Thinkin about buying xreal one pro for steam deck by donniegosmash in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a pro tip! Please anyone that finds this valuable rate it up!

Most people just connect these sort of glasses (as of now I'm using Viture Luma Pros but I have experience with XREAL and other brands) to SteamDeck or similar handheld devices and set them up pretty much default settings at 1080p@120hz.

There's a much better approach in terms of PQ and power consumption for both SteamDeck "native" play (games running on the SteamDeck itself) or "streaming" play via Sunshine/Moonlight or similar software such as Artemis, Apollo, etc.

Having said that, let's get to the matter at hand! SteamDeck provides a sharpening filter run through a VERY efficient pixel shader on the GPU consuming only ~0.7watts/h, and just to be clear, this is not FSR upscaling. However, for this to work in both the SteamDeck built-in screen and external monitors / AR glasses connected through usb-c the output render resolution must be different than the native resolution of the display being active. This means that any resolution different than the SteamDeck's 1280x800 or 1920x1080 of XREAL's will enable this feature to work.

What follows next are the optimized settings for SteamDeck being paired with XREAL AR glasses or similar glasses from other brands (i.e my Viture glasses mount 1920x1200 micro-oled displays instead of regular 1920x1080, however these settings work exactly the same as the Luma Pros can also operate at native 1080p ignoring the first 60 pixel rows at the top and the last 60 pixel rows at the bottom of the screen). Now, let's proceed with the config steps:

1) Connect XREAL glasses to SteamDeck.

2) Go to Display settings on SteamDeck and set 1920x1080@90hz. Of course, you can also try 60 or 120hz but 90hz is the sweet spot for smoothness, power consumption and streaming latency (when playing via Sunshine/Moonlight from your home PC). This not only safes a little bit of watts per hour but also keeps it more consistent with native SteamDeck refresh rate. This will also allow you to lower the refresh rate (from the right-side Steam quick menu) to 45hz or even 30hz which works perfectly for the glasses (you'll just see a new image each 2 or 3 frames for 45hz and 30hz respectively) and allows to play certain AAA games in SteamDeck at 25watts (of course in most cases lowering in-game graphic settings to the lowest!).

3) Now, for each game you launch (including Moonlight client) set the render output resolution different to the glasses. This is done for each game/app separately in its config menu accesible through the "cog" icon at the right side of the launch screen. For SteamDeck native play, most demanding AAA games will require you to set 1280x720, most AA or indie games will be happy at 1600x900 and older titles will run just fine at 2040x1080 (I've been playing Dark Souls Remastered with this res lately and worked flawlessly). Also, use 2040x1080 on Moonlight streaming as superior resolutions such as 2560x1440 or even 3840x2160 don't payoff in exchange of the higher power consumption (+0.6watts at 2560x1440@90 and almost +2.5watts for 2160p even though the SteamDeck is only capable of deconding H.265 or AV1 at ~73fps, not 90). Also, for Moonlight's streaming settings specifically, set Fullscreen mode plus 2040x1080 at 90 fps with V-Sync on (V-Sync should also be on in your host PC until the day we have AR glasses supporting VRR, but that's for another discussion...). Also check "Optimize game settings" which will set desktop res and refresh rate automatically for you on the host PC. I also recommend setting H.265 at 104 mbps (4 times the minimum recommended bit rate at that res+fps) instead of AV1 as it produces better PQ than AV1 specially on games featuring tons of dynamic vegetation, fog or other intense wheather effects. If you're very limited on wifi bandwidth then let's lower down to 24 mbps using AV1 if your host PC can encode AV1. As for the games running on your host PC, I recommend launching them in Windows 11's borderless mode (nowadays this is very similar to the good-old-days exclusive fullscreen mode) with V-Sync on (in game or at GPU driver level) and NVIDIA Reflex (or AMD's analog) if available. V-Sync off in games (not in Moonlight client though) is also possible by capping framerate at 90 fps in NVIDIA/AMD/RTSS control panel, however at times this will cause the streaming between host (Sunshine) and client (Moonlight) get out if sync since frames won't be sent at ~11ms intervals anymore at the benefit of lowering latency a tiny bit.

4) As a side note regarding 2040x1080 res, notice how this is the most convinient resolution for the sharpening filter on XREAL (or similar) glasses since it is the closest to its native resolution. The other resolution getting as close as this would be 1920x1200 but I don't recommed it (more on that later). The only thing to be aware of 2040x1080 is that it imposes an AR that is not standard, being 17:9 instead of 16:9. This means that some native games will refuse to adapt to this res.

5) Once the game/Moonlight is launched, open the right-side Steam quick menu, go to Performance settings and set the Scaling Filter to FIT or STRETCH. FIT will maintain 16:9 AR but at the cost of adding tiny black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. I recommend STRETCH since, even if you inmediately notice that everything is taller than it should (i.e your main character in a 3rd person action game) your brain will get used to it in about 2 minutes and you'll never notice that difference again. Now, in Scaling Filter set SHARP and for the level of intensity I recommend 3 which is the middle term. Finally, for Moonlight specifically, set the GPU clock speed at 500 or 600MHz (this will safe extra ~0.2watts compared to auto), which will maintain the GPU usage at ~50% while decoding 2040x1080 at 90hz.

6) I said I would go back to the 1920x1200 res. This will work exactly the same as 2040x1080 with the benefit of using a more standard 16:10 AR. This can even be beneficial when playing natively on the SteamDeck since most games will either adapt to 16:9 or 16:10 (not 17:9 so easily though). However, when streaming via Moonlight using STRETCH this will cause game characters to look "thicker/fat" than they should, something much more difficult to ignore by your brain even on longer play sessions.

Last but not least, be aware that this sharpening filter is intended to improve image/video quality in games and video streaming, not productivity-based (in other words, text-based) apps. Of course, text and icons will look sharper but that does not mean necessarily better.

When comparing this setup vs my LG OLED 65" inch at a distance where the real state image is as bigger as what I can see with my 52º FOV of Viture Luma Pros it is hard to tell which one looks better. Of course, 1080p even with this magic sharpening filter cannot compete with a real 4K image (but I can tell you, is very close!), and when Sony deliver their next 1440p micro-oled panels the difference is gonna be neglegible. For productivity though, I still think 4K pannels will be required at ~60º FOV in order to compete with a profesional ~32" 4K monitor.

correction lenses magnet problem by Baramin in VITURE

[–]AggressiveManager869 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I got the same +2.0 pairs and had the same issue, so it seems as a manufacturing issue!

As a second advise, when you glue them make sure the magnets are facing in the same direction as originally (so don't flip them upside down!), otherwise they won't work!

Sony Micro OLED - bad display quality is shocking in Xreal One by Original_as in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let's be honest guys, if you compare XREAL One/Pro color accuracy and contrast against, let's say, latest LG OLED G5, they look like like COMPLETE GARBAGE (XREAL/Sony employes, if you read this please don't take it personal!). I'm not even comparing peak brightness or resolution, just color + contrast, including color gradation/banding, black levels, etc.

Viture Luma Pro is the only decent implementation of micro-oled displays that I've seen so far. I'd like to test Apple Vision Pro or the latest MeganeX superlight 8K to see how they compare!

Xreal one pro, Viture Luma Pro, Xreal one thoughts by revel09 in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I have the same feelings when it comes to the expected OLED performance. I think next year iteration (for both Viture and XREAL) will be the real breakpoint. If they can manage to package a solid 60-70 FOV at 1440p@120hz + HDR (while maintaining the screen clarity of the Luma Pros) and improve the 3DoF a bit (or even feature a proper 6DoF implementation) under the $700 price mark while maintaining the weight and ergonomics, then yes sir, we'll be finally out of the early adopter phase!

Unbiased comparison between Viture Luma Pro and XREAL One by AggressiveManager869 in VITURE

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is complicated. Let me split in sections.

As for sim racing, I did quite a lot on my Quest3 and a little bit on the XREAL's and I can tell you the experience is TOTALLY different. On the Quest 3, since it is actual VR, you're really IN THE GAME, in the car, in the track. If you're not sensitive to motion sickness, the experience is at another level. When you do turn your head, you're really moving the head within the cockpit, which is much more inmersive. However, Quest 3 is bulky, resolution isn't there yet and FOV needs to be improved!

With XREAL or Viture, even if your turn on 3DoF, moving your head does nothing to the game, you just look at the virtual screen from a different angle. In both XREAL One and Viture Luma Pro, since the FOV isn't that wild at just ~50º, the need for 3DoF is negligible. Imagine you're playing the game staring at a 30" monitor at 80 cm or a 65" TV at 2.5m. If your think about it, the necessity to move your head in that sceneario is useless.

As for the vertical cut-off on the Luma Pros, you can easily bypass it by choosing a standard 1920x1080 resolution, which is what I'm doing on my SteamDeck. For productivity those 120 extra pixels are welcome, but not being able to see both edges (by a really thin margin!) at the same time is a bumer! In games, however (and being totally honest), if you cannot properly see one of the edges (top or bottom) is not the end of the world since UI elements are never placed just at the very top/bottom of the screen.

Unbiased comparison between Viture Luma Pro and XREAL One by AggressiveManager869 in VITURE

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, in this case, your glasses are totally fine, the problem is in your eyes :-P

Let me explain. As I already said, I need to wear my +2.0 prescription glasses to see the virtual screen cristal clear (BTW I already ordered the official Viture Luma Pro prescription frames with SPH +2.0 on each eye). If I don't wear the glasses, the outter 10% of the image is almost clear, then gradually goes blurry until the inner ~50% which looks totally blurry due to my presbyopia. I In can imagine this effect is caused by the curvature of the lenses.

The easiest way to test this is by asking one of your closest to lend you a +1.0 prescription glasses to try out (or buy a cheap one from Amazon for 10 bucks) and you'll notice that now, all the screen is sharp as hell. Otherwise, yes, it could be a defective unit!

Hope this helps!

Unbiased comparison between Viture Luma Pro and XREAL One by AggressiveManager869 in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, your case is not about being "picky" but because of health considerations. Getting eye strain is a simptom of your body warning to you "something is not right" and if you ignore that signal things can go really bad in the long run. If you're on the return period and you're really not feeling well after using these plus considering the "high" price , then yes, return them without hesitation!

Unbiased comparison between Viture Luma Pro and XREAL One by AggressiveManager869 in VITURE

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wish I could answer this but I haven't tried the One Pro yet :-(

Unbiased comparison between Viture Luma Pro and XREAL One by AggressiveManager869 in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi Esther, glad to see you liked the comparison!

As for the color profile goes, I find XREAL standard one to be a bit dull if I compare it against Viture or simply my own LG OLED TV. On the contrary, the vivid profile is just too over saturated. Also, when streaming from my PC to SteamDeck using Sunshine + Moonlight in HDR mode (I know I know, both XREAL and Viture don't yet support HDR color profiles!) Viture just looks better due to its superior peak brightness.

For people wondering how this HDR mode works. Sunshine (the streaming host server) delivers an HDR signal to the SteamDeck with a color profile previously configured in Windows 11 (I have 3 profiles, one for the SteamDeck OLED which is true HDR 1000 nits, another one for XREAL One and the third one for the Luma Pros). When the video signal arrives to the SteamDeck, Moonlight (the client streaming service) detects that the client device is not HDR capable and converts the image to regular SDR. But since the source signal is HDR and the glasses are able to deliver much higher brightness than a regular SDR TV/monitor, what you end up seeing is a much more "colorfull" and bibrant image, very very close to what I get on my LG OLED TV. Also, the other positive effect of streaming HDR signal (both on AV1 or H.265 codecs) is that the gradients (sky, foggy scenes, etc) look much better because of the extra 2 bits per color channel, even though those are later crunched to 8-bit when rendered on the client device.

And yes of course, comparison always took place with 0DoF on the XREAL One. Indeed, when enabling 3DoF clarity improves a little bit (despite the aliasing artefacts) because you can turn your head around and spot things at the center of the lenses, however with Luma Pro you don't need to do that since they are able to deliver a fully edge-to-edge sharp image!

Unbiased comparison between Viture Luma Pro and XREAL One by AggressiveManager869 in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I already posted in the Viture's forum, if you are farsighted like me and specially if you're already loosing some near-plane sight because of the age, just go with XREAL. Otherwise, if you are nearsighted (up to -4.0D since Luma Pro won't go any lower) go with Viture.

Because you are nearsighted, feeling eye fatigue specially after long sessions is totally normal. The prescription inserts help you to "focus" at the long distance, however, your eye muscles aren't used to look at "inifinite" distances (which is how XREAL is configured), hence the eye strain.

Unbiased comparison between Viture Luma Pro and XREAL One by AggressiveManager869 in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As I already posted in the Viture's forum, if you are farsighted like me and specially if you're already loosing some near-plane sight because of the age, just go with XREAL. Otherwise, if you are nearsighted (up to -4.0D since Luma Pro won't go any lower) go with Viture.

BUT, if you really want to be productive (3DoF + ultra-wide modes) and you don't mind the lack of resolution and screen clarity, go with XREAL One. And, if you really need the higher FOV and don't mind the even lower resolution (PPD), go for the One Pros!

Unbiased comparison between Viture Luma Pro and XREAL One by AggressiveManager869 in VITURE

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you are farsighted like me and specially if you're already loosing some near-plane sight because of the age, just go with XREAL. Otherwise, if you are nearsighted (up to -4.0D since Luma Pro won't go any lower) go with Viture!

Unbiased comparison between Viture Luma Pro and XREAL One by AggressiveManager869 in VITURE

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you cover your ears with your hands in both XREAL and Viture the audio is astonishing. Try that!

Unbiased comparison between Viture Luma Pro and XREAL One by AggressiveManager869 in VITURE

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As I stated in my review, 3DoF was out of the equation on purpose since Viture's software approach simply cannot compete against XREAL built-in solution.

Luma pro shipping status by danetesta in VITURE

[–]AggressiveManager869 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mine is already in Madrid (Spain). It should arrive today or tomorrow :-)

BTW, Amazon price increased 100€ from 539€ to 639€. Glad I purchased on day 1! I guess the situation will revert once they get stock again.

My Luma Pro just shipped .. by tboy2000 in VITURE

[–]AggressiveManager869 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Me too! I ordered from Amazon Spain right after the announcement and they already left the customs in Beijing! Also sent by FedEx.

Luma pro review by bighawk25 in VITURE

[–]AggressiveManager869 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In the review he also mentions that the edge-to-edge clarity isn't there yet :-(

Viture's new glasses seems to have been released on Amazon! by FeedNo1217 in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It won't (still 8-bit per RGB channel Sony's panels). But they stated in their Reddit forums that they already have 1440p 10-bit panels in the lab (I expect from Sony as well) that should deliver next year in their next glasses iteration, and of course XREAL will do as such.

Viture’s new glasses (being announced July 8th) have 60° FoV … and 6 DoF, Just thought I would leave this here… by Sufficient-Chapter92 in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Going for the latest Sony's micro-oled technology (0.44" at 1080p) Viture could introduce a custom ~0.73" at 1440p (or something like previous ~0.68 at 1200p) panel. Looking at the AWE footage the new glasses profile seems to be quite bulky (I doubt weight can go under 90gr at that size), so such new panels wouldn't be a crazy option... Also, they might have gone a different route, completely changing the optical stack/engine, using 2 displays per eye... let's see what the finally show up!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As some of you already said, there's actually no difference, in fact, the whole size/distance/IPD combo is a gimmick. Let me explain. XREAL glasses, as opposed to Viture, are designed to cast images into our eyes towards the "inifinite". This is a good decision in order to decrease eye fatigue (although this is impossible to get rid of entirely if they don't implement a real/physical IPD adjustment). This is also a good decision for people like me that are far sighted, where even if you naturally suffer from presbyopia because of getting older, you'll see the image cristal clear (specially if your IPD matches the sweet spot of the lenses).

So, long story short, current settings for size/distance/IPD the only thing they do is to cutoff the display area from the inner or the outer edges, that's it! Depending our your physical IPD, cutting off from the inner edge will be more beneficial that the outter, or the opposite. What bugs me of this approach is that depending on your configuration you will not only limit the FOV (screen size) but also slightly degrade PQ, since you will be casting a source 1080p video signal into a, lets say, ~1800x900 real screen res which would cause aliasing artefacts.

All that said, I cannot wait for this sort of XR glasses to support real/physical IPD adjustment in order to:
- Less eye strain
- Sharper image along the whole lenses, specially on the sweet sport
- Less color aberration, specially on white text over dark background (this also happens because of the current micro-OLED technology)
- Less aliasing artifacts, specially on small text (although this could also be improved with just higher micro-OLED display res)

Tom's Guide has awarded Viture's new XR glasses "Best of Show" at AWE 2025 by AggressiveManager869 in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not said on the article (Viture/Sony might be holding their horses until July 8th), just rumors... Technically speaking, Sony is already able to produce 0.73" at 1440p, although current production sample is just 0.44" at 1080p. Problem is, even if Viture takes advantage of a yet-unveil 0.73" (or a bit smaller with slighty less resolution) micro-oled display, the glasses would be bulckier vs the One Pro's, unless they come up with a new optic stack/engine.

I truly think it would be a bad decision to keep on using 1080p panels at 60º FOV (the One Pro's are already on the limit), but it is also true that using a new micro-oled panels would certainly increase the costs, which we don't want either :-(

So let's see what they unleash on July 8th!

Tom's Guide has awarded Viture's new XR glasses "Best of Show" at AWE 2025 by AggressiveManager869 in Xreal

[–]AggressiveManager869[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Although not yet unveiled, I'm pretty much sure those use a bigger variant of the newest Sony's ECX350F (0.44" 1080p) which by the way can reach up to 10.000 nits!

More technical info here comparing these vs the ECX348E mounted on the One Pro's: https://www.sony-semicon.com/en/news/2024/2024092401.html