- This topic has 13 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated May 24, 2025 12:54pm by
.
-
Posts
-
When using the Desktop Viewer I get a lot of aliasing, which isn’t unexpected as the resolution of the desktop is much higher than what my headset can display, and there doesn’t seem to be any filtering or mipmapping going on to properly downsample the image.
If similar issue pop up in other VR applications, e.g. watching a 4k movie in SkyboxVR, it’s possible to fix it by cranking up the SteamVR resolution really high, as SteamVR itself seems to do proper downsampling. However SteamVR resolution doesn’t have any effect on the VorpX desktop viewer.
Any other things I could try to reduce the aliasing/flicker in the Desktop Viewer?
The desktop viewer image isn’t mipmapped on purpose since that would make it more blurry, but changing the Clarity setting on the image page of the vorpX menu from low to medium will raise the final headset resolution as well as enable high quality Lanczos instead of bilinear sampling. That should do the trick.
No luck. The Clarity setting doesn’t help, no matter if Low/Medium/High/Off or how the sharpness is set, the image always ends up with far more shimmering than I’d like.
In comparison I can get a much more stable image with BigScreen, it’s not quite perfect there either, especially with smaller virtual screen sizes, but at least it looks usable. Only way I get a stable image out of Vorpx Desktop Viewer is by reducing the desktop resolution down to 800×600, but that is a bit too low to be usable.
My setup here is a bit unusual however, AMD Relive WLAN streaming over to a Lenovo Mirage Solo. And the games I try to play are 2D point&click adventures or Visual Novels and the shimmering really stands out with those 2D games and the text.
I have encountered the same issue.
It looks like a lack of image filtering.My monitor resolution is 4K.
I’m glad it’s not very noticeable in dynamic games, but it is in static scenes, or on the desktop: with fonts, small details.
For example, Virtual Desktop’s in-app desktop streaming doesn’t have this issue – no matter what resolution I use – image is clear and not shimmering, like on normal monitor.
You can :
– Activate Clarity FX, use sharpness filter (and texture enhancement if available) in VorpX’s ingame menu page 2. It improves image quality a lot, at least in mono (I don’t know if it works with SBS mode, but it works very well when you hook a game).
– Use VorpX V24’s Virtual Monitor and choose an higher resolution than 4k.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 :
As I said on the other topic, you may have a problem, or unusual expectations (PPD sensitivity regardless of actual graphics quality ?)Maybe it will be patched (if it’s a real problem).
As far as I can tell from my experience :
– PPD aside (I don’t care and I don’t even notice it), 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.
– as far as I know, VorpX’s image quality in most AAA games in full VR / immersive screen has no equal (UEVR is a lot worse, at least at medium/long distance, I never got the same result I can have in VorpX, and I’m not the only one). It has been confirmed by other people even several times on Pimax Crystal Light (2880p).
– In VorpX, you can see every detail miles around with a displayport VR headset like Reverb G2. Most people use a Quest 2/3 with compression and are very far to this quality anyway.
– some people used a Pimax 8k here so they would probably have noticed your problem if they had it.About the desktop viewer, image quality seems fine if I don’t activate SBS mode and if I choose correctly the resolution. With SBS mode, it seems to be worse the only time I tried (but maybe it wasn’t VorpX’s fault because of course another 3D program was implied, and anyway it was still better than UEVR).
This is still an issue in V24. It looks about what I could expect a 1440p HMD (like the Vive Pro/Index) to look as.
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…)
It’s better than any real video I watched (including mines in 8k).
Maybe you don’t use VorpX as intended.
I personnally use it to play in full VR, or alternatively to wrap a giant hemispherical display around me (very close to full VR).
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 :(
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.
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.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.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 :(
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.
You are missing the point entirely though.
Of course UEVR doesn’t turn games into “VR Genre” games without a profile, neither does VorpX. And both will need a profile to do so as well. These games are not built to do that eitherway, so they would suck as such. Besides, if I’m being honest, I don’t even like the “VR Genre” of games, I just want to play my goddamn games immersed in VR.
Which I also think gets the strenghts of both… playing games immersively in 3D.
I think you are missing that Unreal Engine has a native VR pipeline that can be “hacked” through UEVR to make games that shouldn’t be able to use VR to do so. It can use perfectly fine raytracing, that isn’t an issue on the Engine side. A programmer such as yourself surely already knows that you should be able to mod that to match for VR in the places it doesn’t work in a per-game instance, since the VR pipeline is raytracing compatible with lumen and nanite, I tried it in engine and even if it brings a 4090 to its knees, it does work. If it does work, a mod can be made for it to work in UEVR as well then when the native pipeline doesn’t work.
I’m sure VorpX does something similar at an even lower level, thus why it works with more than just one specific engine. I vaguely remember Ralf saying something about it at some point? But I might be totally wrong.
I’m a gameplay programmer
Oh man, you should be able to do some very nice things in LUA using UEVR then, don’t you?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.