Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nvarsj 867 days ago
Have you used VR much? Quest 3 FOV is much better. And FOV is kind of the holy grail for immersive VR and interactive experiences. So saying Vision Pro is strictly better (and at 7x the cost) makes little sense to me.
2 comments

for sibling, as I'm over my post quota: https://imgur.com/a/l6nqhvX

Yeah, Vive -> Index -> Quest 2 -> Varjo Aero[^1] -> Quest 3 -> Vision Pro.

Yeah FOV is worse, yeah it costs more, virtually order of magnitude more.

People are responding to "The quest 3 does essentially the same at roughly 10x lower price.", i.e. dismissal of there being a significant qualitative difference.

I never, ever opted into watching video on any headset until now. Like, yeah, I tried it. I watched stuff. This is organic "I want to watch stuff, where's the VR headset?" instead of "here's a VR headset, I can watch stuff"

Something that escaped me until a week ago was a good visualization of the pixel density. I thought the Aero was amazing. It is/was.

I assumed Vision Pro was marginally more or less than the Aero.

Actually, Aero::Vision Pro is roughly Vive 1::Aero.

[^1] that one is important, that's real street cred, you know I care, invest, and know what I'm talking about

> dismissal of there being a significant qualitative difference.

I think it depends on use case. Is having a bunch of high resolution floating screens the killer app or just a gimmick? For most current VR users, they're not going to see a significant benefit from higher resolution Beat Saber.

FOV/immersion is not the holy grail of XR usability. A virtual screen in the Quest 3/Pro isn't so great, and I've spent hundreds of hours reading text in the Quest Pro. For screen replacement, aka "spatial computing", Vision Pro is strictly better.