jSnively

tht said:

jSnively said:

tht said:

[...]

[...]

As you mentioned, horizontal resolution / fov is the naive calculation, sort of like how in Physics 1 they say earth's gravity is a flat 9.8, and you just kind-of ignore air resistance. The long answer is lens distortion and other factors matter. While I didn't check Andrew's math, the number lines up with this document https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/vr-display-optics-pancake-lenses-ppd/ from Meta, which does explain things in further detail, and yes it is the combo. I don't see where we made note of the PPD of the Vision pro though? We're also working from best-guess closest available parts resolution, since Apple won't "officially" say. 

The article is making a comparison. PPD is one of the bigger metrics for comparison. It’s a big thing for a headset as it is a metric for how clear text is going to be. It is really some combination of PPI and FOV or PPD and FOV. 

I do in fact try to make a comparison when reading these articles, with it’s given information. I can make the naive computation for PPD on both devices for the given information from the article. That’s valuable because I can compare apples to apples.   

The 25 PPD for the Meta Quest is a contextless piece of information without determining what it is for the AVP using the same math. For all these comparisons, it’s really important to show the data in the same way, or at least the details. 

It’s always frustrating to read these comparison articles because the features and specifications are not always listed in the same way. They need to have the same units. Aspect ratios need to be determined. Actual display resolutions need to be listed, not WUHD+ whatever code names. Hell, if some OEM says they have a OLED, you need to verify whether it is Pentile or RGB. Battery capacity in Watt-Hours, not mAH, should be listed. 

Like the IPD. Meta and AVP are listed as having adjustable IPD:

“The Vision Pro's IPD adjustment ranges from 51mm to 75mm, accommodating a broad spectrum of users. In contrast, the Quest 3 features an almost exact IPD range of 53mm to 75mm, with a mechanical adjustment wheel for precise and comfortable lens spacing.“

Left unsaid is that AVP’s IPD adjustment is automatic with the display+lens assembly on rails, right?

Is that not an important detail to mention? It’s possibly more important than the IPD range itself as people will have not a fun time manually adjusting IPD. 

I understand the criticism, and agree to an extent, but this also feels pretty damned if we do damned if we don't to me. Had we used your method of calculating the PPD for the Quest 3 we'd be wrong (as evidenced by the document linked and agreed upon consensus online), and If we had stated the PPD of the Vision pro using just that same basic formula, we'd also be wrong on that. Not just because the formula is too simplistic, but because we're using unconfirmed numbers to begin with (is Vision Pro 102deg like Mike measured in his quick tests, or closer to 108deg like Reddit may tell you, or is it closer to the 100deg Apple said in a developer talk?) Either way somebody would be in the comments telling us that our numbers are wrong, and they'd be right. 

I do agree that the PPD is an important number, but there's also a reason it's not in the data table. I think the rest of the text makes it clear that these two headsets are not comparable in terms of visual quality. A number 90% of the audience doesn't understand probably won't help make that more clear. Could we have omitted the Quest 3 number in lieu of not having the exact apples-to-apples number for the Vision Pro? Sure. But we have an official number from Meta on that, and I don't see the problem using it if we have it. I understand that you see that as some kind of logical fallacy because we don't directly compare it, but I think it's probably still additive to the text. Had we not mentioned it at all would this be a "PPD is really what matters, I don't know why they didn't include it" comment? Probably. 

Damned if we do, damned if we don't 🤷

Could we or should we normalize battery stuff? Yeah. Maybe. I will have a talk with Mike about doing that going forward. Wattage does matter, and the Vision Pro is ... weird. But again, more important is whether or not we communicate to the reader what those numbers mean -- how many hours are they going to get out of it under normal use, how long does it take to charge, etc. While I understand you may be the guy who looks at these as a spec sheet, that is not how 90% of the audience consumes or understands the content. There's no breakdown in here about pixel arrangements either, because that's just outside of the scope of the article to explain. Had we just added it into the table without explaining it, it would have little value to the reader and the same exact criticism you raised about PPD could be leveled against it. 

As far as IPD goes, i'm actually not sure I agree? It's a pain to crank the Quest manually, but it's really not that big of a deal and you really only do it once unless you're passing the thing around. The range matters a lot more for people who for whatever reason find themselves out either side of that spectrum. Again, it's about communicating the information someone may need. A motorized unit is a nice addition, but excepting extreme circumstances it's probably not changing whether or not someone can use the device.

We constantly have to remind people (and you can see it on comments in this exact article and the accompanying YT video where people say "why would you even compare these things"), that not all the content we produce is aimed at you. Sometimes you are going to be smarter or more informed than the audience we're trying to target. It's one of the reasons why we turned off comments on tips for so long. Got real old real quick when every first comment was  "I have known how do this since i was 3, why are you wasting your time writing this." Apple isn't just for tech people anymore, the iPhone is basically an appliance at this point. That's always a tough balance for us to try and strike, and we're constantly trying to update where we put the needle on the record, so to speak.

That was kinda long winded, but I hope that helps a bit? 

P.S.
If you want to write technical documents for us, we're basically perpetually looking for more contract writers 😄

tht said:

the resolution for the Vision Pro, it's estimated to be effectively 3,660 x 3,142.
...
the Meta Quest 3 has 2,064 x 2,208 pixels per eye. ... The Meta Quest 3 display offers 25 Pixels Per Degree (PPD)
...
...
The Meta Quest 3 boasts an impressive field of view (FOV) with 110 degrees horizontally and 96 degrees vertically, significantly expanding the immersive virtual experience. In contrast, the Apple Vision Pro offers a horizontal FOV of approximately 100 degrees, as suggested in an Apple developer session, although the vertical FOV remains undisclosed by Apple.

A naive computation of the PPD for the Quest 3 is 2208/110 = 20 PPD.

The AVP is 36 PPD with the same math.

25 PPD for the Quest 3 seems impossible unless it is a number that combines the effect of 2 eyes looking at the same "image". If so, the AVP would similarly have higher PPD.

As you mentioned, horizontal resolution / fov is the naive calculation, sort of like how in Physics 1 they say earth's gravity is a flat 9.8, and you just kind-of ignore air resistance. The long answer is lens distortion and other factors matter. While I didn't check Andrew's math, the number lines up with this document https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/vr-display-optics-pancake-lenses-ppd/ from Meta, which does explain things in further detail, and yes it is the combo. I don't see where we made note of the PPD of the Vision pro though? We're also working from best-guess closest available parts resolution, since Apple won't "officially" say. 

Neither is going to be as seamless as the mac, but I have used steamlink + linux + wayland as a combo for a handful of hours and found no major issues outside of needing to launch steam with -pipewire to make sure it's using the right backend.

I've yet to try a sunshine / moonlight stack or Microsoft's native RDP viewer, but those are on my list to play with

the default appears to be on, but the iPad UI can still be a little buggy. You know what does work well though? Steamlink. The only iPad Game I need : )

nubus said:

sdw2001 said:

On the surface it seems like a good use of taxpayer dollars.  But it’s government and money is fungible.  There are unintended consequences as well, even if the program is managed well.  We’d be better off making the business environment better….including regulatory, fiscal and monetary—-but again…this is government we’re talking about.  

Companies like Apple, Nvidia and AMD decided to single source key components from a country that isn't even recognized by the US. Either chip production is moved stateside or US will have to defend Taiwan to get the chips needed. The bill should however have been footed by the companies that put US at risk through these imports.

Yup. Without going too hard in the paint and derailing things, I think there's a fairly solid national security argument to be made here with respect towards Taiwan, China and US relations. I am happy to see some forward-looking tax dollars being spent, even if historically the costs on this stuff do tend to balloon.