Talk:List of virtual reality headsets

Merge "PC-based devices" into the main table

There is no need in information duplication in the main table and a few smaller tables beneath it. Furthermore, the choice of headsets in the small tables is weird: OSVR seems dead, and Helmet Vision is less popular (and noteworthy) than many alternatives; Oculus has a few headsets besides Rift; and HTC Vive has many different configurations. I propose a merger of most tables (after sources validation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.bersh (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC) I moved the Software table into "Video Game Engines with VR support" table (simplified layout, removed preorder bundle information because it lacked any sources, is no longer relevant). Anton.bersh (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, besides, there should be different tables for PC VR, Mobile VR and standalone VR, because those three categories are useless to compare to eachother. Also, Hololens is mentioned in the table which really is not an actual VR headset. Coldbolt (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "PC VR, Mobile VR and standalone VR" to make sure we are on the same page? E.g., could you make a list of devices to put in each table? Is PlaySation VR in "PC VR"? Is Google Daydream device in "Mobile VR" or "standalone VR" or either one depending on the device? The article defines "standalone" and "tethered" VR based on the platforms that are supported. Note that "standalone" includes actual all-in-ones and cell-phone straps alike; "tethered" includes PC and PlayStation VR (which can be used with PC as well).

A single monolithic table is not ideal, but I'd like to ensure there is a clear plan on how to split the table before doing it.

About Hololens: Hololens is MR, so is not strictly VR, however I believe it belong here because:

1. Hololens is powered by Windows MR which also supports a good selection of actual VR headsets, so the distinction between VR and MR is rather nominal. If we make a separate MR headsets page we would have to duplicate all this data. At the end of the day, VR and MR are more similar than different.

2. The distinction between AR, VR, and MR is somewhat fuzzy (esp. AR and MR) (there is explanation, but it does not really work that well because most VR headsets with inside-out tracking support some version of pass-through and therefore are technically MR devices while they are obviously VR devices). At this point we might as well start drawing Venn diagram of "AR", "VR", and "MR" sets.Anton.bersh (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For now I will leave out Hololens in this discussion in order to make everything more clear. Like you already said, tethered is PC and PSVR, while PSVR is not mainly used for PC's, while standalone consists of all-in-ones and cell-phone straps. However, the reason why I want this table to be split into the categories I already mentioned (PCVR/tethered, mobile, standalone) is because the existing table (main list) mentiones different specifications like resolution, on-board processor, and price. In my opinion, for people coming to this page without any knowledge about VR it gets really confusing, because mobile VR doesn't have a "resolution" in the table because it depends on the device used, PCVR doesn't have an on-board processor because it makes use of a PC, and with mobile VR it depends on the device again, and prices aren't useful to compare anyway because a standalone device (without making use of a PC or mobile phone) is much more expensive than just a strap-on. So what I'm suggesting: we create 3 tables.

- The first table "Tethered VR (PC/console)", which includes Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, Valve Index, PSVR.

- The second table will be called "Standalone (All-in-one)" which includes HMD's with a screen and on-board processor, basically plug and play without the use of a mobile phone or pc, like Oculus Go, Oculus Quest,

- The third table "Standalone (Mobile phone)", which includes Daydream, Samsung gear, VRBox etc. (basically strap-ons, which do need a mobile phone but cannot be attached to a PC).

I think these 3 categories define the VR market now. Coldbolt (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I was searching a bit through the internet in order to make sure I wasn't talking any gibberish but I found for example this source: https://www.aniwaa.com/guide/vr-ar/types-of-vr-headsets/ which supports my proposal. Even Tom's Hardware lists basically these 3 types of VR (https://www.tomshardware.com/news/virtual-reality-headset-comprehensive-list,29907.html). Coldbolt (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with the three categories, but there are many weird edge cases that should be explained in the notes or comments or asterisks.

1. PSVR is not really intended for use with PC. I do not have any first-hand experience using PSVR on PC (because I do not own PS nor PSVR) so the following comes from research online. Apparently, PSVR on PC is supported via Trinus PSVR, which is not an official Sony product. Trinus is some third-party that develops software that streams PC video to a Daydream or Google Cardboard or PSVR headset. So the fact that PSVR can be used with PC does not really make it PC headset.

2. There is a difference between a device Google Daydream View (generation 1 and 2) and Google Daydream platform. While Google Daydream View basically defines the "mobile VR" category, Google Daydream platform also powers Lenovo Mirage Solo, an all-in-one headset.

3. I would separate all VR devices released before the current wave of VR into a separate list (not even a table since there is not enough info for a table). Basically it would encompass all devices that came before Oculus. Fortunately, there is a nice time gap between them. The early VR category would include only Forte VFX1 (1995) and IIS VFX3D (2000).Anton.bersh (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I implemented the split into Tethered and Standalone tables and now "Standalone" is sufficiently small that I'm not sure Standalone actually needs to be spit into "mobile" and "all-in-one".Anton.bersh (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you made the right choices on how to split the table. Good job! Indeed standalone is a small table now so it doesn't have to be seperated. Where necessary, I will keep the tables updated and provide the necessary side notes in order to keep things clear for people visiting the page. Coldbolt (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Helmet Vision

Helmet Vision is listed in the old "PC-based devices" tables but when I search I get a standalone headset so I put it in "Standalone" table. Also, the provided source links for it are not about Helmet Vision at all (the earlier versions of the article before the table split have the same weird sources). Needs correction. For now, I left it as is.Anton.bersh (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Pixel count

I think it'd be useful to have a column with either the total pixel count of the device's display or the per-eye pixel count. This would make it easy to compare the resolution of the headsets by sorting, which isn't easily done using the Resolution column since a resolution in the XxY format doesn't really sort in a way that's useful. The table is already pretty big though, so maybe combining resolution and pixel count into a single column would be a good idea.

A template that might be useful for this is {{resrow}}, which is used on the List of common resolutions page. However, I've never been good with wikitables so I'm not sure how to actually make that happen. --Veikk0.ma 13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Another useful thing would be a colunmn for Pixels Per Degree, which is calculated by dividing the horizontal per-eye resolution by the horizontal field of view. Since FOV varies between headsets, this would be a better indicator of image clarity than just pure resolution. It would also work the same as my suggestion for the column of total number of pixels and thus make it unnecessary, at least for purposes of comparing image clarity. --Veikk0.ma 14:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorting of the lists

I think it would be better to change the default sorting of the list to chronological order by release date so these give some sort of history of VR headsets later on. It would also help people compare recent headsets when they are about to buy one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9C0:160C:297D:F2E1:F5DF:149A (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Changes I've made, planned changes

Changes I've made to the article:

• Price: I've tried to standardise the price to USD, when official USD price is available. If a headset is no longer sold (ie. it's been officially discontinued by the manufacturer), I've replaced the price with {{dropped|Discontinued}} to indicate this. If there's a desire to not do this and instead keep a price number when a headset has been discontinued, then the price should be standardised to something, such as the introductory price or the latest MSRP before discontinuation.
• Field of view: I've standardised the field of view in the tables to be horizontal since that's what's commonly understood to be the important measurement. Some manufacturers (like VRgineers as I recently found) report the diagonal FoV of their headsets, often without even mentioning that this isn't the horizontal FoV. In cases where I can't find a reliable source for the horizontal FoV, I've taken to the policy of replacing the FoV and PPD cells with {{n/a}}.
• Pixels per Degree: A better measure of display clarity than just pure display resolution. This is horizontal PPD, number of horizontal pixels per eye divided by the horizontal field of view. An even more useful measure would be the number of subpixels per degree, but I'm not sure how realistic it would be to include this since it'd require knowledge of whether the display is full RGB or Pentile.

Changes I'm thinking about:

• Removing the Head tracking column: Every single headset in both comparison tables has head tracking and there's no reason to assume that any future headset of sufficient notability isn't going to have it. I also don't see value in reporting the ways how head tracking is achieved (accelerometer, gyroscope, etc). Furthermore, positional tracking and head tracking data can be used together for greater accuracy, so listing different methods used only for head tracking isn't very useful from that standpoint either.
• Positional tracking: Standardise on something more useful than the current mix of Yes/Outside-in/Inside-out. I'm currently not sure what this would be since tracking systems are evolving and more headsets are getting capable, room-scale inside-out tracking, and limited, non-roomscale solutions (like the PSVR's front-facing tracking) are becoming more rare. Using the {{yes}} and {{maybe}} templates with a custom text to indicate the type of tracking would be a possibility.
• Add IPD adjustment column. This is one very important headset feature that's still not present in the comparison tables. Physical IPD adjustment is required for a headset to comfortably accommodate a large percentage of the population, and many headsets currently forego this for cost-saving purposes. The range of supported IPDs could also be reported in this column (when available).
• Remove everything in and below the "PC-based devices" section. The VR game engine support table could have a place in another article, but I don't see the value of these tables. The three "PC-based devices" tables are outdated in the information they provide (the number of headsets compared is limited and OSVR is basically dead) and badly sourced (either no sources at all, and the sources that are provided are unreliable Reddit posts).

Feedback would be appreciated. --Veikk0.ma 12:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

IPD specs (actual physical range and accommodated (what will work in theory)) not being a standard spec every headset has marked clearly is still rather shameful in the VR industry after all these years. It's a form of discrimination that just gets swept under the rug.. and makes actually searching for a headset that will work correctly so much more irksome 2A02:1210:886A:E500:596:451:5161:FDA0 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Stereoscopic viewers/head mounted displays that are almost AR/VR

Would it be worth including in the lists here non-mobile phone based head mounted displays that show the evolution to fill VR units?

Examples include

• Sony HMZ-T series
• Cinemizer
• Various "branded" viewers (1280x720 resolution) such as VRWorld, Magicsee, which are standalone, powered by Android 5, with core software from Nibiru, (who specialise in OEM VR development by providing a platform but also standalone AR and VR hardware manufacture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.222.59 (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding Headsets

The Bigscreen Beyond is a headset who's samples have been distributed and reviewed very positively. Definitely Worth Adding. SNERTTT (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Simplified table

I love the information on this page but it is too complex, not up to date, and inconsistent. I think it would be worth rethinking it and making one or two simplified tables instead, with only the most relevant information.

Some directions I would suggest:

• Don’t make the disctiction between “Early” and more recent VR.
• Merge Tethered and Standalone, as well as Cancelled and Upcoming subsections into one.
• Possibly cut everything into two tables: Hardware comparison and Software/Platform comparison.
• Remove “Extensive comparison of popular PC-based devices” as nice as this section was, it is now out of date, not easy to maintain, and the selection of “popular” devices is not very encyclopedic.
• Remove columns that are too technical and not super essential, or too niche to certain devices.
• Remove the price column as those change and this isn’t a buying guide anyway.
• Review consistency of formatting and detailing across devices, and complete missing data.

I made a rough early draft of a table for hardware comparison: User:Nclm/sandbox/VR.

• It has all 82 devices from the page, listed in one table in ante-chronological order.
• Standalone/Tethered is now a “Type” column in the table.
• I added Handtracking and Eyetracking as a test (without filling in information for devices), as those are two characteristics that are increasingly common and could be interested to compare?
• I’m wondering if all columns under display are essential. Also is “Weight” that interesting to compare?

Another table could compare support for platforms/OSes/stores, etc.

What are you thoughts on this? ~ nicolas (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Showing IPD range specs is essential IMO. The problem is, most manufacturers obfuscate this as much as possible to save costs building the headset - they just build for the percentage market it'll work for 2A02:1210:886A:E500:596:451:5161:FDA0 (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

AntVR

I'll leave this to someone who understands the table better, but I recently created an article for the AntVR, a 2014 Chinese headset. Would someone mind adding that to the list? --ERAGON (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)