I think this will disappoint a lot of new VR users

[spiderman0616]

Why say this? The poster has a point, and you clearly haven’t done your research.

The AVO has a FOV similar to the Meta Quest 3. I own both the 3 and 2.
I have used the AVP under NDA before its release as part of my work, and I’ve experienced it on a beta OS (currently the device is with an engineer).

The poster has a point because the marketing videos suggest something otherwise, and the expectations are different from a $3500 device VS a $500 device. People who never used VR before may be disappointed.

Although there’s more to the overall experience such as optics quality, comfort level, etc, FOV plays a role.

I agree with this, and I'm actually glad OP made this thread, because I really did forget about it being an issue on PSVR 1, and it REALLY bugged me at first. I think it helps to remember that it will be there going in because I haven't used a device like this in years.

I will also tell all of you though who may be disappointed--you mostly stop noticing after a bit. Your brain adjusts. I compare it to how when I first switched from contacts to full time glasses and wasn't used to how the edges of my vision would sort of warp when I turned my head or walked. After my brain adjusted, I never really noticed it on any pair of glasses again.

 

[AdonisSMU]

I agree with this, and I'm actually glad OP made this thread, because I really did forget about it being an issue on PSVR 1, and it REALLY bugged me at first. I think it helps to remember that it will be there going in because I haven't used a device like this in years.

I will also tell all of you though who may be disappointed--you mostly stop noticing after a bit. Your brain adjusts. I compare it to how when I first switched from contacts to full time glasses and wasn't used to how the edges of my vision would sort of warp when I turned my head or walked. After my brain adjusted, I never really noticed it on any pair of glasses again.

I guess I fall into that camp. I’ve worn glasses my whole life in some form or fashion. So I may be less susceptible to the potential FOV issues. The OP was stirring the POT. The truth is you get used to whatever real or perceived FOV issues there are. Use it for a week consistently and you may forget about it like most of us who wear glasses already have.

 

[spiderman0616]

I guess I fall into that camp. I’ve worn glasses my whole life in some form or fashion. So I may be less susceptible to the potential FOV issues. The OP was stirring the POT. The truth is you get used to whatever real or perceived FOV issues there are. Use it for a week consistently and you may forget about it like most of us who wear glasses already have.

True!

And one thing I'm really looking forward to is that I've never gotten to use VR or AR without having to put them over glasses. It's always felt like a barrier. With this device, I won't need them. In fact, since it's my most recent prescription but my glasses haven't been updated in a couple years, my Vision Pro will technically be a more accurate!

 

[GeneralChang]

The hype train can be a real problem when tech like this hits mainstream audiences, whether it's driven by early adopter enthusiasm or (as in Apple's case) a marketing department I would generously describe as "over-zealous". The hype I got fed by an early-adopter hype train prior to my first VR headset experience (Oculus dev kit) certainly over-sold the capabilities, and the overall experience was nowhere close to as immersive as I'd expected. But with my expectations calibrated by that experience every new and improved headset I've tried on has impressed.

All this to say that if the Vision Pro is someone's first VR headset and all they've seen is Apple's ads, you're probably right, they'll probably be disappointed. If you're going to show one off to your family or friends, maybe have a Quest 2 nearby they can try out first.

 

[AdonisSMU]

The hype train can be a real problem when tech like this hits mainstream audiences, whether it's driven by early adopter enthusiasm or (as in Apple's case) a marketing department I would generously describe as "over-zealous". The hype I got fed by an early-adopter hype train prior to my first VR headset experience (Oculus dev kit) certainly over-sold the capabilities, and the overall experience was nowhere close to as immersive as I'd expected. But with my expectations calibrated by that experience every new and improved headset I've tried on has impressed.

All this to say that if the Vision Pro is someone's first VR headset and all they've seen is Apple's ads, you're probably right, they'll probably be disappointed. If you're going to show one off to your family or friends, maybe have a Quest 2 nearby they can try out first.

If you can afford a $3500 device an extra $500 should be no problem. 😁

 

[GeneralChang]

If you can afford a $3500 device an extra $500 should be no problem. 😁

Especially since the Quest 2 is only $250 these days! With the money you save you can buy that carrying case for the Vision Pro. 🤣

 

[NT1440]

As long as you’re looking mostly straight ahead. The downside is that you need to move your head more to look at things you might otherwise be able to glance down at.

Yea I understand that, but I’m fairly certain people will intuitively just do that 🤷‍♂️

FOV is still a technical hurdle with even the most cutting edge optics and screens in the industry. It may be disappointing to some but I doubt the first adopters will notice or even care to be honest. Besides devs few of the first round buyers are going to be your Uber-tech types that are tech forum users.

We all need to take a step back and remember that we (tech forum dwellers) are not Apples core audience. Most people putting this on are going to be new comers to AR entirely (a statement which I’m 100% certain will cause outrage here at MR).

 

[Allen_Wentz]

View attachment 2343366

This will disappoint a lot of people that have never experienced VR before. The marketing video's and YouTube reviews doesn't show what you really are seeing. When the PSVR 2 launched I was also extremely hyped by all the YouTube videos... this was my first VR experience and I was immediately very disappointed the moment I put the glasses on for the first time. The narrow FOV (look through goggles) was something I could never get used to.

And I think a lot of people that want to buy the Apple Vision Pro are getting the wrong impression of what you are actually seeing.

What do you all think?

Your just calling the AVP "VR" suggests we perhaps should not waste time on this thread.

 

[SoftyEng]

I felt like verge did this rendering a bit unfairly. Starting with a 16:9 window and then shrinking it with the tunnel vision makes the fov look WAY smaller than it is. Sitting at tv distance now my peripheral vision covers like 3-4 times as much width as the 16:9 tv display. They should have explained that and zoomed out to a much more comparative ratio of like 64:9 and then added the tunnel vision or whatever.

As it stands they make the fov look awful, and unfairly so imo.

 

[tweaknmod]

I think it is a wait and see (pun intended). The vision pro are a new market for Apple and I can look back at the first apple iPhone has a lot of folks did not get why it was even needed. Just going back to the original iPhone I can remember thinking that I would wait a while and I actually did wait a couple years before getting one and wait for the refinements that were introduced plus at the time it was in todays dollars for a 8 GB model $880.00 in 2007.

Some might say you have a healthy… vision of what’s possible!

 

[Jensend]

I was blown away by the HTC Vive, which only had effectively one tenth as many pixels as the Vision Pro... but a lot of that came down to the games/apps and controllers, not just the headset itself.

I'm excited to eventually try the Vision Pro, but there isn't even a single app for it that I'm excited about.

 

[SteveJobs2.0]

I didn't know this.

However, it may look more dramatic in this screenshot than when the black areas are right up on your face.

It is not as dramatic in real life as a PSVR2 owner. You forget about the edges until you actively start looking around.

 

[aidler]

It doesn't get mentioned in any other VR headset review. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Because it is. The Verge mentions it....

Don't get me wrong. For some this doesn't make any difference and they don't bother the black bars and "goggle" effect. But for me and many others it is very distracting ..

These black areas are the bezels of VR devices, which, as they did on smartphones, will shrink over time.

 

[maldahleh]

The headset is way overhyped imo, a lot of people are going to use it once or twice then it’s gonna sit and collect dust. I hope I’m wrong but I can almost guarantee that is what will happen for most users.

 

[kkee]

I have never noticed the “looking through google” effect, neither do I realise there is a black border around my peripheral. The Verge is famous for exaggerating their negative opinion, I wouldn’t take that seriously, especially that image is nothing like what I saw when I tried it myself last month. The issue is not the limited FoV but whether or not the user notice it, and in my experience I didn’t even realise it’s there, neither do Brian Tong, unless you purposely seeking it.

 

[spiderman0616]

I have never noticed the “looking through google” effect, neither do I realise there is a black border around my peripheral. The Verge is famous for exaggerating their negative opinion, I wouldn’t take that seriously, especially that image is nothing like what I saw when I tried it myself last month. The issue is not the limited FoV but whether or not the user notice it, and in my experience I didn’t even realise it’s there, neither do Brian Tong, unless you purposely seeking it.

I tried my son's MetaQuest 3 a couple times and didn't notice it on that headset, even though I'm sure it was there. Brian Tong kept describing this thing as "immersive". That tells me either the goggle effect isn't very pronounced, or your brain just forgets it after a while.

 

[4sallypat]

I tried my son's MetaQuest 3 a couple times and didn't notice it on that headset, even though I'm sure it was there. Brian Tong kept describing this thing as "immersive". That tells me either the goggle effect isn't very pronounced, or your brain just forgets it after a while.

Yes, Brian Tong's review said that your brain has to change in order to take in all the stimuli.

His FOV was impressive - you can look up, down, all around and you are in that environment.

Should be a must watch for any skeptics.

 

[CookItOff]

Yes, Brian Tong's review said that your brain has to change in order to take in all the stimuli.

His FOV was impressive - you can look up, down, all around and you are in that environment.

Should be a must watch for any skeptics.

Yup, and everyone trying to bash on the battery not being glued to the back of head strap are missing the point of why it's not there in the first place. I can now FINALLY sit in my recliner with a VR headset with my head against the headrest my hands in my lap and relax. I mean seriously just relax. I can even lay down if I want to. That has never been an option before. With other models you get maybe two minutes tops of having your head on the head rest before that plastic battery digging into your skull becomes a literal torture device.

Apple not placing the battery on the rear of the strap is actually design perfection.

 

[p4ttythep3rf3ct]

View attachment 2343366

This will disappoint a lot of people that have never experienced VR before. The marketing video's and YouTube reviews doesn't show what you really are seeing. When the PSVR 2 launched I was also extremely hyped by all the YouTube videos... this was my first VR experience and I was immediately very disappointed the moment I put the glasses on for the first time. The narrow FOV (look through goggles) was something I could never get used to.

And I think a lot of people that want to buy the Apple Vision Pro are getting the wrong impression of what you are actually seeing.

What do you all think?

YouTube VR vids, some of them sure. VR in general though, no way. I’m basing this on my experience with the original Quest. It blew my socks off and I think AVP is going to do the same for certainly any new user, and probably VR veterans as well.

 

[kkee]

Yup, and everyone trying to bash on the battery not being glued to the back of head strap are missing the point of why it's not there in the first place. I can now FINALLY sit in my recliner with a VR headset with my head against the headrest my hands in my lap and relax. I mean seriously just relax. I can even lay down if I want to. That has never been an option before. With other models you get maybe two minutes tops of having your head on the head rest before that plastic battery digging into your skull becomes a literal torture device.

Apple not placing the battery on the rear of the strap is actually design perfection.

Good point. The freedom of battery pack is actually something not many people can see and appreciate yet until they tried Meta Quest Pro. I can’t even sit comfortably with the back of my head rest on chair cos of the damn battery, it is super uncomfortable.

 

[novagamer]

Good point. The freedom of battery pack is actually something not many people can see and appreciate yet until they tried Meta Quest Pro. I can’t even sit comfortably with the back of my head rest on chair cos of the damn battery, it is super uncomfortable.

This is a great point, exactly the same as how the Airpods Max are flat unlike every other headphone and allow you to lay on a pillow and still use them. It’s excellent function over form design from Apple.

I ‘d really like to know the round trip latency in ms between hand tracking when using full immersive apps and processing time… if some developer reads this or anyone finds it in a video or tech spec in the future please PM or @ me, if it is low enough I thought of a use case that might make me change my mind about grabbing one.

 

[panjandrum]

His FOV was impressive - you can look up, down, all around and you are in that environment.

To be clear, that's not what FOV refers to. Field of View (typically Horizontal FOV is the most common measurement used, although vertical FOV is also important) when we talk about HMDs is the number of degrees the 'display' appears to cover. A limited FOV (which is 100% of mainstream HMDs, and now the AppleVision as well) feels like you are wearing horse-blinders. A huge chunk of your vision is simply missing because the HMD has nothing there to display. Ideally the remaining area is black (no light leaks), to help with immersion, but even with eye-tracking and room-scale movement and the ability to 'look all around the environment' you'll still be constantly aware that your vision is restricted. This has a huge impact on immersion. (Note that, even with these restrictions, a decent VR title is *vastly* more immersive than flat-screen gaming. If you are interested in VR and can't afford wide-FOV VR, by all means go for whatever you can afford. It has come a long way and even something like the Index with Index controllers will give you something you just can't get on flat screens.)

You might be referring to eye-tracking or possibly the way the users can move their heads to "look all around the environment" - but that's not what we are talking about when we bang on about how immersion-breaking limited FOV HMDs can be.

TBH this is kind of one of those "ignorance is bliss" things. If you use a limited-FOV HMD and are perfectly happy with it that's great. It means you have to spend a lot less $ to get that limited FOV equipment (well, unless you buy the AppleVision). If you fall into this category of users then *DO NOT* put on a good HMD, because it will forever ruin your enjoyment once you understand of what a good VR experience should be.

Ultimately I definitely agree with the overall premise of the OP, despite a couple of errors: Mainstream VR (and the AppleVision if what we are reading it to be believed) has a major limitation that is rarely discussed.

 

[gerald.d]

@mattopotamus

A single human eye typically possesses a horizontal FOV of about 135 degrees (monocular) and extends just beyond 180 degrees vertically.

Err, no. I don't think so.

 

[Mr.Fox]

View attachment 2343366

This will disappoint a lot of people that have never experienced VR before. The marketing video's and YouTube reviews doesn't show what you really are seeing. When the PSVR 2 launched I was also extremely hyped by all the YouTube videos... this was my first VR experience and I was immediately very disappointed the moment I put the glasses on for the first time. The narrow FOV (look through goggles) was something I could never get used to.

And I think a lot of people that want to buy the Apple Vision Pro are getting the wrong impression of what you are actually seeing.

What do you all think?

They'll get used to it

 

[Melbourne Park]

left and right 3D is limited by the size of one's nose. Its not been discussed here.

I've used PS4 3D goggles, and their lack of resolution was my only gripe. and I could not on-line sim race with them. The 3D was incredible though.

Has the poster noticed that people have excellent motor skills, and those assist them in moving their heads? Have a look at people walking, watching sport, driving, gee - even watching the TV. the human brain is able to adapt a lot - I don't think it will be noticed much at all. The task will dominate usage reactions and customer satisfaction.

I have a major gripe with Apple's vision pro though. Its far too expensive. I reckon the cost is so high that Apple has missed a huge opportunity. They could have changed a lot of things if they'd made it one fifth the price. Over pricing the Apple Pro has created a massive environment for quality imitations. But if Google does one, I bet it will also be far too expensive.