T O P
djfil007

Naw... it's just personal preferences. I flip back and forth between multiple setups. First to note, Quest 2 is currently a entry to mid-range HMD. Better reresolution than say 2-3 years ago VR... but there's high end ones that have 2x the resolution on that. Unless you're not talking about sharpness of the image (most people's complaint) and something more related to overall HMD comfort (which can be dealt with by different head straps, etc) or similar. But if graphical fidelity is what you want, and depth perception (3D that VR provides) isn't important, then monitors and triple screens will always win out (especailly as almost all VR HMD's, except maybe pimax, doesn't provide same periphial vision that a triple screen setup can)


TimmyIo

Personally I prefer VR even with the sort of tunnel vision you get. I have trouble staying focused and VR helps me stay focused for longer races, it's kind of like the blinders they put on race horses. Everyone's mileage may vary but I feel I can pay better attention in VR, mind you I don't have triples and I have loud child and overbearing woman. When I put my HMD and my 7.1 headphones on, I'm in the fucken zone.


Scotchy49

To be honest the peripheral vision of triple screens is unrealistic… helmets block A LOT of your peripheral and VR isn’t really that much less than that. Even a G2, which isn’t the best in terms of horizontal FoV, is pretty close.


djfil007

Ever worn one? Do you really think it's like looking thru binoculars? Just look at a [side profile of a driver in a helmet](https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/amp/0rGaXmm2/s1000/race-winner-max-verstappen-red.webp), you can see their eyes. Quick google confirms "all DOT-compliant helmets are required to provide at least 210-degree vision" and the FIA would be no different. Here's another generic website : [https://flowracers.com/blog/how-f1-drivers-see-the-road/](https://flowracers.com/blog/how-f1-drivers-see-the-road/) "F1 helmets don’t limit a driver’s peripheral vision". And so on. I have no idea why this constantly comes up regarding VR or Triple Screen and Horizontal FOV available. It's very short sighted... or I guess more accurately I should say that it's narrow sighted.


Scotchy49

Yes, I own multiple helmets both for motorcycle and for karts. I am a motorcyclist and I wear a helmet every week pretty much… All of them impair peripheral vision a very significant amount. And they are all DOT-certified. Not as much as a G2, but not by a big margin. Did you read the article you linked? It specifically says the driver has full vision in front of them, as well as left and right in front of their car. That description fits a 90 degree fov.


djfil007

90 degrees is way less then what that's describing. Trust me, you (and F1 drivers, etc) are seeing more than 90 degrees when in the helmet. While I understand you'd notice the helmet, I can't say I have that much of an issue with peripheral vision in one. Yes triple screen configurations can go above and beyond that, but it's because it's compensating for being able to naturally turn your head (which VR of course does in it's own way with head tracking).


Scotchy49

Yes of course we see more than 90 degrees in a helmet, but that description is not convincing. On my bike if I don’t turn my head I can NOT see what’s directly on my left/right. I am not saying that I have to turn it 90 degrees, just that if I look straight ahead, I cannot see what’s directly beside me. That means I have less than 180 degrees FOV, hence the “DoT compliant 210 degree you don’t notice the helmet have you ever worn one” argument being just plain ignorant.


Joates87

Whenever I see comments like this I wonder if you race in comfy clothes or a full fire suit.


Sassy_McSassypants

I was gonna go with, "watched some youtube videos".


Scotchy49

Just pointing a fact, not saying you should like this or that, nor do this or that.


Joates87

True true. Though you could also wear a real helmet while using triples vs not being able to wear one with a vr headset lol


Sassy_McSassypants

It's usually best to avoid stating figures as facts when you have no clue what you're talking about. Future reference. Makes you look like your opinion can't be trusted about anything. You're not passing tech inspection and getting on track without a valid snell certification sticker for any competitive track event conducted by a reputed sanctioning body: https://smf.org/standards/k/2020/K2020-Final.pdf https://smf.org/standards/sa/2020/SA2020_final.pdf In case you can't be bothered to click links: > Peripheral Vision The helmet shall provide peripheral visual clearance as measured using a reference head form appropriate to the size of the helmet. This peripheral vision includes a horizontal clearance of at least 180º, an upward clearance of at least 5º and a downward clearance of at least 20º 180* FOV is not optional to meet specification. Not open for debate. Not getting on track without that sticker. https://www.scca.com/pages/cars-and-rules > ... Crash helmets approved by the Snell Foundation with Snell sticker 2005 or later Special Application SA2005. DOT certified road use != competitive special application use


Scotchy49

Again, FOV when looking straight ahead is one thing. Having to turn your head is another thing. The clearances you mention are measured in a static, forward looking position. In order to look at what's DIRECTLY on your left/right, you cannot move your eyes, like you can when you are not wearing a helmet. You have to move your whole head and look. If you move your eyes to look to the side, you are now seeing the edges of your helmet. There is no such thing as a helmet that does not impair your vision in any angle. Yes, sure, you see more with a helmet than a VR headset, and I didn't say otherwise. But if you have ever worn one and been on a bike/race car/kart, you know how it is widely different than having no helmet.


Sassy_McSassypants

First time I've had to explain this, but ok... It turns out a full circle is 360 degrees, half of 360 is 180. 180 degree FOV must then mean that it specifically mandates you can see anything that is *exactly* "directly next to you". The fact you thought that means there is a 90 degree FOV is extremely concerning coming form someone stating "a fact". I'll give you that I'm missing one degree on either side as my triple setup works out to 178 FOV. I don't notice but mathematically there's no arguing I'm a little short. As someone who (hopefully obviously) does indeed wear helmets often, *for competitive purposes*, in addition to administering tech inspection for formally sanctioned events: r/quityourbullshit


Scotchy49

I'm sorry what ? Re-read what I wrote about the 90° FOV. 90 degree covers what's IN FRONT LEFT of your car and IN FRONT RIGHT of your car. I said 90° does NOT cover what's directly on your left. And for the sake of the argument, try something for me: put your hands directly beside your eyes, palm facing forwards. You should see your hands when looking straight ahead because your natural vision is actually more than 180°. Now ask someone to come right next to you. Do you now see the person standing right next to you ? No, you don't. That's what a 180° helmet gives you. You cannot see the person even if you move your eyes, all you'll see is your hand. You need to MOVE YOUR HEAD in order to see the person.


Sassy_McSassypants

Yes, I do. Because that's how math works. Specifically geometry if you've had trouble following the numbers in the previous explanation. Same goes for my SA2015 certified helmet and my SA2020 certified helmet and my kid's K2020 helmet for karting....


Scotchy49

Lmao. If the person is right next to you, by definition, 180° is precisely the point where you won't see them. You should check your math again. In order for you to see them, they would have to be ahead of you.


Sassy_McSassypants

I think the word you meant instead of "directly next to" was "behind". Easy mistake. If you need further explanation, I can put you in touch with the second grade math teacher who taught me this the first time. I tried. Is this why IRL karting drivers sometimes struggle in simracing? I can see where if I thought, "kinda/sorta/almost achieved overlap" was the same as "achieved overlap" and made my racecraft decisions accordingly, I may find myself DNF'ing a lot. Kidding... mostly... But man, can you imagine if someone thought like this in construction and insisted "directly next to" actually meant "almost next to" and built a 2* angle in both walls on either side of a doorway because in their mind a straight line from side to side isn't actually "right next to"? Would be fun to listen in on the resulting discussion with the foreman.


Scotchy49

Your eyes are not behind you, nor in the center of you. You are also not an infinitely small point in a 2D plane and people or objects near you aren't either. Someone right next to you means the majority of their body will be behind your eyes. If your FOV is limited to 180°, you might, at best, see their nose if they have a big one. If you don't wear a helmet, you will see them, because your FOV is actually larger than 180°. But a helmet giving you a FOV of 180° will PHYSICALLY limit your vision thus you not being able to see them. (and, to be honest, no one actually checked my helmets when I went on track. My helmets also are definitely not 180°) If you don't wear a helmet, you can move your eyes to the side, effectively moving your field of vision, without moving your head. When you wear a helmet, you cannot move your field of view without moving your head. Is this articulate enough for you to understand ? My argument is that the main issue with VR headsets is the requirement to move your head to look around you, and specifically to your sides. The same requirement that applies to helmets.


Scotchy49

You honestly want me to draw you a picture ? Also, you should stop insulting people like that. Apart from sounding like a child, you are embarrassing yourself.


Confident_Dot985

The depth perception is what makes it so good in my eyes. It’s not too much of a difference with monitors until u start actually racing ppl that’s when the VR thrives, esp in formula cars


bigfkncee

Being able to turn my head naturally and see in 3D is huge for racing. VR is how I sim 90% of the time now. You shouldn't equate **your** bad first experience to *everyone else's*...sometimes it takes time to get used to VR and even after getting over that hurdle everyone's preferences/comfort-levels are different....even different headsets will look different.


chilli_asx

On the other hand, I can't understand how people that are really into sim(ulated) racing would prefer monitors. I mean in VR you are in the fricking car! Can't get any better than that. Maybe for you it's just video games.


Joates87

>Maybe for you it's just video games. That's what is is for everyone. You label it something else to try to feel better about it that's all.


Scotchy49

When something is used as training equipment by the large majority of professionals, it can be considered more than “just a game” as in “only for entertainment value”. P3D for example is a flight sim, which can be seen as a video game, but hours spent in P3D can actually be counted as valid flight hours by the FAA (if done at an approved training centre, which honestly is just a way to check your flights by other professionals. The sim is the same).


Joates87

>as in “only for entertainment value”. Okay let's play... what more do you get out of sim racing other than entertainment value?


Scotchy49

"only" is the key word here. Hum... Other uses for simracing ? Improving your racing, driving skills, advancing your career, getting paid to do it, learning about cars, ... Why do you think Verstappen is on iRacing so much ? Not because it's a game he likes, but because racing is his passion. You could say that for him, it's more than "just a video game". So certainly not "everyone" as you claim it.


Joates87

So counter strike isn't just a "game" then right? Lol For 99.9% of us its just a game.


Scotchy49

CSGO is not a tool used by the vast majority of professionals of a field outside of video games.


Joates87

To be fair neither are any of the sims we have access to last I knew...


Scotchy49

The vast majority of the racing professionals don't have access to private simulators neither. But whatever, it's not fun arguing semantics. My point was call it however you like, but don't assume your opinion reflects "everyone".


Joates87

The 99.9% of us are just gamers... 99.99% of the time solely for entertainment. And if we're going to label something we should probably label it by how it would apply to the overwhelming vast majority rather than a very select few I would think.


monti1979

Alert: goalposts moving: Maybe to you it’s just a video game… “That’s what it is to everyone” “For 99% it’s just a game”


Joates87

The problem with the original comment is it implies vr somehow makes it more than "just a video game"...


monti1979

It doesn’t imply that is says that vr makes it seem like you are in the car (correct) and if you are a person looking for a simulation of racing cars (this is also correct - there are people who use the sim racing apps to get a simulated racing experience). that VR seems important to achieving this. Whether you view sim racing apps as game or sport is not relevant to the original post.


chilli_asx

Exactly that, thanks....I just thought that for the vast majority of people into these sim games, trying to make it look and feel as close to real life as possible was the main goal, more than comfortability for example. That's my goal at least, I will never be able to drive any of these racing cars irl (most likely) so that's what I'm trying to simulate, the entertainment for me is to drive the car not to play the video game, that's why I don't play Forza, and other similar games for example. Just like when I ride my dirt bike, it's also for pure entertainment, and the entertainment comes from riding the bike really.


chilli_asx

If you go on the track irl (normal people) wouldn't be for entertainment as well?


AzeTheGreat

The depth perception and ability to freely look around more than make up for the fidelity drop in my opinion.


gu3st12

Quest 2 isn't really a good impression of what VR can bring. It's not a terrible headset but there's options out there that are better, even at the same price (HP Reverb G2)


a_good_silver

Thought VR was superior when I tried it over at a friend's house. After getting a headset of my own I realized my friend had his monitor set back way too far and that VR is just annoying to have to setup each time. Also, I really enjoy seeing overlays on the monitor.


Scotchy49

What setup do you mean? For me it’s basically put it on my head ?


jwsx111

Oculus Quest 2 isn't that great. In fact, I went back to a Rift S, which is an older model, and I am much happier now. Quest 2 might seem way better on paper, but it delivers a much inferior experience. You might want to try out better headsets like others have pointed out. Personally, it took me 2 weeks to get fully acclimated to VR racing and now I don't think I can ever go back to regular screens after experiencing the depth perception VR offers.


ezroller2k11

I'm not trying to say the quest 2 wasn't well setup, but it took me a lot of tweaking to get a level of fidelity I was happy with, out of the box I wasn't so impressed. I needed the quest 2 to be pushing maximum resolution for it to look great and took a lot to balance the settings out to keep up with the frames.


Sassy_McSassypants

Not so much overrated as a different set of strengths and weaknesses compared to triples. FOV, visual fidelity, comfort and general ease of use are ***huge*** marks in favor of triples. Depth perception and situational awareness are huge marks in favor of VR, before getting into subjective things like "presence". Neither is better or overrated IMO. Different priorities and tolerances will dictate which is better for an individual.


r1_adzz

I’m having a blast using my QUEST 2 and my gaming laptop for ACC. So it makes me wonder what a higher tier VR headset would be like. Where I am now I don’t think even boosted media’s setup would sway me to using triples.


UnaCabeza

I get bored using a monitor even triple setup , I lose focus . VR brings the immersion back and I'm more engaged.


Environmental_Arm600

I’ve been using VR for half a year. I tried going back to monitors a couple times thinking I wanted better visual fidelity and overlays, but soon realized…I’m just missing too much on screens. racing people in VR feels like I can control those fine margins better and get within inches of other cars while still feeling comfortable.


Joates87

Triples are way better imo. Don't have to deal with shit fov. (Please don't show your ignorance by arguing this point) Much better visual fidelity with no sweet spot issues. Comfort. Once we get vjaro lenses with pimax fov things might change.


chilli_asx

In fact, FOV is so much better than you can see that you are sitting in your room with your cat lurking around, pictures on the wall, and looking at very crisp 2D visuals on three monitors.


Joates87

Darkness solves those "problems". Being crisp images from edge to edge is very nice too yes. Vr is really cool and the wow factor is amazing but until it can compete In fidelity and fov with triples I'll likely hold out from becoming a convert.


Capelto

I get the downvotes because of how the comment was delivered but I have the same opinion and that's coming from someone who's used VR since the Oculus Dev Kit 2 days. I just enjoy the freedom and ease of use that monitors bring over what current and attainable VR brings these days. If they come out with some really impressive new tech I may switch back. Time will tell.


richr215

You used a lower end headset for sim racing (though it works good for other things). But also you were probably expecting it to be almost as clear as a cheap monitor......this is where most are let down. Not sure exactly how it was setup or if the Q2 was optimized for game. But I have one and do not use it over my HP G2, which is much better resolution and the effects show as I can go hours on end with it. But even with the Q2 maxed out....it causes me some stress and I can not go longer than about 15 mins with it. So there are a few things that can alter your 1st time impression of VR. Also, people do not react or feel the same about VR from one to another, some just can not get used to it and others can easily. But for me, I do not use triples anymore and only race in VR.