Cytat:Well, I am starting to have a preference now.
This afternoon I have been playing with the Index about 1 hour, same QMB in spring Kuban sea at sunrise (and also night), doing exactly the same all time: with the Spitfire killing 110s, the train and ships.
 
Just after that, I switched to the Reverb and I quickly noticed several worse things in the Reverb:
- FOV: The vertical FOV of Reverb is much much smaller than Index, and also the horizontal. I really liked the FOV of the Index and I was missing that after the switch. Larger FOV is really useful.
- Sweet spot: I noticed that very quickly without looking for it. In the Reverb the images gets blurred and chromatic aberration as your eyes move from enter of view. Period.
- Performance: I still have not run the tests, but with 140%SS at Index at 80Hz (12.5 million pixels), the performance is much better in the Index than in the REverb with 188%SS at 90Hz (9.5 million pixels). I know that running at 80 helps to the CPU and GPU, but it really doesn´t explain why the performance is so much worse in the Reverb. So performance wise it is better the Index
- Foam cushion: The synthetic leather  doesn´t allow to breath the skin, and if your skin is hot you will get some fogging on the lenses.
 
But the curious thing is that after 15 minutes playing with the REverb, the smaller FOV, worse sweet spot, and even worse performance was less a less annoying. So I continued playing for another 45 minutes and enjoyed the great view on the center. Then I changed the SS to 140% to have better performance, but the image was a bit less sharp and clear.
 
Then I switched again to the Index for 30 minutes and in the initial moments I quickly realize that THE INDEX IS STARTING TO BE MY FAVOURITE HEADSET!!!
 
Why?
1.(40%) bigger FOV is GREAT (I already lost a FOV portion going from Pimax to Index, but I am not ready to lose more FOV).
2.(40%) bigger Sweet spot is GREAT. This together with the bigger FOV gives you a better feeling of presence in the scene.
3.(20%) Better comfort. I have been learning to to adjust the top strap with the right pressure in the back wheel. So, I feel better with Index.
 
The % indicate the weight of the reason. I didn´t include performance since this could be improved by acquiring a 9700K and a 2080Ti.

It is not a definitive choice, but just a preference for now.

Cytat:Spending a full 1.5 hours with a "virtual reality desk" sold me on this possibility, as my experience was honestly more comfortable with the Rift S than the Reverb. Rift S's screens don't suffer from the HP Reverb's uneven pixel distribution, peripheral smeariness, or blatant mura effects. And even though it doesn't have as pixel-rich of a "sweet spot," Rift S's pixel density is just rich enough to make a virtual 1440p monitor perfectly readable for a long period of time. Its refresh rate is fluid enough, and the panel's hefty subpixel resolution is adequate for VR eye comfort.

Cytat:Well, as in the Pimax5K vs Index thread, It is now the time to analyze performance for IL-2 and my system with both devices, Index and Reverb.
My CPU is a 4790K running at 4.8GhZ with 1.3 Vcore. Fastest DDR3 RAM and 1080Ti. I could upgrade my system tomorrow if I wanted, but I still don´t see the upgrade will give me a significant enhancement for IL-2 VR. I am waiting to next gen CPUs and next gen GPUs for now.

I will use the same 2 tracks benchmarks used in the Pimax5K comparison. You can download all tracks from here.
BENCH1: 110 seconds, Spitfire in Kuban summer Novorossiysk against some bombers. Time 18:30. No clouds. (clouds drops performance a lot)
BENCH2: 87 seconds, Spitfire in Kuban summer Novorossiysk destroying four Ju-52, lot of fire and smoke. Time 18:30. No clouds.

The Graphics options are like the old benchmarking: High Settings, Shadows medium, Mirrors off, distant landscape x2, Horizon draw 100Km, Landscape filter Blurred, Grass Normal, Clouds Medium, DRF=1, AA x2, gamma 0.8.
Regarding frequencies, the Index runs at 80Hz (this is what I use) and the Reverb runs at 90Hz. I also have tried the 60Hz mode of the REverb but this is absolutely a non-go since it degrades the visual clarity a lot and also the vision is cross-eyed, that is very strange.
Running the Index at 80Hz helps not only the GPU load but also the CPU load since less scenes per second need to be generated, everything which helps CPU load (single core load) is very much welcomed in IL-2 VR. So it is bad that the Reverb only works at 90Hz, since it will demand more power from CPU and GPU.

Then, for the applied SS:
100%, 188% and 300% for the Reverb, this is 5, 9.5 and 15.1million pixels in total respectively at 90Hz, making 0.45, 0.85 and 1.36 billion pixels per second respectively. 
140% for the Index, this is 12.6million pixels in total at 80Hz making 1.01 billion pixels per second. (going beyond 140% might not be worth the extra detail)
The SteamVR recommended SS in Reverb for my PC and 90Hz is 150% (which is 7.6million pixels at 90Hz, so 0.68 billion pixels per second)
The SteamVR recommended SS in Index for my PC and 80Hz is 150% (which is 13.5 million pixels at 80Hz, so 1.08 billion pixels per second which is a much higher rate than in Reverb)

I really don´t know the algorithm used by SteamVR to make the SS recommendation, I think it uses as inputs the VR device, the GPU, the display frequency,etc,  but I really don´t know.

BENCH1 results: (here I also run the bench in 4K monitor at 60Hz):
In the 4K monitor we can see the overall load of the bench1. Average fps is 156.
The Index keeps almost always at 80 fps, excepts to low peaks (marine artillery hit my Spit!). Average fps is 78.2. So 97.8% close to max (80fps)
The Reverb has a little harder time to try to be at 90fps, both at 100% and 188%. I didn´t run this bench1 at 300%. Average fps is 72.3 (SS100%) and 69(SS188%). So respectively, 80.3% and 76.7% close to max (90 fps)

Here we can see that the monitor pattern is followed by the Reverb, revealing when the scenes are more demanding in terms of CPU (since my 4K at 60Hz is not constrained by GPU).
We can see also that the difference in performance from SS100% to 188% is very small, just 3.6% reduction. But the visual gain that we obtain is very large, so it is really worth to run at 188% in my system. I also display (just below fps graph) the GPU load for the Reverb at SS188%, you will see that it is in the 50-70% band, so a 1080Ti is quite OK for the Reverb at SS=188%. (and this track).

Cytat:Then, for the applied SS:
100%, 188% and 300% for the Reverb, this is 5, 9.5 and 15.1million pixels in total respectively at 90Hz, making 0.45, 0.85 and 1.36 billion pixels per second respectively. 
140% for the Index, this is 12.6million pixels in total at 80Hz making 1.01 billion pixels per second. (going beyond 140% might not be worth the extra detail)
The SteamVR recommended SS in Reverb for my PC and 90Hz is 150% (which is 7.6million pixels at 90Hz, so 0.68 billion pixels per second)
The SteamVR recommended SS in Index for my PC and 80Hz is 150% (which is 13.5 million pixels at 80Hz, so 1.08 billion pixels per second which is a much higher rate than in Reverb)

Cytat:BENCH2 results: (here I also run the Reverb at SS=300% just to see influence)
The Index keeps 80 almost all time except when the ablaze Ju-52 crash in ground. 
The Reverb does well at beginning but later can not keep the 90fps and slowly go down to 70s (much trailing smoke and fire).
The SS=300% is clearly a non-go in both: performance and visual gain.
 
The GPU loads of Index and REverb, show that the 12.6 million pixel of Index loads almost equally the GPU than the 9.5 million pixel of REverb at 188%.
(If we take 12.6 and multiply by 80 and divide by 90, it is equivalent to 11.2 million pixel at 90Hz, still 1.7 million more than 9.5).