![]() The Quest Pro cannot replace your laptop or PC. The Simula One offers native VR computing with high pixel density, while the Quest Pro offers WiFi-tethered monitor emulation with lower pixel density. 3 Philosophical Differences: Simula One vs. This is why VR comparison pages like Wikipedia and use PPD as their primary comparison metric instead of PPI. The best metric to use is VR Pixels-Per-Degree (PPD), which captures how a VR headset delivers visible pixel density to a user. Thus, knowing that a VR display PPI has increased still leaves it indeterminate how the visible pixel density (and hence text clarity) of the overall system is impacted. (A similar argument can show why display resolution is similarly misleading).Thus it's possible for (i) PPI to increase, (ii) display dimensions to shrink, yet (iii) the optical system is still unable to distribute a higher concentration of pixels to the user than under the original configuration.The components of a VR system which translate into visible pixel density are (i) how many total pixels are availble on the VR displays and (ii) how the optical system distributes those pixels across a given Field of View.(In fact, it's actually even possible for a display PPI increase to translate into a visible pixel density decrease! We discussed this back in our March post How Simula's Optical Design Achieves its PPD, but to summarize: Though this is counter-intuitive, a 37% display PPI increase doesn't necessarily translate into a 37% visible pixel density increase. Since Meta is marketing their device for productivity usage, and text readability is almost a direct function of visible pixel density, this seems like a pretty important detail to omit in the product's own "technical specs" page. Meta Quest Pro also has 37% more pixels per inch and 10% greater pixels per degree than Meta Quest 2, making everything from reading text to playing games look better.Ī 10% pixel density improvement is of course better than nothing, and there are other cool things about the Quest Pro to praise, but the Quest Pro's pixel density is still basically at the same level as the Quest 2. An exception to this trend is in a Meta blog post released on Oct 11th, which states: Mark Zuckerberg also repeated this in his Meta Connect Keynote a week ago, without (as far as we can tell) ever mentioning anything about the Quest's actual visible pixel density. We've seen lots of evidence (at least on Twitter) that people seem to be confusing a 37% PPI increase to a 37% visible pixel density increase. Perhaps it's just an honest mistake, but it's unclear to us why Meta has placed "37% higher PPI" throughout most of its Quest Pro marketing without specifying that its actual PPD increase is only 10%. ![]() 2 The Quest Pro's "37% PPI increase" claim is misleading: the Quest Pro's actual pixel density is only 10% better than the Quest 2 Moving forward, we can return to focusing 100% on engineering (and updates). Overall, their legal team was generally pretty cordial with us, and we are happy they decided to relieve us of having to provide everything originally commanded. 1 Meta's Subpoena Has Been Droppedįirst, regarding on our last update on Meta's unexpected subpoena of SimulaVR: we are pleased to report that Meta's legal team has completely dropped their subpoena against us. This post offers constructive criticism on Meta's product vision, and some pushback on what we feel is some misleading marketing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |