I’m also dealing with this same issue with the UW vs. the standard 50ppd currently and while it is true that I can gain around 10 degrees of hfov without the gasket at all and I agree a very low profile facial interface for those of us with deeper set eyes due to brows or cheek bones seems very doable and should be explored, I can get the same gains from around 120 to 130 with the standard 50ppd module as I do with the UW module and with the standard 50ppd in lab wide mode I can get up to 140 doing that.
If it is the case that for people who can’t get within a certain distance to the lenses that the UW module provides no fov benefits to the standard 50ppd then that would at least be good to know so I don’t have to waste time testing a replacement UW module (I have yet to see someone say a replacement gave them a different result?) It does seem hard to believe if everything is working as it should that the UW doesn’t exceed the fov of the lab mode of the 50ppd or at least equal it with better stereo overlap, but the lab mode is for me in fact up to 10 degrees wider than the “ultra-wide” module? It’s such a wide difference that it has me thinking something isn’t working correctly or is that supposed to be the case and everyone should see a wider fov in lab mode on the 50 than they do with the UW? I keep asking this same question (reddit, support ticket) yet haven’t gotten an official response if that is to be expected or not? I’ll try again here.
The question:
Should everyone regardless of IPD or distance to the lenses expect to see a wider fov with the lab mode of the 50ppd than the normal mode of the UW module? Every which way I’ve tested has the lab wide mode of the 50ppd coming in the widest by a substantial margin. Thanks in advance to anyone official that can actually answer that!
I only have the UW and the inability to get to 140 degrees seems more like a physical limitation based on my face shape and the position of the lenses.
This makes me wonder if the Lab mode of the 50 PPD is truly 140 degrees or is it a distorted/compressed view? Have you done any distortion tests to see if that is the case?
The lab mode doesn’t look distorted to me in terms of any fish-eye effect or edge warping that I notice, just that there is significantly less stereo overlap as you can see in the middle of the 3 WIMFOV results I posted, the image for each eye is moved farther apart and it starts to look a touch like looking through actual binoculars vs a scuba mask oval view. The 140 measurement for the lab mode above is also with no gasket and ipd maxed at 72. Worn normally I get about 128 for the lab mode and 120 for the both the UW and the 50ppd in normal mode.
The issue I have is not that I expect to see a full 140 with the UW, I always expect to get less than advertised FOV’s due to my 62 IPD, It’s that the UW module is measuring the same as the standard 50ppd module when keeping everything the same in terms of facial interface and IPD settings. Even when wearing it in an impractical way with no facial interface and an intentionally wrong set IPD for maximizing the possible FOV the UW and standard 50ppd module measure at the same FOV. Worn normally for me with a 62 IPD they both measure around 120 and worn with no gasket to get as close as possible but still with a correct 62 IPD both are around 130. Here’s a video of someone else also discovering this while comparing the 3 QLED modules side by side: https://youtu.be/T7_VibUpMh8?t=1593
I’d expect that regardless of IPD or head shape the same person would always see a larger FOV with the UW than the standard 50ppd or why offer a separate module? I, as I expect most who ordered the UW, just want the option that gives me the widest possible FOV with the clarity of the QLED panels but right now for me that is the standard 50ppd in lab mode and it’s not even close no matter how I wear the UW so again I ask is this supposed to be the case or is the UW either bugged or still being worked on and maybe using the same distortion profile as the 50ppd as a place holder or something or is that to be expected, that the lab mode on the 50ppd is actually the widest view you can currently get with any super module? Hopefully that’s not the case but it seems like a simple question to answer. If I asked should I expect to see a wider FOV with the 50ppd than the 57ppd everyone would answer yes, there’s clearly a difference regardless of IPD and everyone can expect to see a wider FOV with the 50ppd than the 57ppd, those who have low IPD’s will see less of a difference but the 50ppd will always look noticeably wider to anyone with a 58-72 ipd comparing the two. When I ask should I expect to see a wider FOV with the UW than the 50ppd then officially I get only crickets or sidestepping of the question with generic suggestions on how to improve my FOV that work with any module.
So again I ask, is it supposed to be the case that the lab mode of the 50ppd is the widest FOV one can get of the super modules or should I expect to see a wider or at least equal FOV with the UW and maybe something is currently not working correctly with the UW module or the profile is still in development or could there have been a batch of incorrectly manufactured ones etc…? I’ve seen several posts/videos/comments about people encountering this issue over the past few months but notably not from when it first came out, then the reactions were all that it was clearly wider than the 50ppd module but at the expense of stereo overlap etc… people who have tested both modules side by side in the past 2 or 3 months all seem to be finding them to measure at about the same FOV?, so something seems odd about this whole situation and the fact that I still haven’t gotten any official response to my simple question of should the lab mode of the 50ppd or the normal mode of the UW have the wider FOV if everything is working correctly and the IPD and facial interface are the same makes me think something is not working as intended with the UW currently. If this is how it is supposed to be why not just confirm it and inform us of why this is the case? Can anyone actually see a wider FOV on the UW in normal mode than with the lab mode of the 50ppd? Seems like a pretty basic question to me. If anybody else happens to have both and could check on that that would be very helpful too. Thanks!
This looks like a limitation of how close you manage to get to the lens with your face shape. I had the same issue with the UW. I also could not max out the FOV of the mOLED.
Try removing the face mask altogether and get your eyes closer see if you manage to get the full 140 FOV.
FOR the lab mode, I am assuming it simulates a larger FOV (which explain why more strain on the eyes) but you still have a physical limitation that is less apparent.
Thanks, that’s what I did for the 3 measurements I posted above. ( I did read your original post which made me want to check that out as well, no interface at all, eyes as close as they can go, IPD maxed at 72.) You are correct in that the FOV is significantly affected by distance of the eyes to the lenses, I can gain about 10 degrees of FOV vs. wearing it normally but I also see those same gains with the standard 50ppd as I do with the UW. 120 for both worn normally and almost 130 for both with my eyes as close as possible. Shouldn’t the UW be wider though if I keep everything else the same? That’s what I’m trying to find out.
Then with lab mode on the 50 it goes from 128 worn normally to 140 with no gasket, 72 IPD, so I get an even slightly bigger gain for the 50 in lab mode doing that (+12) vs. the UW or 50ppd in their normal modes (both +10). Every test I’ve done has the lab mode of the 50ppd producing a wider FOV than the normal mode of UW module and the FOV of both the 50ppd and UW in their normal modes measuring almost the same.
So, is that to be expected? Does anyone get a wider FOV with the UW than they do with the 50ppd in the lab wide mode? Otherwise for me the UW and 50ppd are virtually the same FOV in every test and the lab mode is always at least 8 and up to 12 degrees wider than both so is that an indication of a problem with the UW module or is that as it should be by design?
I first asked this question in a ticket on Jan 28 and I still haven’t gotten an official answer to this? @PimaxQuorra can you help me out or if I sign an NDA will someone tell me lol… what’s going on with the UW? or is this as it should be and unlikely to change?
The UW module doesn’t have a hardware defect. As discussed earlier, everyone is using the same distortion profile implemented in Pimax Play, without any internal build involved.
Some users can max out the FoV, while others can’t.
There are a few contributing factors, such as IPD, face shape, and how the headset is worn.
If there’s anything to share, we’ll communicate it with our users—there’s no need to sign an NDA.
I also raised the UW distortion profiles in Friday’s meeting, but no ETA has been provided yet.
Here’s a disturbing question: How the heck did Pimax figure out UW is 140 degrees? Who measure it? How did you measure them? Are you using the same requirements that you measure the 50ppd? IF you’re using the same parameters to measure the 50ppd and get 126 degrees, surely the 140 degrees should not be hard to obtain under the same scenaro for any users. BUT IT IS HARD to obtain…therefore I am questioning how you measure and how Pimax come up with 140 degrees for UW.
Thanks for the reply but again the question is about comparing the UW to the standard 50ppd module. Every official answer I’ve gotten sidesteps this by only talking about the UW and the same “it varies what FOV people can get with the UW” sort of answer.
The question:Comparing the UW and 50ppd modules with the same facial interface and IPD settings which should deliver the widest FOV:
the standard 50ppd in normal mode
the UW in normal mode
the standard 50ppd in lab wide mode
For me currently it’s #3 by a wide margin (140 lab mode vs. about 130 for both the UW module and the standard 50ppd when both are worn with no interface to get as close as possible, eyelashes brushing the lenses and the IPD maxed at 72, when worn normally but with the thinnest pad and a slightly higher than actual 66 ipd I get 128 lab mode vs. 120 for both the UW and 50ppd in normal modes) and again I ask is that as it should be?
Should everyone expect to get a wider FOV with the 50ppd in lab mode than the UW in normal mode? or are you saying some people will actually see a wider FOV with the UW in normal mode than they will with the 50ppd in lab mode because I genuinely don’t understand how that would be possible given the results I’m getting.
@PimaxQuorra if you could let us know if the answer is 1,2 or 3 and a brief explanation why that is the case that would be very helpful. Thanks!
Yes, also wondering how they got to 140 for the UW and on the store page it says for the 50ppd:
50 PPD with 127° HFOV, 138° in Labs mode
and I can see how that is possible with a max FOV head shape and widest IPD but I don’t know what they were smoking to get 140 for the UW?
Whatever method they use I’d expect them to use the same for each module so we are given an accurate relative comparison at least.
According to what they say on the store page shouldn’t the UW be at least as wide as the lab mode on the 50ppd if not slightly wider??? It’s not even close in every test I’ve tried, lab mode is at least 8 degrees wider for me.
Exactly. This is a legit and fair question, I am not bashing Pimax here! It’s just not fair to sell a product that doesn’t live up to the specs. In fact, the users have the right to return the product if they wish and at ANY TIME and IF Pimax refuse, they can sue them in the court claiming false advertisement (at least under the US laws and I am absolutely certain the users will win the case).
Excuse me if i’m interrupting the discussion with something that has nothing to do… but i’m really confused about everything that has been told here.
My understanding is that One thing is the physical FOV, the area that is visible to your eyes from one corner to the other of the headset.. i mean tha area inside the black mask, less black mask more FOV.
Another thing is the digital FOV, the amount of world that is rendered inside that area.
When you all are talking about lab modes, or 50 ppd having close or bigger fov than UW, i understand is the digital FOV, so fov managed under software… because is not possible to make oled or qled panels bigger or separated more than certain IPD limitations.
So even if you are achieving more fov in the lab mode of the 50 ppd compared witht he ultrawide, this is mixing oranges with apples, because UW always will have less Mask area?, and i’m asking this because the black mask area (physical FOV) is something that maybe users like me are interested more than the digital fov.
That’s correct in that there’s the physical width of the combined screens affected by the power of lenses, angle of the screens and the distance of eyes to screen and the digital width of the 3d scene mapped on to that affected by stereo overlap, warping of the distortion profile and world scale.
The UW module as I understand it has slightly more canted screens and slightly larger and stronger lenses since the regular 50ppd already separates the lenses as far as they will go in the housing at 72 IPD so those were the only physical changes they could make to increase the FOV.
When I put the the 50ppd and UW both in pass-through I see the same physical screen width in front of my eyes, whereas with the 8kx in which I measure 140 FOV wearing glasses for the normal mode I see screen well beyond the rims of my glasses whereas with both the UW and 50ppd the physical screen I see is right even with the edges of my glasses. So is that supposed to be the case or should I see more physical screen with the UW than the 50pp?
If it’s correct that they should appear the same width in passthrough then the difference in FOV is only what the lenses and distortion profile can deliver. The 50ppd has a normal profile HMDQ reported FOV of 127.04 and the lab wide profile which sacrifices stereo overlap to get to 139.05 whereas the UW normal profile is 138.29 according to HMDQ. So can anyone actually see 140 FOV without a profile that reports at least that much to the PC and couldn’t they sacrifice more overlap to get a UW profile at least wider than the lab wide profile of the 50ppd? Maybe not? I’d just like to know to make an informed decision.
The only other way to see more physical screen width in front of my eyes then is to get closer but it seems like maybe the design benefits of the UW are only significant if someone can already get very close to the lenses and naturally see a wider than average FOV. So if you can already see 125 on the 50ppd you’ll see 135 on the UW but if you can only see 115 on the 50ppd you’ll only get around 120 on the UW and if only 105 on the 50ppd you’ll only see 108 on the UW and if you see below 100 with the 50ppd you won’t be able to see the difference at all? That at least would explain why many are seeing about the same FOV with both modules while others can see a clear difference but again that would be good to know when choosing between them if many of us are basically face-shape prevented from getting close enough to see the FOV benefits of the UW vs the 50ppd.
They are sending me another one to test and said the diagnosis indicated it needed to be replaced so I’ll report back if anything changes with the new module. Still haven’t seen anyone report getting a different FOV after a getting a replacement though so we’ll see.
Ok, but then… if I understood correctly, you don’t see a noticeable difference between the two modules in terms of how much of your peripheral vision the screens cover.
And all the Pimax marketing seems to focus more on the digital FOV. If that’s true, I would feel a bit betrayed, because I always thought the point of ultrawide or future wider FOV devices was to increase immersion by reducing the “mask effect.”
Right, also when switching to narrow mode on the 50ppd I can see the screen area get smaller as it cuts the digital FOV down to gain FPS whereas on the UW when going from normal to narrow mode I can’t see the digital edge change because the pixels turned off are beyond what I can physically see with an IPD set at 62. Only if I take off the gasket can I see a small sliver of the edge change. So hopefully there’s something wrong with it otherwise it is of no benefit for FOV compared to the standard 50ppd for anyone that physically can’t see the additional pixels being rendered beyond the UW narrow mode width on the screens to get to the normal UW width. Hard to believe that would be an intentional design anyway otherwise the majority of people who can’t get super close to the lenses won’t even see the change between normal and narrow mode because only those who can get their eyes extremely close can actually see that much of the screens?
I have the exact same experience with my UW when switching between narrow and normal. my IPD are 64 have also tried to set PID to 70 justy to test but see mostly the same as with 64 except it’s a bit more blurry.
I have not made a ticket on it as before i really noticed i had paid to upgrade to OLED due to murra bugging me a bit.
I had two UW engines. I tried different face foams and the updated profile. I couldn’t get more then 120° HFOV.
It may be my face shape, but what was interesting is, that I could achieve more by adding offset to both eyes in Pimax Play. I couldn’t play longer sessions and got eye strain, but the desired FOV was there!
So if face shape is actually the limiting factor, so why can the offset achieve ( in my case) 138° with the same facial interface?
In the end I returned it. So hopefully this will be solved! 140° would be awesome!
I got sent a replacement but it is identical to the one I already had. After lots of experimenting the key for me to getting a significantly wider FOV than the regular 50ppd while still using inserts is to get as close as possible to the lenses by setting the physical IPD to 70 (my actual is 62) to allow my nose to fit in further and then set the software ipd adjustment to +.5 each eye which shifts the view for each eye slightly back towards the center so I’m not going divergent. It also slightly increases the FOV but more than .5 starts to affect world scale and warping for me.
Then with the stock interface, hons vr inserts and ice silk pad I get a comfortable and good looking 122 hFOV vs 110 with the 50ppd and same interface. Just enough to see both mirrors of a rally car when looking straight ahead which is the main threshold I want to achieve. With UW in lab mode I can’t increase the physical IPD beyond 66 without causing eyestrain so that limits the usable FOV to around 120 but the stereo overlap is also significantly better with the UW module. I can get up to 130 if I use just the 15mm pad and no plastic interface so there is still room for more FOV with a slimmer plastic interface. I’ll probably try the 3d printable one someone just posted on /r/pimax.
There’s definitely a face shape limit for many of us with the UW module that takes modifications to overcome to get close enough to the lenses to see the FOV difference compared to the 50ppd.
