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.