Search Results for 'XEL'

[Boblekobold]

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.

[Cless_Aurion]

@Boblekobold

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 lol

There 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)

——————————————————————————–

@dellrifter22

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 :(

[Cless_Aurion]

Your comment worries me for 2 different reasons.

there is a HUGE difference between 3840p and 2160p in VorpX with my Reverb G2 in most games. You can see so much more details…it’s just incredible.

One, the G2 is a 2.1k per eye display with 24 PPD, which equals to a 900p monitor at a normal viewing distance. There you are seeing improvement when supersampling, which is a finer and less noticeable than increasing regular resolution

It has been confirmed by other people even several times on Pimax Crystal Light (2880p).

Two, to my knowledge, the HMD I’m using right now has almost double the amount of pixels than the Crystal Light, so at the very least, I should see it like that (it doesn’t look as good as a Crystal Light).

That’s definitely not normal. I don’t know exactly what you are doing, but VorpX image quality is far beyond a 4k monitor (it displays a lot more details which wouldn’t even exist on a monitor…)

Well, I wouldn’t go as far as that, since its so HMD dependant. The MeganeX8K I’m using definitely have the PPD of a 4K monitor, but we don’t have any better PPD HMD in the market currently so… :P

Maybe you don’t use VorpX as intended.

Well, I use it in screen mode, which should be good enough. Going back to the desktop… the desktop should be rendered at the appropiate resolution, right now it really does look like half of my resolution is missing, easily. I can’t barely read the letters :(

I do play with the cinema-like curved display. I want to play all my games that aren’t UEVR in VorpX… but right now, the image quality is so poor I can’t, I’d just rather play on the monitor to get twice the resolution instead :(

[Cless_Aurion]

This is still an issue in V24.
Its now inverted for me, and it is far from usable. It looks about what I could expect a 1440p HMD (like the Vive Pro/Index) to look as.

It literally is pushing me away from using VorpX AT ALL, since this seems a limitation on VorpX itself not being able to render at higher resolutions (not a filtering issue at all, my HMD pixels are way smaller than the chonky pixels its trying to render)

My HMD moves around 50% more pixels PER EYE than my 4K monitor (8 million pixels on a 4K monitor VS 12 million pixels per eye on my HMD).

@Boblekobold
8640×4860 (the highest resolution V24’s allows me to set) looks as bad as 1440p does. Resolutions under that will look worse, but no resolution over that looks better. The center of the vision of my HMD tops at around 5500p, which should match a 4K monitor of 32 inches PPD wise, so again, not a filtering issue, and the fact that 4860p looks identical to 2160p is worrying.

[Cless_Aurion]

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!)

[Cless_Aurion]

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.

[realer]

Ralf wrote:

vorpX renders both eyes at full size and then scales the result down horizontically. So under normal circumstaces you get half-res SBS images with 2×1 supersampling, i.e. considerably better than rendering directly at half width.

Yeah, my guess is that the scaling gets all messed up because I’m using a device that only supports full SBS (xreal air) so I have to scale the image back and forth. The actual screen resolution is 3840×1080 (1920×1080 per eye), but if I set the game resolution to 3840×1080 the game gets squished, the aspect ratio is all wrong. So I have to set the game resolution to 1920×1080

So I set the game resolution to 1920×1080 -> Vorpx renders a full sbs 3840×1080 pixels (1920×1080 per eye) image -> Vorpx then scales this down to a 1920×1080 half-SBS image -> My nvidia graphics card scales it back up to a full SBS 3840×1080 image. I think. It’s confusing.

Maybe all this scaling back and forth is what results in the degraded image? I can’t think of any other reason why the image is so blurry. It’s been a while since I last used it, but if I remember correctly when I tried geo-11 I got a very blurry image as well before I got help on how to configure it for full-SBS. If you have the time, please consider adding an option to display the full-SBS image as it is first rendered. I understand using Vorpx for stereoscopic 3D is not the intended usage but other than this problem it works very well and is the easiest and most well supported way to get geometric 3D. Such an option could potentially make it work much better with AR glasses. Xreal, viture, rokid, rayneo, and maybe in a year or two some of the bigger players will launch their own products in this segment so it might be an untapped market. Even if it was just as an unsupported experimental feature it would be greatly appreciated.

[Boblekobold]

You probably have a good sight and are probably very sensitive to PPD (you bought a 8k VR headset so it’s not surprising ;) )

Maybe there was a limit in order to optimize ?

I wonder how you can use this kind of resolutions in VorpX. We probably don’t play the same games… (Frontier Of Pandora, Metro Exodus, Atomic Heart, etc.)
Or you have a lot better graphic card.

How do you do ? Virtual Monitor is limited to 4860p as far as I know (I never tried above 3840p because I mainly play recent AAA games and even with an RTX4090 it would be hard to keep a decent framerate. I don’t know if it would be useful to me. In my opinion, 2880p is enough with a lot of old games because of textures limit, even if VorpX enhances them a lot).

Besides, I think I prefer my G2 (2160p) over my Varjo Aero (2880p but maybe there is more pixel density at the center of the fresnel lenses), and the G2 ratio is probably closer to my field of view, the way I wear these VR headsets, so I can see more details in full VR with the G2.

Curiously, I can also see more clearly the pixels on the Aero (maybe because the G2 is afocal and my sight is almost but not completely 10/10). Sometimes it’s not so good to see too clearly (but anyway I don’t concentrate on pixels during playthrough).

So I don’t think I could really see the difference, especially in game, between a 4000p VR headset and my G2. Anyway it’s still way better than a Quest 3 at medium/long distance ;)

The most important thing is the displayed image in my opinion.

Even if my Reverb G2 is 2160p and even if my sight isn’t 10/10, I can clearly see :
– the difference between 2880p, 3200p and even 3840p game resolution (but only in very recent games because as I explained it doesn’t really matter in old ones). It seems most games arent really perfect at a given resolution. You have to render them in a higher one than the displayed one.
– the difference between VorpX and UEVR clarity and sharpness.

UEVR’s sharpness & clarity isn’t even close to VorpX at medium/long distance in every AAA game with large outdoors environement I tried (even with 6000p resolution in UEVR, it’s still blurry at medium/long distance while VorpX is usually great even in 2880p). The fact I usually can use a wider FOV in VorpX may play a role but It doesn’t explain everything.

Of course VorpX handles more optimized game engines than UEVR, but even with Unreal Engine 4 VorpX is always a lot better in this case (didn’t really compare UE5 yet). I haven’t found a way to fix it yet, and I don’t think there is. I asked around me and everyone confirmed this phenomena, even on Pimax Crystal Light. It may depend on the technologies used by each game I suppose.

[Cless_Aurion]

I noticed that the actual render resolution of the HMD when running VorpX isn’t that high now that I’m running a MeganeX 8K… any way to make it higher?

I’m used to play games now at around 5000×5000 to 7000×7000 and VorpX seems to run at like… 2600×2600 I get the impression? So even when I run the game at those high resolutions, the image quality is substantially lower than it should since the panels on the MeganeX are close to 4000×4000 by themselves already.

It is especially noticeable in Desktop mode, or with some specific games that I can run in UEVR at 7000×7000 and get flawless image where pixels are effectively invisible, but on VorpX is somehow greatly diminished by this issue…

[Boblekobold]

virtuayay wrote:

tldr; thank you vorpx
there is nothing in the standalone stores or freeware VR injectors for recent engines that’s 1/1000th as good as playing 1990s-2010s games on vorpx.
.

Of course there are a lot of old games with no equals.

Some of them are surprisingly suited for VR.

I would add even recent games are a lot better with VorpX : more immersive, a lot more beautiful in my opinion and objectively a lot more detailed. You can see every details miles around, and with the right graphic card & VR headset, it’s never pixelated.

Metro Exodus Standard edition and Avatar Frontier Of Pandora are absolutely stunning on Reverb G2, you can just stop playing to enjoy the view, it’s like going to an amusement park or to travel, except you are at home).

From my experience (other people on forums have confirmed), recent VR injectors aren’t able to provide the same image quality. It’s especially true if you have a displayport VR headset (no compression), like a Reverb G2 (good image quality but very optimized).

Besides, VorpX handles every important graphics options (raytracing, etc.). You don’t have raytracing in UE4 games with UEVR so most beautiful games are impacted.

There are a lot of recent games I wouldn’t have played at all without VorpX, but they were so beautiful and impressive in VR that it was awesome.

Most beautiful VR games are VorpX converted games.

Some old games are very impressive too, and benefits a lot from VR. They can be so much more beautiful you barrely recognize them (like if it was a remake) and they can be more impressive than most recent flat games would be on a monitor (and more beautiful than most VR exclusive games).

Anyway, there are a lot of games you can’t find in VR (immersive sims, good RPG, the most advanced action games, and even management games, etc.)

VorpX also offers a lot of amazing universes you would never “visit” in VR if you wouldn’t have it.

It allow us to rediscover or discover our favorite games, and to truely choose our VR games.

We can play almost any game in VR (even if it’s not always perfect VR).

VorpX is quite reliable in my opinion, because even if there are better profiles than others, it’s always better than a monitor on my G2, especially with FPS/TPS.

virtuayay wrote:

having a pcvr HMD without vorpx is like buying a console or gaming PC and never playing anything except free to play games.

That’s what I feel too. Of course it depends on what you expect from VR games. Some people really wants motion aiming/handling, which aren’t always available, but I think most people who never tried VR aren’t so interrested in this kind of things. It would be great, but most of the time, I prefer playing with my keyboard&mouse (more shortcuts, around 36 directly available with the 11 on the G502 mouse), and so I have to play seated. Anyway, a lot of people can’t or don’t want to play standing all the time.

VorpX is really great if you like conventional gameplay and want to see your games from the inside, or even simply with a better display.

It also have a few other uses than gaming with Desktop Viewer, so it’s a useful tool.

It’s by far currently the best way to convert games for me most of the time, especially AAA games, which are very demanding, benefits from image quality (and animation quality) and usually have compatible profiles.

But it depends on people expecations. There is usually no motion aiming. You can’t always have G3D (but when you can it’s not alternate G3D most of the time, and 3D is really great, with perfectly placed camera and no clipping). VorpX’s Z3D can be really good in modern games by the way, and I prefer a good Z3D over a bad G3D. When a profile doesn’t allow to resize HUD it can sometimes be harder to see (most of the time it’s not really a major problem, because I like immersion and difficulty, and I can still see it with edgepeek or immersive screen, but it’s something that could motivate some people to use other solutions).

VorpX is really better if you own a good PCVR headset. It doesn’t have to be expansive, on the contrary, but it’s better if it has no compression (look for displayport). Most people have a Quest 3, so they have to deal with compression, and they tend to prefer 3D over image quality, because they don’t really know what a good image quality is.

You also must be realistic : VorpX is better optimized than other solutions I tried but you need a good enough graphic card (desktop version if possible) to play the game you want to try. So if you have an old graphic card like GTX1080, you’ll have to play less demanding games, but there is still hundred of great choices (most of my best VR experiences are old games like every original Bioshock).
With an RTX4090, you can max out almost any game (raytracing without DLSS and very high resolution), and other injectors don’t allow that.

It’s not always the best for every VR enthousiast (even if I think it’s an essential tool for most VR user), but I think most of the flat gamers would love it if they would have a light and comfortable enough displayport VR headset, and could not go back.

I even think it could convince people who doesn’t usually play to play games because I didn’t really enjoyed video games anymore before VorpX and I would probably don’t play the same games without VorpX.

—-
Forgive my english, I’m not a native english speaker.
—-

So thank you VorpX too.

[Merkin]

Hi Ralf, thanks for making an amazing tool!

I decided to dig into shader authoring to try and resolve the G3D shadowing issue in the original Kingdom Come Deliverance game before buying the new release. I have some background in game production but am by no means an expert so please forgive me if I am incorrect in any of my assumptions.

While going through the shaders, I noticed that the default assignment for pixel shader index 5 #1102815474 (whole lighting) appears to affect shadows only, but is assigned to “normal”, not “shadow”. When I use ‘hide’ the image looks exactly the same except with the shadows disappearing. Am I minsunderstanding how this should work or is it possible that this is causing the issue with G3D shadows in the game?

For context pixel shader #2869449876 appears as an albedo pass if ‘hide’ is used – perhaps this would be the ‘whole lighting’ pass as it would add lighting and shadows to the albedo pass?

While I was going through the remaining shaders I found some cascaded shadows and a few others that I assigned to “shadow”‘, however there is no visible difference after assignment, or after restarting the game. Should the changes be immediately visible after assignment, and is there a way to check if they are being loaded and assigned correctly? Or does the main shadow pass override these passes (and would not show a difference if it has not been correctly assigned)?

I really want to get the shadows workking so I can finish this game and play the new one :)

Thanks!
Brad

[mr.uu]

Really amazing how good Cyberpunk 2077 looks in VR with this free(!) mod.

I have a 3090/5800x3d/Pimax Crystal and if i check with fpsvr my CPU is limited to below 50fps? So my CPU seems to be the bottleneck? Also i get the stutters when turning with the controllers, just read that i have to check the fps ingame with ctr-F and watch the second number – will do that tomorrow.

Question: does an upgrade to a faster CPU like a 9800x3d eliminate the CPU bottleneck?
What CPU Performance do you guys with a faster CPU like an 7800x3d have? I do want to stick with my am4 platform as long as possible, but if this game forces me to upgrade…

BTW., i have the vorpx quality settings at max, ingame most at med/high, no rt, dlss4 performance. Vorpx framerate cap at 50% and headset at 90Hz. Somehow the ingame aspect ratio is 16/9, so many pixel wasted. Should i set the i game resolution to a 4:3 one?

I really want that CPU limit gone and a smooth controller turning! Should i try to run via OpenXR and use Pimax eyetracking with quadview rendering to gain a few fps? Does it even work with vorpX DirectVR?

So much tinkering possible…but the result is breathtaking! Thank you Ralf!

[Mihalytabornok]

Thank you for your response, I have launched the desktoip viewer through virtualdesktop (quest 3) and than used the windows diplay settings to up the resolution, the reported resolution in the game became different, but in the voprx menu real 3D is gone now and the image remains just as pixelated.

Did I use the wrong method to change the res? Is there another issue with what I’ve done?

[Boblekobold]

The resolution must have the same ratio as your headset (at least in full VR).
What is your headset ?
Usually, it’s 4:3 in Quest 3 and Reverb G2. The cutscenes in this game are probably designed for 16:9 but when you raise FOV to max, you can see everything you should horizontally, and more verticaly (you can always switch to 16:9 and immersive screen during cutscenes with high FOV in addition if you want to see even more than in flat).

You can launch VorpX Desktop Viewer instead of VorpX in order to use Virtual Monitor (this way you have any resolution you want, but this game has a special ratio system, so, if you play in 4:3 for example, using Pixel 1:1 in VorpX, you should set aspect ratio to 4:3 in Exodus video options, under resolution).

1080p can be enough for cinema mode with Clarity FX in some games, but 2.7k is the minimum usually, to take your entire field of view in immersive screen and get good results, and 4k (2880×2160 in 4:3) is the minimum to play full VR (it’s still a little blurry, but not much).
I would recommand 2880p (3840×2880 in 4:3) at least in this game, given textures are very detailed, and it keeps getting better in 3200 and 3840p if you have a good displayport headset like G2, especially in full VR (but even in immersive screen, which is always a little more detailed in this game I think, given the textures).

If you use a Quest 3, you’ll have to deal with compression first…so it would probably not be very useful to go that high.

[Boblekobold]

Virtual Monitor is really useful. With Quest 3 and Reverb G2, it also helps you to get 4:3 resolution.

Most useful resolutions are already predefined (I just had to add a 4:3 3200p resolution).

On Reverb G2, Metro Exodus works with 2880p, 3200p and even 3840p (5120×3840) resolution (at least in Z3D) with an RTX4090 ! With ultra raytracing and no DLSS (with Cloud Profile Ennchanted Edition and renamed excecutable). Even official G3D allow very high resolutions (especially if you turn off G3D shadow in VorpX). You can play fullscreen and adjust ratio in game video settings in this particular game.

Metro Last Light Redux (in G3D) is less optimized and 2880×2160 is already high resolution on RTX4090.

Metro 2033 original can reach easily 2880p in DX9 G3D (but if you go too high, your’ll have some glitches, 3D should be perfect in this game, which is like perfect native).

Bioshock 2 reach stable 90fps at 2880p G3D but you can’t really go above because it could crash. It’s still one of the best looking native like VR games.

Bioshock Infinite handle very high resolutions (more than 2880p, even on a GTX1080) and you don’t even need Virtual Monitor because windowed mode allow you to use any resolution/ratio you want !

I’m currently playing Atomic Heart and 2880p is smooth. 3840p works but it’s harder to fight.

Immersive screen seems sharper to me. You need higher resolution in full VR.

Of course with non 4:3 headset, you’ll have more megapixels, so 4:3 is better I think.