The others I mentioned are not big famous games! I've not done much wireless streaming but it's down to your hub almost certainly - most people say you want the PC connected by ethernet and your headset to be in the same room as your 5Ghz (tbh) router. I have my virgin hub in modem mode and hooked up to one of those mesh network thingies.

 

Out of interest, how are you streaming? First thing I tried was Air Link but that was very flaky, kept dropping the connection and sometimes I couldn't get games to start (or stop). Then I tried Virtual Desktop and it just worked. I'd sort of forgotten about Air Link until I tried it again yesterday and it seemed much improved, or else my setup had. 

I've only tried Airlink so far.

PC is on gigabit ethernet (spare room -> gigabit switch in attic -> gigabit LAN port on virgin hub)

Virgin hub is in living room where I used the quest, and I have the quest connected on 5Ghz with maximum channel width etc set up on the Hub firmware.

I did read somewhere that the VM hub flood detection stuff can kick in and start dropping packets for streaming, so I've turned that off but honestly can't remember if I've tried streaming again since I did or not.

One thing that's proving a major headache with the Quest 2 is multiple users, though. The way they've/android've implemented it is utter dogshit. Seems only one account can have airlink setup at a time, meaning if someone else wants to play they need to re-pair the PC and headset which then knocks out the previous persons setup etc. Also no way to choose an account on the PC to log in as, it just goes to whatever user account has the app installed and is logged in. Wonder if Virtual Desktop will help with that? Not sure I want to shell out the money for it just yet though as it could well be my PC isn't good enough for what I'm asking of it. 



Also noticed in Powerbeats VR, secondary users keep losing access to local files. It gets stuck in a loop of asking for permission and saying permission is required, then randomly will fix itself for a day or two before breaking again. 
 

This is totally ready for primetime!

I actually watch 3D movies on my Quest 2 the most. There is something satisfying about watching a movie about VR on a VR headset.

It's very... Meta.

IGMC

It is, isn't it? What with daily reminders to finish setting up my new Meta account to continue logging into the Quest, along with threats that if I don't do the latest update the Quest will have a 'factory reset', they're an endearing organisation.

What viewer do you use?

I use Skybox VR Viewer. It works really well with movies on the headset or streamed from your PC over wifi.

I'll give that a go. I've been disappointed with some of the big-screen apps so far.

yeah, it works well and the default cinema setting is excellent. Also, the screen size is just right. I wonder why "Big Screen" and Netflix etc. find that a problem. The Achilles heel, is the same though, for me anyway. It's poor resolution. A grainy image. Maybe on an HP Reverb G2 it would be great, but there's an irritating lack of sharpness, even with 4k source video. If a phone is going to give a better image it's always going to be disappointing.

I don't have an issues with the resolution. maybe it is because I have 60 year-old eyes now.  :-(

I have 66 year-old eyes and getting older every day

Okidoke! So, I read and watched a few early reviews of the Quest 3. The consensus seemed to be that mixed reality is a let down (lack of material and quality not there yet), but the hike in resolution and processor power is great with screen door almost gone, field of view bigger, immersion much improved. 

Now I've read a few more recent reviews, particularly from actual users and things are far less clear. In particular many users are saying that subjectively the Quest 2 is actually more immersive than the 3. This is, apparently, a combination of effects. One unexpected problem is that the sharper lenses make the screen door effect more or a problem, not less. In addition, the quality control is poor, with some models markedly worse than others: dead pixels, poor focus, uneven brightness etc. Of course, this isn't the whole picture and some users are happy that the 3 is a vast improvement over the 2. 

I think I'll be giving the 3 a miss for now. 

Okidoke! So, I read and watched a few early reviews of the Quest 3. The consensus seemed to be that mixed reality is a let down (lack of material and quality not there yet), but the hike in resolution and processor power is great with screen door almost gone, field of view bigger, immersion much improved. 

Now I've read a few more recent reviews, particularly from actual users and things are far less clear. In particular many users are saying that subjectively the Quest 2 is actually more immersive than the 3. This is, apparently, a combination of effects. One unexpected problem is that the sharper lenses make the screen door effect more or a problem, not less. In addition, the quality control is poor, with some models markedly worse than others: dead pixels, poor focus, uneven brightness etc. Of course, this isn't the whole picture and some users are happy that the 3 is a vast improvement over the 2. 

I think I'll be giving the 3 a miss for now. 

Interesting critique: https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/worlds-on-a-wire-winslow-yost

Yes, it is interesting and makes some good points. Not sure I agree with everything he says. Some (many) of his arguments are actually assertions: his POV stated as fact. Some of the assertions are plain odd, and I don't know what to make of them e.g.  Does rendering something twice reduce the resolution or spoil the colour balance, or something? I don't think so. And what does he mean by looking "worse"? To who? In what way? Maybe he means something like a given amount of processing will produce a single image of x quality or two images of x - n quality. But he doesn't say this. In fact, what evidence I've seen suggests that when depth is added to imagery via VR, perception of detail increases.

I don't want to focus on this one point, but I think it's his over-assertiveness that harms the piece. He doesn't write "those things can look worse" he writes "those things will always look worse". He does this throughout.

But on the other hand, I think several of his main points are probably right. There's a lot of good-enoughness about, when what's on offer plainly isn't. Facebook/Meta gave VR a huge boost with the Quest 2, a VR headset, up with the very best, but at a medium games console price. But, to a degree they don't seem to have realised what they did. They're back to moderate incremental improvements in hardware, when another leap is needed. They've got the jitters over cash I suppose. And game design and technology must change. So much is just tweaked-up standard 3D video gaming.

I *think* his point there is that, with GPU power being finite, if you're rendering it twice then it's going to be "half" the quality.

i.e. you could, on a 2d screen, have a twice-as-good-looking-game.

Which there's *something* to, but not much.