Your start of this video is what I've exactly been thinking about this headset, I wish they would make a PCVR Only Version of this headset, Less Weight, Less Cost, No need for batteries.
Even without the soc it still needs a different chip for the tracking, and you lose all wireless that way, and now the headset would be front heavy because of the lack of a battery. Sounds silly to me. how much do you think an SOC weighs? it’s like….a few grams
Stability matters. Thanks for being so candid and clear on this issue. Please update us after installing and testing Pimax Play 1.17 which just came out today. Thanks.
From an RTX 4090 users perspective, I don't have a Crystal, only a HP Reverb G2 and Meta Quest 3. I regularly play PCVR games at 3.5K per eye, approx 3500x3700 even MSFS but I do choose to enable reprojection on that title, I could still play without reprojection but of course I wouldn't hit my target 80 fps in the Quest 3 headset. Remember 3500x3700 is render resolution and can still be upscaled to 4K, so I really don't see true 4K displays per eye (not the fake system Pimax uses LOL) being that much of an issue but you are right, for titles like MSFS then having some help in the form of foveated rendering, reprojection or DLSS will be necessary but it will look friggin awesome!
I completely understand your feelings and appreciate you making this review. I currently use the Valve Index and would love to replace just the headset with something much higher resolution but still let's me use the knuckle controllers and v2 lighthouses. The controllers are awesome and the base stations allow superior hand and head tracking. The crystal fits that bill but the bulk has me worried.
Finally some one who said some meaningful stuff. The part that keeps me from buying this is, cut FOV compared to older 5k and 8k headsets, and the price. If I'm going to sacrifice performance, I'd rather have increased FOV over clarity.
Definitely appreciate your feedback on this one, as I've been considering it to replace the Vive Pro that a recent lightning strike destroyed...but yeh, the downsides you mentioned I think are going to be a no for me. I refuse to spend $1600 on a VR headset that may or may not work properly on first start; for that kinda money, I shouldn't have to tinker or shut things on/off just to get the headset to power on reliably. And with my games of choice (iRacing and Elite Dangerous) even one headset disconnect or shutoff is unacceptable. The weight of the headset due to the battery would no doubt also get annoying after a while, considering I tend to play ED for 3-6 hours at a time. I get that they needed a battery for standalone, but they should have found a way to sufficiently power it via the cord for PC VR. Seems they still have some maturing to do of their platform. I definitely agree, give us a Crystal standalone with no XR2/battery and cheaper, with matured software that just works, and they may finally have a winner. I wish the Crystal had that wide FOV that they're known for as well.
I agree, I have a 4090 and was struggling for a little bit wondering why the only games that blew me away with clarity was AirCar, and I realize it's all about prioritizing resolution. Turn down all graphical settings to start and make sure you get the resolution to at least 4000 or higher and then bump the graphical settings up afterwards. But yes a 4090 is certainly enough to max out this headsets primary feature , resolution.
I think a 4090 can certainly max out the resolution in plenty of titles for sure. The part I didn't quite make clear enough in that section is that I seriously doubt it can do it in Microsoft Flight Simulator.
You nailed it! I say get rid of baggage aka battery etc. Focus on 200 FOV and eye tracking for more fps. 2 Versions, wired and wireless. Wired being less costly and please the simmers and the shooters.
I ordered a crystal, because it seems to be the only feature complete heatset - I hope I will not regret it. Essential for me is inside-out- and eye-tracking. I also like the idea of the trade in program, since I have so many headsets collecting dust at the moment. I did not consider to buy the quest 3 because I would need to buy an additional headstrap, probably a facegasket and a new 6e router.
This review is spot on the only thing it is missing is the initial setup for your sim title. It took me days to get my Sim of choice, DCS, running where I like it. Meta was plug and play and you go. Pimax is not like that. You have to spend the time to tweak and then re-tweak, then re-re-tweak, then re-re-re-tweak the settings which takes forever. But when you get it dialed in. OMG you won't go back. And he is right on the 4090. In DCS, you still have to run everything on medium but holy hell is it clear and sharp and the colors pop. The saving grace for SIM users on this headset will be when they add 72Hrz mode.
I don't know DCS just dropped a huge update which really changed how well the game runs... I'm going from 45-60 fps being the norm 'DFR included' to the same exact game going to 90 smooth, and even tempting me to push it to the 120hz mode.
@@jambo72nd Just upgrade to 2.9 and now I can no longer play DCS. my FPS is bouncing from 60-90 and that is just looking at the title screen. I set my graphics to low and that did not help. I wish I could go back to 2.8. I have had to resinstall Quadviews 2 times now as it just stops working in DCS. Pimax eyetracking is working fine in the calibration tool but when going into DCS it no longer works unless I reinstall quadviews every few games.
Well it is now April 2024. Your wish has come true. PIMAX is now making the Crystal lite VR headsets with no battery, no eye tracking, but has everything else. The headset connects via Display Port on the GFX card. This is ideal for SIM racing. And the price will be 699 dollars for one of them. There are a couple different configurations for the lite headsets and different pricing. Should be released sometime this year. I will wait and see how the first video reviews go on these lite headsets. Take care.
Agreed. I only use my Crystal for seated experiences (Sim Racing) where it’s clarity, resolution and 120hz is awesome on a 4090. I use Quest 2/3 for stand alone. If Pimax released a True Crystal Sim tomorrow without Stand alone (which I’m assuming also means no DFR and eye tracking if you want to lose the mobile chipset) in a smaller form factor, without battery- I’d buy it immediately. The Crystal is my favourite HMD but could have been so much better.
I’m not sure you’d have to lose eye-tracking or DFR in that scenario at all. The Reverb G2 Omnicept has both of those things with no need for internal processing or a battery. Everything is done PC side. Also, as far as I’m aware the Pimax doesn’t even use that XR2 for DFR and that is also done PC side. It’s win, win.
The PICO 5 will have three models. So your idea of a dedicated PCVR model w/o the battery and chip is certainly practicable. Competition may push PIMAX in this direction. Hope so. As a prospective customer, based on this instability being reported widely, I am not going to make a move until this is cured.
Yes, a perfect review. - For the reasons you mention this is just not the focused premium product it should be at this price point. - The faults make it easy to skip this headset and wait for Valve Deckard or perhaps Pico 5 pro max (if real) - Furthermore, I believe Valve will build their headset around using eye tracked quad view rendering (and foveated streaming for wireless) which can achieve 2x or more performance benefit compared to the (VRS) approach used currently that only has a 10-40% benefit. Maybe this will also work on the crystal ? Perhaps not if Valve offload part of the rendering pipeline onto their headset. I guess the bottom line is I just trust Valve to make the smarter choices and deliver the next generation Index successor that PCVR needs.
Good video! I think we all would love to see Pimax just settle down and focus on making 1 great product. And I think that product could have been the crystal. But for some reason they got overly distracted, and tried to do standalone at the same time.
One more comment....I wonder how long it's going to take someone to design an adapter for the battery that you can 3D print in the shape of the battery, but just runs power cords directly through the battery interface so you never have to swap batteries in seated VR experiences. Some enterprising person will probably end up doing it
I agree with your assessment. I just want a Pcvr and because of the difficulties highlighted by other reviewers....I bought a Varjo Aero recently for the new half price! Any improvement in the Crystal and I would have bought it but....alas. Thanks for your vid!
Appreciate your honest review. I feel mostly the same except that I'll be happy with the battery once the wireless Wiigig module is released so I'm ok with that. I do like that they have so many options even if I don't use some of them. I'd rather have more options than not enough. Smaller would be better but that would increase the cost since they are obviously using the same faceplate for the eventual 12k release. Two completely different headset would cost much more to manufacture, so I get it. I don't necessarily like it, but I get it.
Completely understand that point of view, and it certainly makes sense from one angle. I'd still prefer it if they sold a base model with no battery or associated hardware to the XR2 as standard, then sell that for those who require it when they upgrade to the WiGig module. To me, they've gone about it in the opposite way to that which makes most sense. Sell a cut down unit for those who only require wired PC VR and get more people invested in that unit. Then sell the additions as required for those who want to pay extra for the WiGig and extra functions.
@@ImmersedRobot the only problem with this is that the only reason Pimax is using the xr2 was because they needed it for the ISO tracking and the eye tracking. They likely didn't have the skills to do it themselves. As is proven by the cancelled Sword Controllers with joystick. This PCVR only version of the headset would likely need to be lighthouse tracked only and would probably not feature eye tracking at all. The standalone was kind of an afterthought because they already had the XR2 in there and figured may as well use it. This is all speculation of course.
@@ImmersedRobot That doesn't really make sense to me. I seriously doubt that removal of the SOC and battery would make much of a dent in the price or form factor. Consider that Quest 3 has both and still manages to be significantly cheaper and lighter. Also, the upcoming "Deckard" will also presumably include both, and I doubt that will be super heavy or uber expensive. On the other hand, ditching the SOC/battery is exactly what Somnium VR1 is doing, and I don't think we are anticipating them becoming an enticing price leader because of this (over $2K last I heard)...and only able to support lighthouse and probably only supporting an uber expensive add-on wireless module. And remember that when Crystal came out, the Varjo Aero, which has no SOC, no controllers, no wireless chip, no battery, and no integrated audio, was still $2000; so if anything, the Crystal forced them to lower their price to even compete. It's my understanding that the size/weight is far more due to panel size and the choice to use glass aspheric lenses--not to mention the motor for the auto IPD; all features that make the Crystal distinct. In fact, if you look at the recent tear-down video posted by Pimax, I think it becomes quickly evident that the SOC and battery are only minimal space/weight contributors. So, I don't think a "cut-down" version would have been meaningfully lighter or cheaper (maybe 10% at best?). And keep in mind that the Crystal's inclusion of inside-out controllers (supported by the SOC), may be one of the most important inclusions for pulling in users from the G2 and sim player camp. Did I need standalone? No. But it's still cool and I suspect 90% of the R&D cost of that feature came from the Portal anyway. So probably a very low cost addition to the Crystal from a dev point of view. So given that the SOC/battery is already there, why not include it since it just adds users to a budding marketplace that probably couldn't be supported by the Portal alone anyway.
@@daviddahlstrom192 Yes, I get some of your points here. I didn't mean to imply that by removing the XR2 and associated hardware alone that it would magically reduce the form-factor, only that it could be a potential contributing factor. My own opinion on the Crystal's form-factor is that it feels needlessly large for many reasons beyond this - the display and optics chosen of course are also a contributing factor - but I can't help but be of the opinion that the rumours of the Crystal using the basic shell developed for the 12K QLED, and simply repurposing it for the Crystal might be true. The 12K QLED, with much wider panels to be accommodated, justifies this form-factor more and seems more reasonable. As I mention in the video, the form-factor feels more like a manufacturing convenience rather than a necessity. Also, I've seen zero confirmation that the XR2 is being utilised in any way when the Crystal is in PC mode. The inside-out tracking, along with motion controllers and eye-tracking are all controlled PC-side in the same way that many other PC VR headsets with inside-out tracked controllers operate. The G2 Omnicept has inside-out tracking, with controllers, and integrated Tobii eye-tracking, with no XR2-controlled onboard processing. It is all done PC-side. The actual price reduction of losing the XR2 and battery will not be known, I was only really pointing out that there must be some level of cost reduction for a feature that many PC VR-only enthusiasts might never/rarely use.
@@ImmersedRobot Based on a video from Pimax I saw a while back, it didn't sound like the standalone mode was mainly intended for gamers anyway, but rather for businesses that wanted to build apps for it. Sure, they could have removed this for the pure PCVR gamer market for a little cost savings and loss of a minor feature but that would have resulted in two SKUs marketed to two different sets of users, not unlike what HTC did with the consumer targeted Vive Pro 2 and business targeted Focus 3, which are almost identical optically. But to do that, you need to be pretty sure that the overhead of engineering, manufacturing, and supporting two different SKUs for similar headsets having only relatively minor price differences (VP2 and F3 kits are only $100 apart) will yield justifiably greater profits than producing just one headset marketed to both, but perhaps being overkill in some areas. My guess is that they thought about it, but couldn't justify it. Just to show that this goes two ways though, I remember as a VP2 owner, watching gamers getting very bummed-out when the Focus 3 was released thinking that HTC missed an opportunity to also make it a great gamer headset if they had only included lighthouse and direct PCVR support, which should have only raised its price very modestly, and I agreed. I guess that's why I actually liked Pimax's decision here. Just give us one headset to rule them all. Yeah its on the larger side, but its also the RV of headsets and if you need something more strictly gamer oriented rather than hobbyist oriented, there are several great alternatives; so I don't really see the need for them to compete in that more congested space when they have this particular price/feature/crossover space to themselves for the moment. Would it be nice, sure. Practical? I'm thinking, probably not.
Thanks for the review. Im on the fence with this and totally get the conclusion. This price bracket is not stand alone territory. The Quest line, small, cheap effective. Thats a good standalone device marketed at the stand alone market, is where standalone is. This is miles away from anything a standalone user would be interested in. And its savagly comprimised a high end PCVR device. Its a shame as i imagine its lost them custom. Id happily pay 1500 ish for a high end device, but not one that a chunk of the value is taken up in stuff that actually reduces its effectiveness for pcvr.
I think people miss why the XR2 is in there, it has 6 cameras.. 4 tracking 2 eye tracking cameras. You need a chip that can handle all that, and XR2 can handle 7 cameras.
I very nearly added a section justifying the inclusion of the XR2 chip because there are reasons for it to be there, including wireless PC VR. However, the tracking could certainly be handled by the PC in the same way every other dedicated PC VR headset with inside-out tracking works. It doesn’t necessarily require the XR2 chip or the larger battery.
Nice video mate , I agree the headset would be an excellent choice for PC VR without the battery and the clunky head strap , But at the same time I'm interested in the WiGiG module to use in my Yaw VR2 motion platform ( Just 1 of the reasons I got a Crystal ) I'm hoping that Wigig will bring all the visuals of being tethered while being able to rotate 360 degrees in my motion sim.
Yep exactly. I'm still waiting on my Yaw2...backer in the 200's so have been waiting almost 3 years since I purchased it....maybe someday I'll actually receive it....
I find myself less saddened to use my Q3 over the Crystal for the wireless, because the Q3 is so good. When the wide FOV lenses and wigig come out it may change my tune though
@@TrevorJones1 I just bought my son a Q3 for his Birthday , That passthrough is epic , Much better than my Pico 4. I'm also tempted to get one for myself :)
Good review! I would imagine that 99.9999% of all Pimax Crystal owners already own a Quest 2/3, so the standalone stuff confuses me. Anyone buying this sort of headset will already own the cheap headset I bet, and if I person using the Crystal was desperate for a standalone headset then I bet they have the funds to snag a Quest 2/3. What standalone apps are even available? I was assuming the selection isn't great since the audience for a Crystal is relatively low so devs aren't very incentivized to make a Pimax version, but does most stuff in the Quest marketplace just transfer over (aside from the exclusives)? I've not been lucky enough to use a Pimax Crystal, but with their reputation for being fiddly and needing to be tinkered with, I imagine the Quest 2/3 has a MUCH better quality of life and overall user experience for the standalone mode. Just seems so unnecessary unless I'm missing some essential element. Pimax Crystal seems like a great sim headset though, I'm jealous that I won't get to try one! Hopefully for the sake of dedicated PCVR enthusiasts, they come out with a "Pimax Crystal Pro" that just focuses on PCVR and knocks it out of the park. Oh a quick question-- how do ya like the aspheric lenses when compared to pancake lenses?
I like the aspheric lenses, and the general clarity / edge to edge clarity they offer is probably around the same as the pancake lenses. But they also play a part in the form factor and weight overall. Aspheric lenses require a gap between the lenses and the display in order to focus it correctly, and pancake lenses can be placed closer. They are also heavier and thicker than fresnel lenses which creates its own problems. Looking at the pure visual quality however, I consider aspheric lenses very high quality.
Sound delay has been an issue since release, and any fix seems to seriously degrade sound quality so I don't think it'll ever be fixed. There are so many people in Pimax's discord with issues that I'll never buy one. Many of the early buyers are already looking to sell their headsets and go back to whatever they were using previously. If it was $1000 or less people would probably be ok with it, but it is not a $1600 vr headset. Great clarity yes, but everything else is buggy and Pimax fixes one thing and breaks 2 others. They shouldn't have done standalone, and they shouldn't try throwing in everything including the kitchen sink. They need to simplify it, ditch the battery, make it standalone, get rid of wireless, shrink it down and lighten it up. They might have even had a fully functional headset instead of a buggy mess.
When are we final gonna get consumer vr with no screen door, where we can look to the horizon and see no smush pixels? Waiting for years for this and almost no improvement so far…
I cant understand the battery issue. Strangely for me this is not issue at all because in 2 weeks, playing every day 1-2h, some days even 2-3 hours I have not had any need to change battery, it stays magically full and one moment when I played 3 hours straight, it showed 2 green blocks less which means it was almost half empty but next day it was again full as it was charged full just buy main chord which is connected to PC. Strange but I font need to change this battery, not a issue at all :)
Yes, I briefly mention in the video that I personally don’t have a huge issue with the battery, and it remains topped up mostly. However, I can understand people who find it a frustration, and I’ll also go back to the point that without standalone, I’m effectively paying for something which adds no value for me. In fact it would improve the device if it wasn’t there at all.
what sucks for them is the xr2 needs to be there for all that stuff (inside out tracking, eye tracking) so its almost like 'why not just add some android apps'.. so parts wise- there's little to no money savings for them getting rid of standalone as the processor is used to do all the other stuff we really want.
I’m almost certain the XR2 chip is not activated at all when it’s used in PC mode. Other PC VR headsets with inside out tracking have no onboard processing at all and the tracking is handled by the PC (Rift S, Reverb G2, all WMR headsets). The same goes for the eye-tracking (which is Tobii, the same as the PSVR2). The G2 Omnicept has no onboard XR2 or a battery and the eye tracking is handled by the PC. PSVR2 eye tracking also has no onboard processing, it is handled by the PS5. The inside out tracking is only handled by the XR2 in the Crystal when the physical switch on the unit is placed in standalone mode to the best of my knowledge. Even if that isn’t the case, it’s been proven by most other dedicated PC VR headsets that an onboard XR2 and battery is not required for either inside out headset tracking, or eye tracking.
You know, AirCar in the Quest 3 is startlingly high res. it gave me the same wow factor with clarity that the Crystal did. (not quite but close enough considering the trade offs) Regarding battery though, the Quest 3 also can't seem to maintain a charge while playing even when tethered to the PC . just sayin...
I agree with all of that. My comparison in this video isn't really anything to do with the Quest 3 though. It's really about wishing the headset didn't have a battery at all and was just focused on being the best quality PC VR headset. I love the Quest 3, and it's great as a PC VR headset too, but I wouldn't consider it the pinnacle of PC VR in most respects.
Great review..totally agree with you. I love my crystal. But I enjoy triple screen better. I know someone who hasnt got his working and is frustrated with the pimax customer support ...and hates the headset because of the bad support he recieved without even experiencing the visuals.
i now heard several people saying that although the crystal and the aero are almost the same resolution wise, that the aero is like ~20% more fps in certain games and the reason according to those, is that bad software in terms of translation to vr or something? iam so unsure about what to get. ive read and seen so much now, that i feel: you get downside and problems anywhere, which is ok, i can live with that, but when every headset has that one negative, that makes it almost a no go, its hard to find whats best for my situation. on the other hand, you mentioned the focal distances. ive hear about that before, but never understood the physics behind it. ive only ever tried the ps5vr2. iam strongly shortsighted with -6,5dpt. that correction is so high, that the focal point of my contact lense is so far out, that i have to hold my phone at an arms lenght to be able to read it, yet in vr, i can put my eyelashes against objects and its still sharp. while all my friends, no matter if regular sighted or slightly shortsighted, cant focus on anything thats closer then half a meter in vr. so iam not sure, if the shorter focal lenght of the crystal will give me a worse experience on the level my freinds had with the psvr2 but i really like to know and understand this before i purchase a 1600+ dollar device, that i then have to return because of that
Man.... this is so confusing... looking to upgrade my G2 at the moment and really want to love the crystal but am leaning towards to varjo aero for stability and software reasons.... on the edge of pulling the trigger between one of them and am unsure. Both cost almost identically the same with the new aero reduction in price but having to buy base stations and controllers (about $100 difference between them in CAD). Or do I wait and see what the somnium has to offer and god knows what price.
To give a quick opinion, of the Crystal and Aero options, I personally definitely prefer the Crystal. I’ve tried the Aero but the lower binocular overlap resulted in eye strain after a relatively short amount of time (this might not be the case for everyone however). There is also quite a big reduction in FOV with the Aero which is less than ideal. Having said all that, the Somnium VR1 certainly looks interesting.
Interesting when you spoke of focal distance, I'm long sighted, I never needed prescription lenses,so with focal distance being only 1 meter,does that mean I will need prescription lenses?
Hi, unfortunately I don’t have much experience with ACC. However when I tried it briefly to test performance I found it very difficult to get running with a good framerate/image quality ratio. I’ve heard from others that it is not particularly well optimised so it can be tough to get running correctly.
Thumbs up. I think Pimax needs to cease this standalone thing. Classic case of wanting to keep the cake and eat it too. Cut out the battery, processor, inside-out tracking, controllers, etc. Make it light house tracked by default. Make it the best quality PCVR headset capable of, and try to squeeze as much comfort and as light as possible. I am litterarly saying it would be a better product if it did LESS things.
I'm running these games at varying in-headset resolutions depending on the game, but they're always outputting to a separate 1080p display. This is what I'm capturing on a separate PC in order to not affect performance when providing performance-related information in my videos. This is not indicative of in-headset visuals. Also, if you're seeing extreme low resolution in part of the video, and massive aliasing, then that is most likely dynamic foveated rendering at work. The area I'm not looking at will be rendered at much lower resolution and create blatant aliasing. This also isn't noticeable in-headset.
What you want is Varjo Aero and if they did that they would be compared directly feature by feature and Crystal would lose on size, weight (even without xr2), comfort, software stability and price. It would be dead on arrival against 990$ Aero.
I agree that the Varjo Aero is a good competitor to the Crystal, and I entirely agree with the specific points you make in your comment when comparing them. However, of the two, I'd still take the Crystal for a few reasons: binocular overlap is poor on the Varjo Aero which can cause issues for some (myself included, with noticeable visual discomfort). Related to this, the FOV is reduced when compared to the Crystal. Further, the Aero has no integrated audio or microphone. It also requires basestations (and controllers if you want feature parity with the Crystal out of the box), and this can increase the overall cost of the device. The Aero also has a form factor which is less than ideal. Although it isn't as wide, the distance it protrudes from the face is not insignificant. Overall, there's plenty to be said on both these headsets, and I know people love the Aero for specific VR titles. On a personal note, the Crystal would be my preference. But each to their own.
![RECENTERED Episode [27] // Meta Connect 2023 + Much MORE!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9UYAvoudC48/mqdefault.jpg)
Your start of this video is what I've exactly been thinking about this headset, I wish they would make a PCVR Only Version of this headset, Less Weight, Less Cost, No need for batteries.
Even without the soc it still needs a different chip for the tracking, and you lose all wireless that way, and now the headset would be front heavy because of the lack of a battery. Sounds silly to me. how much do you think an SOC weighs? it’s like….a few grams
Stability matters. Thanks for being so candid and clear on this issue. Please update us after installing and testing Pimax Play 1.17 which just came out today. Thanks.
That's a really good review, hope Pimax take note for the future.
I could not agree with you more. Here’s hoping Pimax hears our cries. A Pimax light minus the Qualcomm chip battery and a smaller form factor please
Yeah i ended up cancelling my bigscreen beyond preorder after seeing how many issues people have with it. Ready to order the pimax crystal now!
From an RTX 4090 users perspective, I don't have a Crystal, only a HP Reverb G2 and Meta Quest 3. I regularly play PCVR games at 3.5K per eye, approx 3500x3700 even MSFS but I do choose to enable reprojection on that title, I could still play without reprojection but of course I wouldn't hit my target 80 fps in the Quest 3 headset. Remember 3500x3700 is render resolution and can still be upscaled to 4K, so I really don't see true 4K displays per eye (not the fake system Pimax uses LOL) being that much of an issue but you are right, for titles like MSFS then having some help in the form of foveated rendering, reprojection or DLSS will be necessary but it will look friggin awesome!
I completely understand your feelings and appreciate you making this review. I currently use the Valve Index and would love to replace just the headset with something much higher resolution but still let's me use the knuckle controllers and v2 lighthouses. The controllers are awesome and the base stations allow superior hand and head tracking. The crystal fits that bill but the bulk has me worried.
Finally some one who said some meaningful stuff. The part that keeps me from buying this is, cut FOV compared to older 5k and 8k headsets, and the price. If I'm going to sacrifice performance, I'd rather have increased FOV over clarity.
Definitely appreciate your feedback on this one, as I've been considering it to replace the Vive Pro that a recent lightning strike destroyed...but yeh, the downsides you mentioned I think are going to be a no for me. I refuse to spend $1600 on a VR headset that may or may not work properly on first start; for that kinda money, I shouldn't have to tinker or shut things on/off just to get the headset to power on reliably. And with my games of choice (iRacing and Elite Dangerous) even one headset disconnect or shutoff is unacceptable. The weight of the headset due to the battery would no doubt also get annoying after a while, considering I tend to play ED for 3-6 hours at a time. I get that they needed a battery for standalone, but they should have found a way to sufficiently power it via the cord for PC VR. Seems they still have some maturing to do of their platform.
I definitely agree, give us a Crystal standalone with no XR2/battery and cheaper, with matured software that just works, and they may finally have a winner. I wish the Crystal had that wide FOV that they're known for as well.
Bang on... one of these days I'll go fec it and pull the thing apart to see what I can remove. Visuals are much nice arrrg.
I could not agree with you more. If they only made a PC HMD and did away with the battery I would have purchased it.
I agree, I have a 4090 and was struggling for a little bit wondering why the only games that blew me away with clarity was AirCar, and I realize it's all about prioritizing resolution.
Turn down all graphical settings to start and make sure you get the resolution to at least 4000 or higher and then bump the graphical settings up afterwards.
But yes a 4090 is certainly enough to max out this headsets primary feature , resolution.
I think a 4090 can certainly max out the resolution in plenty of titles for sure. The part I didn't quite make clear enough in that section is that I seriously doubt it can do it in Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Challenge accepted! but I have no reason to target 120hz, ill be targeting 36 x 2@@ImmersedRobot
@@antjones2281 That's a refined challenge, but one I'd still be interested to know the results of!
You nailed it! I say get rid of baggage aka battery etc. Focus on 200 FOV and eye tracking for more fps. 2 Versions, wired and wireless. Wired being less costly and please the simmers and the shooters.
I ordered a crystal, because it seems to be the only feature complete heatset - I hope I will not regret it. Essential for me is inside-out- and eye-tracking. I also like the idea of the trade in program, since I have so many headsets collecting dust at the moment.
I did not consider to buy the quest 3 because I would need to buy an additional headstrap, probably a facegasket and a new 6e router.
This review is spot on the only thing it is missing is the initial setup for your sim title. It took me days to get my Sim of choice, DCS, running where I like it. Meta was plug and play and you go. Pimax is not like that. You have to spend the time to tweak and then re-tweak, then re-re-tweak, then re-re-re-tweak the settings which takes forever. But when you get it dialed in. OMG you won't go back. And he is right on the 4090. In DCS, you still have to run everything on medium but holy hell is it clear and sharp and the colors pop. The saving grace for SIM users on this headset will be when they add 72Hrz mode.
I don't know DCS just dropped a huge update which really changed how well the game runs... I'm going from 45-60 fps being the norm 'DFR included' to the same exact game going to 90 smooth, and even tempting me to push it to the 120hz mode.
Oh cool, I cant wait to give it a try. I am downloading it now. @@mikmak3mk748
I run everything at MAX in DCS with my Crystal. I have the 7930X3D with 4090. i get 90 fps with Quad views. make sure to enable quad view for DCS
@@jambo72nd Just upgrade to 2.9 and now I can no longer play DCS. my FPS is bouncing from 60-90 and that is just looking at the title screen. I set my graphics to low and that did not help. I wish I could go back to 2.8. I have had to resinstall Quadviews 2 times now as it just stops working in DCS. Pimax eyetracking is working fine in the calibration tool but when going into DCS it no longer works unless I reinstall quadviews every few games.
@@mikmak3mk748the only reason the meta worked right out the gate was the way lower resolution. 😂
Totaly Agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is my problem too, which you talk about in your video
Well it is now April 2024. Your wish has come true. PIMAX is now making the Crystal lite VR headsets with no battery, no eye tracking, but has everything else. The headset connects via Display Port on the GFX card. This is ideal for SIM racing. And the price will be 699 dollars for one of them. There are a couple different configurations for the lite headsets and different pricing.
Should be released sometime this year. I will wait and see how the first video reviews go on these lite headsets.
Take care.
Agreed. I only use my Crystal for seated experiences (Sim Racing) where it’s clarity, resolution and 120hz is awesome on a 4090. I use Quest 2/3 for stand alone.
If Pimax released a True Crystal Sim tomorrow without Stand alone (which I’m assuming also means no DFR and eye tracking if you want to lose the mobile chipset) in a smaller form factor, without battery- I’d buy it immediately. The Crystal is my favourite HMD but could have been so much better.
I’m not sure you’d have to lose eye-tracking or DFR in that scenario at all. The Reverb G2 Omnicept has both of those things with no need for internal processing or a battery. Everything is done PC side. Also, as far as I’m aware the Pimax doesn’t even use that XR2 for DFR and that is also done PC side. It’s win, win.
@@ImmersedRobot you over estimate Pimaxes capability. It would likely be more Cosmos than Omnicept. 🤣
The PICO 5 will have three models. So your idea of a dedicated PCVR model w/o the battery and chip is certainly practicable. Competition may push PIMAX in this direction. Hope so. As a prospective customer, based on this instability being reported widely, I am not going to make a move until this is cured.
Yes, a perfect review.
- For the reasons you mention this is just not the focused premium product it should be at this price point.
- The faults make it easy to skip this headset and wait for Valve Deckard or perhaps Pico 5 pro max (if real)
- Furthermore, I believe Valve will build their headset around using eye tracked quad view rendering (and foveated streaming for wireless) which can achieve 2x or more performance benefit compared to the (VRS) approach used currently that only has a 10-40% benefit. Maybe this will also work on the crystal ? Perhaps not if Valve offload part of the rendering pipeline onto their headset.
I guess the bottom line is I just trust Valve to make the smarter choices and deliver the next generation Index successor that PCVR needs.
Agreed, you don't have to spend $1600 to get good clarity. We shall wait for new products from other manufacturers.
Good video! I think we all would love to see Pimax just settle down and focus on making 1 great product. And I think that product could have been the crystal. But for some reason they got overly distracted, and tried to do standalone at the same time.
It just makes sense for them to do that at this point. I’d love to see them succeed with a single truly exceptional product.
@@ImmersedRobot it absolutely makes sense that also means Pimax won’t do it haha.
Well they did the stand alone for the income. That's a cash cow if they can actually get enough developers for it....
One more comment....I wonder how long it's going to take someone to design an adapter for the battery that you can 3D print in the shape of the battery, but just runs power cords directly through the battery interface so you never have to swap batteries in seated VR experiences. Some enterprising person will probably end up doing it
I agree with your assessment. I just want a Pcvr and because of the difficulties highlighted by other reviewers....I bought a Varjo Aero recently for the new half price! Any improvement in the Crystal and I would have bought it but....alas.
Thanks for your vid!
Great review Gary, I can see how much work you've put into this. 👌
Thanks for watching mate! Currently searching for dead pixels on my Quest 3 😂.
@@ImmersedRobot Oh crikey, what have a started 😅
Immersed Robot made a clear focus on instability. Your reviews appear to have not done that concern justice. VRFS Guy, please do better for us.
@@rmm9676you should ask VRFS for your money back
Appreciate your honest review. I feel mostly the same except that I'll be happy with the battery once the wireless Wiigig module is released so I'm ok with that. I do like that they have so many options even if I don't use some of them. I'd rather have more options than not enough. Smaller would be better but that would increase the cost since they are obviously using the same faceplate for the eventual 12k release. Two completely different headset would cost much more to manufacture, so I get it. I don't necessarily like it, but I get it.
Completely understand that point of view, and it certainly makes sense from one angle. I'd still prefer it if they sold a base model with no battery or associated hardware to the XR2 as standard, then sell that for those who require it when they upgrade to the WiGig module. To me, they've gone about it in the opposite way to that which makes most sense. Sell a cut down unit for those who only require wired PC VR and get more people invested in that unit. Then sell the additions as required for those who want to pay extra for the WiGig and extra functions.
@@ImmersedRobot the only problem with this is that the only reason Pimax is using the xr2 was because they needed it for the ISO tracking and the eye tracking.
They likely didn't have the skills to do it themselves. As is proven by the cancelled Sword Controllers with joystick.
This PCVR only version of the headset would likely need to be lighthouse tracked only and would probably not feature eye tracking at all.
The standalone was kind of an afterthought because they already had the XR2 in there and figured may as well use it.
This is all speculation of course.
@@ImmersedRobot That doesn't really make sense to me. I seriously doubt that removal of the SOC and battery would make much of a dent in the price or form factor. Consider that Quest 3 has both and still manages to be significantly cheaper and lighter. Also, the upcoming "Deckard" will also presumably include both, and I doubt that will be super heavy or uber expensive. On the other hand, ditching the SOC/battery is exactly what Somnium VR1 is doing, and I don't think we are anticipating them becoming an enticing price leader because of this (over $2K last I heard)...and only able to support lighthouse and probably only supporting an uber expensive add-on wireless module. And remember that when Crystal came out, the Varjo Aero, which has no SOC, no controllers, no wireless chip, no battery, and no integrated audio, was still $2000; so if anything, the Crystal forced them to lower their price to even compete.
It's my understanding that the size/weight is far more due to panel size and the choice to use glass aspheric lenses--not to mention the motor for the auto IPD; all features that make the Crystal distinct. In fact, if you look at the recent tear-down video posted by Pimax, I think it becomes quickly evident that the SOC and battery are only minimal space/weight contributors. So, I don't think a "cut-down" version would have been meaningfully lighter or cheaper (maybe 10% at best?). And keep in mind that the Crystal's inclusion of inside-out controllers (supported by the SOC), may be one of the most important inclusions for pulling in users from the G2 and sim player camp. Did I need standalone? No. But it's still cool and I suspect 90% of the R&D cost of that feature came from the Portal anyway. So probably a very low cost addition to the Crystal from a dev point of view. So given that the SOC/battery is already there, why not include it since it just adds users to a budding marketplace that probably couldn't be supported by the Portal alone anyway.
@@daviddahlstrom192 Yes, I get some of your points here. I didn't mean to imply that by removing the XR2 and associated hardware alone that it would magically reduce the form-factor, only that it could be a potential contributing factor. My own opinion on the Crystal's form-factor is that it feels needlessly large for many reasons beyond this - the display and optics chosen of course are also a contributing factor - but I can't help but be of the opinion that the rumours of the Crystal using the basic shell developed for the 12K QLED, and simply repurposing it for the Crystal might be true. The 12K QLED, with much wider panels to be accommodated, justifies this form-factor more and seems more reasonable. As I mention in the video, the form-factor feels more like a manufacturing convenience rather than a necessity.
Also, I've seen zero confirmation that the XR2 is being utilised in any way when the Crystal is in PC mode. The inside-out tracking, along with motion controllers and eye-tracking are all controlled PC-side in the same way that many other PC VR headsets with inside-out tracked controllers operate. The G2 Omnicept has inside-out tracking, with controllers, and integrated Tobii eye-tracking, with no XR2-controlled onboard processing. It is all done PC-side.
The actual price reduction of losing the XR2 and battery will not be known, I was only really pointing out that there must be some level of cost reduction for a feature that many PC VR-only enthusiasts might never/rarely use.
@@ImmersedRobot Based on a video from Pimax I saw a while back, it didn't sound like the standalone mode was mainly intended for gamers anyway, but rather for businesses that wanted to build apps for it. Sure, they could have removed this for the pure PCVR gamer market for a little cost savings and loss of a minor feature but that would have resulted in two SKUs marketed to two different sets of users, not unlike what HTC did with the consumer targeted Vive Pro 2 and business targeted Focus 3, which are almost identical optically. But to do that, you need to be pretty sure that the overhead of engineering, manufacturing, and supporting two different SKUs for similar headsets having only relatively minor price differences (VP2 and F3 kits are only $100 apart) will yield justifiably greater profits than producing just one headset marketed to both, but perhaps being overkill in some areas. My guess is that they thought about it, but couldn't justify it.
Just to show that this goes two ways though, I remember as a VP2 owner, watching gamers getting very bummed-out when the Focus 3 was released thinking that HTC missed an opportunity to also make it a great gamer headset if they had only included lighthouse and direct PCVR support, which should have only raised its price very modestly, and I agreed. I guess that's why I actually liked Pimax's decision here. Just give us one headset to rule them all. Yeah its on the larger side, but its also the RV of headsets and if you need something more strictly gamer oriented rather than hobbyist oriented, there are several great alternatives; so I don't really see the need for them to compete in that more congested space when they have this particular price/feature/crossover space to themselves for the moment. Would it be nice, sure. Practical? I'm thinking, probably not.
Funny that the light is available now 😂
Thanks for the review. Im on the fence with this and totally get the conclusion. This price bracket is not stand alone territory. The Quest line, small, cheap effective. Thats a good standalone device marketed at the stand alone market, is where standalone is. This is miles away from anything a standalone user would be interested in. And its savagly comprimised a high end PCVR device. Its a shame as i imagine its lost them custom. Id happily pay 1500 ish for a high end device, but not one that a chunk of the value is taken up in stuff that actually reduces its effectiveness for pcvr.
I think people miss why the XR2 is in there, it has 6 cameras.. 4 tracking 2 eye tracking cameras. You need a chip that can handle all that, and XR2 can handle 7 cameras.
I very nearly added a section justifying the inclusion of the XR2 chip because there are reasons for it to be there, including wireless PC VR. However, the tracking could certainly be handled by the PC in the same way every other dedicated PC VR headset with inside-out tracking works. It doesn’t necessarily require the XR2 chip or the larger battery.
It put too much pressure on my forehead, sticking with Reverb G2 until next gen.
How is the screen on comparison? Are pixels less visible on crystal?
Nice video mate , I agree the headset would be an excellent choice for PC VR without the battery and the clunky head strap , But at the same time I'm interested in the WiGiG module to use in my Yaw VR2 motion platform ( Just 1 of the reasons I got a Crystal ) I'm hoping that Wigig will bring all the visuals of being tethered while being able to rotate 360 degrees in my motion sim.
Yes, that scenario with the WiGig module in the Yaw2 sounds incredible! Would love to experience that myself.
Yep exactly. I'm still waiting on my Yaw2...backer in the 200's so have been waiting almost 3 years since I purchased it....maybe someday I'll actually receive it....
@justaguydoinstuff You'll get the updated version soon I hope
I find myself less saddened to use my Q3 over the Crystal for the wireless, because the Q3 is so good.
When the wide FOV lenses and wigig come out it may change my tune though
@@TrevorJones1 I just bought my son a Q3 for his Birthday , That passthrough is epic , Much better than my Pico 4. I'm also tempted to get one for myself :)
Good review!
I would imagine that 99.9999% of all Pimax Crystal owners already own a Quest 2/3, so the standalone stuff confuses me. Anyone buying this sort of headset will already own the cheap headset I bet, and if I person using the Crystal was desperate for a standalone headset then I bet they have the funds to snag a Quest 2/3.
What standalone apps are even available? I was assuming the selection isn't great since the audience for a Crystal is relatively low so devs aren't very incentivized to make a Pimax version, but does most stuff in the Quest marketplace just transfer over (aside from the exclusives)? I've not been lucky enough to use a Pimax Crystal, but with their reputation for being fiddly and needing to be tinkered with, I imagine the Quest 2/3 has a MUCH better quality of life and overall user experience for the standalone mode. Just seems so unnecessary unless I'm missing some essential element.
Pimax Crystal seems like a great sim headset though, I'm jealous that I won't get to try one! Hopefully for the sake of dedicated PCVR enthusiasts, they come out with a "Pimax Crystal Pro" that just focuses on PCVR and knocks it out of the park.
Oh a quick question-- how do ya like the aspheric lenses when compared to pancake lenses?
I like the aspheric lenses, and the general clarity / edge to edge clarity they offer is probably around the same as the pancake lenses. But they also play a part in the form factor and weight overall. Aspheric lenses require a gap between the lenses and the display in order to focus it correctly, and pancake lenses can be placed closer. They are also heavier and thicker than fresnel lenses which creates its own problems. Looking at the pure visual quality however, I consider aspheric lenses very high quality.
Sound delay has been an issue since release, and any fix seems to seriously degrade sound quality so I don't think it'll ever be fixed. There are so many people in Pimax's discord with issues that I'll never buy one. Many of the early buyers are already looking to sell their headsets and go back to whatever they were using previously. If it was $1000 or less people would probably be ok with it, but it is not a $1600 vr headset. Great clarity yes, but everything else is buggy and Pimax fixes one thing and breaks 2 others. They shouldn't have done standalone, and they shouldn't try throwing in everything including the kitchen sink. They need to simplify it, ditch the battery, make it standalone, get rid of wireless, shrink it down and lighten it up. They might have even had a fully functional headset instead of a buggy mess.
When are we final gonna get consumer vr with no screen door, where we can look to the horizon and see no smush pixels? Waiting for years for this and almost no improvement so far…
0:26-0:42 good news
I cant understand the battery issue. Strangely for me this is not issue at all because in 2 weeks, playing every day 1-2h, some days even 2-3 hours I have not had any need to change battery, it stays magically full and one moment when I played 3 hours straight, it showed 2 green blocks less which means it was almost half empty but next day it was again full as it was charged full just buy main chord which is connected to PC. Strange but I font need to change this battery, not a issue at all :)
Yes, I briefly mention in the video that I personally don’t have a huge issue with the battery, and it remains topped up mostly. However, I can understand people who find it a frustration, and I’ll also go back to the point that without standalone, I’m effectively paying for something which adds no value for me. In fact it would improve the device if it wasn’t there at all.
what game is that at 0:09? That game looks sweet [edit] Ah, its AirCar. Thanks for mentioning the game
what sucks for them is the xr2 needs to be there for all that stuff (inside out tracking, eye tracking) so its almost like 'why not just add some android apps'.. so parts wise- there's little to no money savings for them getting rid of standalone as the processor is used to do all the other stuff we really want.
I’m almost certain the XR2 chip is not activated at all when it’s used in PC mode. Other PC VR headsets with inside out tracking have no onboard processing at all and the tracking is handled by the PC (Rift S, Reverb G2, all WMR headsets). The same goes for the eye-tracking (which is Tobii, the same as the PSVR2). The G2 Omnicept has no onboard XR2 or a battery and the eye tracking is handled by the PC. PSVR2 eye tracking also has no onboard processing, it is handled by the PS5.
The inside out tracking is only handled by the XR2 in the Crystal when the physical switch on the unit is placed in standalone mode to the best of my knowledge. Even if that isn’t the case, it’s been proven by most other dedicated PC VR headsets that an onboard XR2 and battery is not required for either inside out headset tracking, or eye tracking.
You know, AirCar in the Quest 3 is startlingly high res. it gave me the same wow factor with clarity that the Crystal did. (not quite but close enough considering the trade offs)
Regarding battery though, the Quest 3 also can't seem to maintain a charge while playing even when tethered to the PC . just sayin...
I agree with all of that. My comparison in this video isn't really anything to do with the Quest 3 though. It's really about wishing the headset didn't have a battery at all and was just focused on being the best quality PC VR headset. I love the Quest 3, and it's great as a PC VR headset too, but I wouldn't consider it the pinnacle of PC VR in most respects.
@@ImmersedRobot true, but considering it's 1/3 the price for better than G2 quality it's definetly upset the balance a bit.
@@TrevorJones1 Agree. I'm taking nothing from the Quest 3 at all. It's a great piece of kit which offers a top notch experience all round.
Crappy LCD though, not mini-LED and light years apart from OLED.
Great review..totally agree with you. I love my crystal. But I enjoy triple screen better. I know someone who hasnt got his working and is frustrated with the pimax customer support ...and hates the headset because of the bad support he recieved without even experiencing the visuals.
i now heard several people saying that although the crystal and the aero are almost the same resolution wise, that the aero is like ~20% more fps in certain games and the reason according to those, is that bad software in terms of translation to vr or something? iam so unsure about what to get. ive read and seen so much now, that i feel: you get downside and problems anywhere, which is ok, i can live with that, but when every headset has that one negative, that makes it almost a no go, its hard to find whats best for my situation. on the other hand, you mentioned the focal distances. ive hear about that before, but never understood the physics behind it. ive only ever tried the ps5vr2. iam strongly shortsighted with -6,5dpt. that correction is so high, that the focal point of my contact lense is so far out, that i have to hold my phone at an arms lenght to be able to read it, yet in vr, i can put my eyelashes against objects and its still sharp. while all my friends, no matter if regular sighted or slightly shortsighted, cant focus on anything thats closer then half a meter in vr. so iam not sure, if the shorter focal lenght of the crystal will give me a worse experience on the level my freinds had with the psvr2 but i really like to know and understand this before i purchase a 1600+ dollar device, that i then have to return because of that
Hammerhead Sharks 🤣
Man.... this is so confusing... looking to upgrade my G2 at the moment and really want to love the crystal but am leaning towards to varjo aero for stability and software reasons.... on the edge of pulling the trigger between one of them and am unsure. Both cost almost identically the same with the new aero reduction in price but having to buy base stations and controllers (about $100 difference between them in CAD). Or do I wait and see what the somnium has to offer and god knows what price.
To give a quick opinion, of the Crystal and Aero options, I personally definitely prefer the Crystal. I’ve tried the Aero but the lower binocular overlap resulted in eye strain after a relatively short amount of time (this might not be the case for everyone however). There is also quite a big reduction in FOV with the Aero which is less than ideal.
Having said all that, the Somnium VR1 certainly looks interesting.
Totally, the XR2/battery thing makes 0 sense... what so ever.
Wireless requires it
Interesting when you spoke of focal distance, I'm long sighted, I never needed prescription lenses,so with focal distance being only 1 meter,does that mean I will need prescription lenses?
To the best of knowledge, if you have issues focusing near field sight (basically closer than 1m) without using glasses then it could cause a problem.
@@ImmersedRobot Thank you..I will see if prescription lenses will help
hello good evening thanks for your videos can you help me I can't get playable graphics with primax in ACC help
Hi, unfortunately I don’t have much experience with ACC. However when I tried it briefly to test performance I found it very difficult to get running with a good framerate/image quality ratio. I’ve heard from others that it is not particularly well optimised so it can be tough to get running correctly.
may i know which game @ 1:56 , thanks
Aircar: store.steampowered.com/app/1073390/Aircar/
Thumbs up. I think Pimax needs to cease this standalone thing. Classic case of wanting to keep the cake and eat it too.
Cut out the battery, processor, inside-out tracking, controllers, etc.
Make it light house tracked by default.
Make it the best quality PCVR headset capable of, and try to squeeze as much comfort and as light as possible.
I am litterarly saying it would be a better product if it did LESS things.
And lose wireless? Hell no!
come on you don't need 90 fps lol
I only need 90 if the refresh rate of the display is 90.
ur games look hella jaggy. u try to explain how great the visuals are but all i can see is aliasing.
I'm running these games at varying in-headset resolutions depending on the game, but they're always outputting to a separate 1080p display. This is what I'm capturing on a separate PC in order to not affect performance when providing performance-related information in my videos. This is not indicative of in-headset visuals.
Also, if you're seeing extreme low resolution in part of the video, and massive aliasing, then that is most likely dynamic foveated rendering at work. The area I'm not looking at will be rendered at much lower resolution and create blatant aliasing. This also isn't noticeable in-headset.
What you want is Varjo Aero and if they did that they would be compared directly feature by feature and Crystal would lose on size, weight (even without xr2), comfort, software stability and price. It would be dead on arrival against 990$ Aero.
I agree that the Varjo Aero is a good competitor to the Crystal, and I entirely agree with the specific points you make in your comment when comparing them.
However, of the two, I'd still take the Crystal for a few reasons: binocular overlap is poor on the Varjo Aero which can cause issues for some (myself included, with noticeable visual discomfort). Related to this, the FOV is reduced when compared to the Crystal.
Further, the Aero has no integrated audio or microphone. It also requires basestations (and controllers if you want feature parity with the Crystal out of the box), and this can increase the overall cost of the device. The Aero also has a form factor which is less than ideal. Although it isn't as wide, the distance it protrudes from the face is not insignificant.
Overall, there's plenty to be said on both these headsets, and I know people love the Aero for specific VR titles. On a personal note, the Crystal would be my preference. But each to their own.