all!
I did try all that. I made sure the games are ACTUALLY rendering at that resolution (checking not just the settings, but also GPU usage and FPS and such).
It really does just feel like there is an arbitrary “ceiling” I can’t pass when using exclusively VorpX :(
My SteamVR resolution is set at roughly 6100×5600, which basically 1.5x the resolution of the MeganeX8K (using up 100% of the panel’s image quality, which makes it equal in pixel density to a 4K 32″ monitor at regular viewing distance).And don’t use the Desktop Viewer (not to be confused with the Virtual Monitor) for games, always better to hook in with vorpX the intended way. Even for 2D play. The viewer is just capturing the desktop, performs worse, and looks pixilated.
Yeah, I tried both, just in case anything changed… and it didn’t :(
In reply to: Higher resolutions?
Most of the time, it’s not complicated if you use the virtual monitor (launch Desktop Viewer before hooking) : if the game isn’t restrictive, you just have to modify the game resolution in the game’s video settings.
With Bioshock Infinite, you don’t even need the virtual monitor because the game accept any resolution/ratio you want if you play windowed (but it’s still better if you want to play fullscreen in order to avoid mouse limitations in the main menu).
In addition : some unusual games use physical monitor’s resolution when they are in full screen mode (like Metro 2033 original). In this case you have to specify the windowed mode (in the .cfg file of the game or in the game’s video settings). With this particular game, the window must in addition not be larger than the destkop (you can guess why), so you must actually modify the virtual monitor’s desktop resolution with Windows display settings.
There may be be other special cases.
—–
I wouldn’t say the viewer automatically look pixilated if properly configured in immersive screen (at least without 3D). I didn’t really compare but it can be very good (at least the way I use it : high FOV, high resolution, low distance and high curvature, so a curved screen larger than my field of view). I think it’s simply more important to choose the appropriate resolution with the desktop viewer. But it may depend on a lot of things (VR headset, settings, etc.)
—-
Anyway, with hooked games, if you don’t see any difference between resolutions above 1440p or 2160p (or even 3200p), there is a problem somewhere, because it’s not the usual behavior.
It may be because of the game or the profile.
In reply to: Higher resolutions?
With the extreme resolutions you are mentioning, I think only the virtual monitor can reach, although it might currently be limited to 4860p max in the vorpX app.
Are you turning off your physical monitor when playing? Or rather, does vorpX turn off your monitor? This is how you know the virtual monitor is active.
If your physical monitor is active for playing, you may be limited to its capability.
In my experience, standard 2D games can only be set to render as high as your monitor can accept. In the case of my physical 1440p monitor, 2880p is the highest custom resolution test it can pass and create. Therefore 2880p is the highest in game resolution I can select in game.
If I want to go higher, I must use vorpX’s virtual monitor instead. I use the vorpX app to create and save the custom resolution I want for the virtual monitor, then select that resolution within the game’s settings.
It’s important to note that you must have these custom resolutions created for a game to be able to recognize and display them. You test and create these in Nvidia Control Panel for your physical monitor, or the vorpX config app for the virtual monitor.
Forgive me if you already knew all this. I only mention this on the chance you are skipping something. like editing a game’s ini resolution without first creating the monitor custom res to match.
It’s the in game selected resolution that matters, not the SteamVR slider.
And don’t use the Desktop Viewer (not to be confused with the Virtual Monitor) for games, always better to hook in with vorpX the intended way. Even for 2D play. The viewer is just capturing the desktop, performs worse, and looks pixilated.
In reply to: Higher resolutions?
I made some screenshots on both programs. UEVR is running in 2D screen mode to emulate how VorpX does in order to make the comparison fair. I kept the images as close as possible. Hopefully it will help!
I got the screens as close as possible and it 100% proves my point.
UEVR is rendering at a way higher resolution, even when both are “at 4860p”Notice how in the UEVR one, even when the camera is positioned further back (which should make the jaggies worse), its still miles ahead of it!
Good places to check resolution:
-Big letters at the top
-Protagonist’s hairThe worst is… these images are actually FLATTERING to VorpX. It looks SO MUCH WORSE when in the HMD… the images are “only” 2300p after all, and you aren’t being blinded in one eye due to the bad G3D shadows (but this is besides the point).
Reminder that this isn’t a game specific issue. It is happening with everything, including VorpX Desktop.
@Ralf
Any idea what might be at play here? I tried V21, V23 and V24, all of them showing the same issue.In reply to: Higher resolutions?
It’s definitely not better than VorpX. At best it’s different, but image quality can’t even compare because most beautiful settings don’t even work with UEVR.
I see! Maybe it varies a lot between games, because the games that have proper Native Stereo for me… look like the improved version of the monitor version. And I’m a graphics whore, after all, I’m a professional 3D videogame artist.
How do you configure UEVR to get a good image quality and see every details miles around like in VorpX ? Because every person who really tried both around me said me that VorpX has a lot better image quality.
I’m… not sure. I’ve been using VorpX since the early days, even going as far to using the shader authoring tool to create my custom profiles and… Even if its good, its never been flawless as UEVR seems to get to. (although I get way less control in UEVR without actually coding in LUA than with the authoring tool :S)
Well, let’s put an example. If I run Tales of Arise on VorpX, a UE4 game. 3D shadows are borked, due to the common issue with shaders on G3D. On top of that, like I said, it not only runs in a “window” since it isn’t fullVR compatible, but even when put both in that mode, VorpX only goes as high as under 3000p. On UEVR most shaders are flawless, except for the camera FOV that seems a bit weird at times (since it doesn’t zoom in like it would in a 2D screen)… and that’s it. I can run it if I can at 7000p, where pixels are literally so small I can’t tell them apart. A visual clarity that is so ridiculous I can see into the distance (at like… 10fps, of course lol). But even in UEVR “2D window” mode, I can easily put it at 5000p, get 90fps, and flawless image.
Maybe you don’t know how to configure VorpX, or as I said, you are very sensitive to something most people don’t even notice.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I mean, like I said, been using the thing since the early days, and I’m a user advanced enough to make their own profiles with the authoring tool… Tinkering with settings is totally my jam.
I just think not that many people are running HMDs with resolutions of 3550×3880 per eye yet. It would be ideal if Ralf could throw some light into this to be honest! And I mean, many people would notice if a program is rendering at like 2/3 or less resolution the HMD is capable of, I’m sure!Did you try the ClarityFX, Sharpness and Texture Enhancements settings ? (VorpX’s Ingame menu page 2) It’s very impressive on my VR headset if properly configured.
Yes, of course! I mean, it does make things better, but that doesn’t cut it, it really just needs way more resolution.
We probably don’t play the same games. I mostly play AAA games in VR (and anyway most of them aren’t made with Unreal Engine, except Atomic Heart which is an UE4 game and is better in VorpX).
I see! Surely we don’t play similar. To be honest, I like VorpX better as a “3D window” to the world better than full VR immersion. For that I feel UEVR is great, since it basically uses native UE VR rendering pipeline to show stuff.
As far as I know, you can always use max settings with VorpX in AAA games with a good enough resolution. It’s impossible with UEVR (either because it doesn’t even work, or because it works but it’s not optimized enough).
The problem is I straight out can’t. Like I said, is like VorpX just hits a ceiling of resolution the HMD won’t go over, even when I’m trying to force it (be it through the game engine rendering at higher resolutions, or the settings in SteamVR).
As I said, you could not reach such resolutions with most beautiful games (especially with Unreal Engine 4/5 AAA games…)
I mean… I have a heavily overclocked 4090 with a 9950X3D, and tolerance for low FPS, so I can easily play a game at like… 40fps and not feel wrong about it. Even in VR I play with most maxed out always (when it makes sense ofc). I don’t play that many AAA games though, I’m more interested in AA and indie, with the nice AAA here an there.
So It depends on the game, and on your use. Anyway both programs have other pros and cons depending on your expectations.
Yeah! I just seem to choose UEVR for all the UE games.
Hopefully, I am doing something wrong, or there is a fix I didn’t think for this! It really is a shame not being able to use VorpX now that the MeganeX8K is giving me such ridiculously high PPD (it sits at around 46PPD, with mOLED quality, its insane!)
In reply to: [Feature Request] 10x screen size/distance options
As far as I remember :
– “Full VR” display mode has a zoom setting. No distance/scale setting. But it’s the same thing. You shoold be able to unzoom enough.
What is your VR headset ? You should try to choose the ratio of your resolution accordingly, if the game allow it. Did you try the virtual monitor ? (VorpX V24)
– “Immersive Screen” display mode has a distance setting, and you should be able to unzoom a lot…In reply to: Higher resolutions?
Also, to my knowledge… UEVR is best in UE games overall, by a lot. And I mean, its not surprising really, VorpX works on like a bizillion other engines, while that one is specific to UE4-5.
UEVR doesn’t even handle raytracing in UE4 games and it has a lot of visual issues (animations glitches, camera clipping, 3D and camera doesn’t feel right in first person games, etc.)
Stability can be bad (it often crashes) and it’s not reliable, at least on my VR headset.
It’s most of the time unusable if you want your PC to remain silent (even with a very expansive one).
It’s definitely not better than VorpX. At best it’s different, but image quality can’t even compare because most beautiful settings don’t even work with UEVR.
And VorpX is so much optimized than it’s a lot better with AAA games on current graphic cards.
I agree UEVR can be a lot better in some minor games with little environments when VorpX has no profile because you can get G3D and image quality is good at short distance.
How do you configure UEVR to get a good image quality and see every details miles around like in VorpX ? Because every person who really tried both around me said me that VorpX has a lot better image quality.
Maybe you don’t know how to configure VorpX, or as I said, you are very sensitive to something most people don’t even notice.
Or maybe there is a compatibility problem with your uncommon VR headset or as you said a limit to PPD somewhere, which doesn’t concern most people and has probably no real effect on most recent games.Did you try the ClarityFX, Sharpness and Texture Enhancements settings ? (VorpX’s Ingame menu page 2) It’s very impressive on my VR headset if properly configured.
Some people use OpenXR toolkit to improve image quality but I didn’t need it.Most people really don’t need this level of details anyway. I’m pretty sure there is no way to reach VorpX’s image quality with UEVR in an AAA game (or I don’t know how to do it, and no one arround me found out).
We probably don’t play the same games. I mostly play AAA games in VR (and anyway most of them aren’t made with Unreal Engine, except Atomic Heart which is an UE4 game and is better in VorpX).
As far as I know, you can always use max settings with VorpX in AAA games with a good enough resolution. It’s impossible with UEVR (either because it doesn’t even work, or because it works but it’s not optimized enough).
As I said, you could not reach such resolutions with most beautiful games (especially with Unreal Engine 4/5 AAA games…)
So It depends on the game, and on your use. Anyway both programs have other pros and cons depending on your expectations.
In reply to: Higher resolutions?
UEVR’s sharpness & clarity isn’t even close to VorpX at medium/long distance in every AAA game with large outdoors environement I tried
This is SO WEIRD to me.
Because its the literal opposite to me in 100% of the cases.
UEVR is always sharp to perfection (even if my GPU wants to cry at single digit FPS) when I crank up resolution, while no matter how high I put the resolution on any VorpX game… it always looks “terrible” (at around 2000-ish p). Like, I can put the game at literally 8K (4000p), the GPU is clearly doing it, since the game chugs like it wants to die… yet the resolution and jaggies I see are identical to the ones I had when rendering the game at 4k (2160p). That’s the issue for me there. Hopefully that explains it better!Also, to my knowledge… UEVR is best in UE games overall, by a lot. And I mean, its not surprising really, VorpX works on like a bizillion other engines, while that one is specific to UE4-5.
An example of that would be Harvestella. I can run the thing on UEVR at 15000×7500 (yes, 7500p per eye), at around 30-45fps. It uses up every ounce the MeganeX8K’s clarity, literally can’t look better. Then when I try to run it at 8k (7600×4300), it really doesn’t look any different from just playing it at 3860×2160.
So something weird is going on on VorpX that is limiting the resolution it renders at.
The Desktop Viewer itself, looks poor compared to the image that the SteamVR UI window gives too. Maybe running at high 2000p? But basically unusable compared to just using native SteamVR desktop windows…PS. I have around 20/20 vision. With the MeganeX8K you can actually do the optometrist tests and pass them about as well as you would in real life, it is just that dense in pixels. The difference between 2000p and 4000p is about the same that you notice on a 1440p to a 4K display, so its quite noticeable to me.
