By curved I meant slightly shell shaped lenses and curved lines being longer once straightened out. My argument is summarised asking: how does diverging or cantering the screens; which creates a closer together sweet spot due to divergence compared to flat-planed vr lenses; equate to a higher physical IPD measurement on a divergent vr display?
What I mean by that is if you take a normal VR headset, and assuming every other flat planed VR headset has a consistent measurement between the actual measured distances between the middle of the lenses and the on screen IPD readings;
And assuming Pimax takes into account the divergence of the screens when calculating and displaying on screen IPD measurements;
How do we get a smaller physical reading on screen at minimum IPD (59.9) when the actual physical minimum distance of both lenses are 70mm.
Cantering displays should bring the middle of the sweet spots slightly more together compared to a flat-planed panel setup with the same lenses, in a similar way to how adjusting down the IPD measurement brings the pupils closer together, although this is achieved by reducing the angles. The middle of the line of a 45 degree angle would be closer to the originating point of the axis compared to the middle of a 90 degree angle.
You would think that considering all flat planed VR headsets besides Pimax have consistent measurements between the actual far IPD of a user and the on screen IPD reading, that Pimax would have to increase the on screen IPD reading to compensate for the reduced angle from the divergent displays, so that your personal IPD measurement could accurately be translated to flat plane VR where the on screen IPD is the same as actual IPD measurements.
Conversely, with Pimax headsets you have a reduced on screen IPD reading and a larger physical minimum gap between the middle of the sweet spots of both lenses.
Due to divergence of the screens, one should expect a lesser physical minimum measurement between the middle of both lenses compared to flat planed VR headsets and a greater on screen IPD measurement to account for that divergence.
Why is it then that the minimum physical distance between the middle of both lenses is 70mm? And why is the physical minimum measurement more than the on screen reading minimum of 59.9mm?
It should in fact be a lesser minimum IPD measurement due to the divergence of the screens making the middle of the sweet spots closer together compared to normal flat planed VR lenses.
Additionally the manual advertises 55mm minimum IPD to use the devices, and the on screen display is 59.9mm. This is clearly false advertising on behalf of Pimax on two fronts (lying manual and lying on screen IPD) and is a massive issue to those who backed or bought the headsets under the premise they could use the headsets, when in fact they could not due to experiencing heavy eye strain or being unable to get a clear image in both eyes due to a lying IPD measurements on screen and the fact the lenses minimum distance is 70mm, not 59.9mm like it says on screen is the minimum, 55mm as it says in the manual as the minimum, or even 65mm which users should not have a problem with. (If it was in fact 60mm IPD).
Many of those customers and backers have found that they are simply unable to use the new Pimax headsets comfortably or for a significant amount of time, due to the abovementioned issues. To the point where a significant and memorable amount of those customers and backers have reported on these forums that they have had to sell their headsets because they cannot use them at all, even after having tried the extensive amount of fitting suggestions to eliminate these problems; such as trying different sized facial foam thicknesses, moving the headset further away or closer to your face, altering the placement of the headset up and down on your face or altering the upwards or downwards tilt of the headset. For some users in the 60-65mm IPD range these advices simply do not work to correct issue such as providing clarity in both eyes.
There is no way of understating that this is in fact a massive issue and it is occurring for a significant amount of users, such as @RiftFlyer @bosnaboi and @nikkic to name a few beyond the unanimous assessment of these issues by 6 reviewers referred to in the OP in this thread and all the other reviewers and backers experiencing these issues on these forums and on the sub reddit.
My assessment is the minimum IPD possible to use Pimax is around 64-65mm IPD (at 59.9mm on screen IPD reading), but that puts your pupils at the edges of the sweet spots of both lenses.
Tell me about one VR lens design that isnt made to be looked at in the middle, or that the sweet spot isnt in the middle and I’ll concede I’m wrong. As far as I can tell this error was may have been made with lack of foresight to IPD in efforts to maximise screen real estate.
I propose that the IPD issues of discrepancy and being unable to get a clear image in both eyes, and eyestrain issues could be solved by shaving off 5mm off the inner parts of each lenses towards the nose and creating a rubber adapter for the smaller 160/190 fov lenses, which sits at the outer distorted part of the lenses, which will allow for compression of the adapter when IPD is adjusted outwards to the maximum value and an accurate on screen reading in comparison to real IPD measurements.
@Sean.Huang @PimaxUSA @Dallas.Hao @mozi An official response would be appreciated as to whether or not my abovementioned suggestion for a smaller lens design will be considered and implemented as a purchasing option and a replacement lens on store, as a smaller lens of -5mm off the inner side towards the nose and an outer periphary rubber compressible adapter would entirely solve the three problems.
- IPD measurement discrepancy issues
- Eye strain related issues.
- Customers within the 60-65mm IPD range being unable to get clarity in both eyes at the same time.
A picture speaks a thousand words, so I’ll attach two. Pimax please solve this issue. Also second pic for everyone ITT arguing against this issue.