Eyestrain discussion / Problems and Solutions



I mean no disrespect, I make all these points strongly and firmly for the arguments sake, but clearly something doesn’t make sense to you about the fact the middle point of a line on a 45 degree angle is shorter than the middle point of a line on a 180 degree angle.

So why don’t we have a greater on screen IPD reading to account for real IPD measurements? We have a lesser one. It doesn’t add up by logic any other way besides the lenses are 10mm bigger than the software measurement given on screen.

I’ve studied all the wide-fov headsets extensively as well, each of them use different optics and screen tech so there is no point comparing them.


What doesn’t make sense to me is presuming conclusions without the needed info. Specifications of design & intended method of use. Without that you are simply making presumptions on what you believe.


There’s no assumptions being made, the data speaks for itself. Theres a discrepancy of 10mm extra measurement between the physical lens distances and the on screen IPD setting, on screen IPD being 10mm less than physical distance.
Mathematics and geometry are saying it should be a smaller lens distance created due to divergence of panels and lenses, compared to a 180 degree plane and that should be accounted for with extra measurement on the software IPD reading to give an accurate reading, not a reduced software IPD reading.


As fun as this discussion can be this problem will not be solved in a discussion forum. you know this no? :wink: Since @PimaxUSA participated in the thread the message has been pass on. What append next is on Pimax side


If that was true you would understand what Risa said and accept that by design your not necessarily meant to be looking through the dead center of the lens.

But like I said it’s pointless trying to get you to see a different logical veiwpoint as your trapped with conventional design & use. Thus blind to other possibilities of reason.


I don’t think lenses are designed not to be looked at in the middle on pimax. I’ve read both of Risa’s threads and I understand his arguments. I think that most people are looking at the edges of the sweet spots of both lenses, and those falling between 60-64/65mm IPD can’t use it or get a clear image in both eyes because of that. There’s no disputing that fact.


Respectfully I disagree. No solution was provided to those who can’t get clarity in both eyes and for those experiencing extreme eye strain and discomfort after short use, and it is still yet to be seen as to whether a software solution or face foam adequately addresses those issues. (which in my opinion are both arbitrary solutions to this issue.)

These backers and customers who can’t use the headset at all due to discomfort even after extensive fitting, to the point where headsets have had to be sold off to someone else, is documented several times in this forum as well as the unanimous assessment of eye strain after short use referred to in the op of this thread.

These backers have yet to be catered for, it’s not an extremely uncommon thing or something that’s only happened to a few customers it’s a pretty vocal problem on the forums and reddit.


Indeed pimaxusa 59.7? Neal under 65 but uses cloee to his ipd. Mine above 65 & uses in around my real ipd. Pimax long ago said lenses are final at least for this headsets duration. Maybe in a year+ once company is in the green. Might see a new design. But hard to say as it took 7 revisions to get this far.

As it does work on a variety if ipd; including ones with some having issues suggest softwsre refinements with maybe eye tracking data to further refine it.

Come on stretch goals!


Man. I recall arguing with a guy, during the Oculus Kickstarter campaign, who was arguing that VR can never work, based on his trying to apply 3D cinema practices to VR, without taking the differences into consideration.


Think being the keyword. As your not the lens designer whom developed this custom lens you & I do not know the specifications of intended use of the design.

Making any presumption not fact but guesswork. Other vr headsets use regular lenses where we know the intended design as it is used in more applicstions than VR.


There are consumers who can’t use Og vive & Rift due to sde & other factors. This is unfortunately a norm with tech.


It’s not just a conjectural assumption, I believe it can be inferred that we are in fact mostly looking at the edges of the sweet spots of both lenses on the basis that some users at 65mm IPD report clarity in both eyes, whilst others at 65mm and 64mm IPD dont.
Since the middle of the sweet spots is measured physically at 70mm, its only common sensical that the edges of the centre ring and sweet spot would be 2.5-5mm in diameter away from the centre of the sweet spots.
Those backers have exhausted fitting suggestions for moving the display further away or closer, up or down or tilting it forwards and backwards didn’t work.


Your focusing on one problem, PImax has many. If you don’t have any definitive reply at this point you should presume a few things

o Pimax is aware of the problem but don’t know how to address it in the short term
o Pimax experience is different and don’t think your case represent problem so many people
o They won’t take about this
o All variations of the above

After all that were written here , only time ( Days, weeks, months) will tell if Pimax will address the IPD problem.


Again: Nobody can. Nobody is arguing that they can, and if one try to get to the point where one can after all get both eyes simultaneously in focus, by forcing the lenses closer than intended by the design premises, then one break the designed optical alignment, and cause the eye strain.

Roll with the punches instead of running headlong into them.


Unfortunately we didn’t back a Catering company. We backed a project we believed in that has delivered but may not meet all expectations of the individual (ie oled like colors etc)

Cutting edge tech is often experimental & takes time to get there. Ie Lcd to supercede plasma.


I’ve suggested it once before in depth once before in this thread but I’ll do it again now and let me know what you all think.

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.

    1. IPD measurement discrepancy issues
    1. Eye strain related issues.
    1. Customers within the 60-65mm IPD range being unable to get clarity in both eyes at the same time.


Indeed I remember hearing similar. “3dTV was going to become the norm & everyone will have one. Never happened; VR is just a fad too.” :joy:


What about pre orderers and backers that purchased the product with one of the main assumptions informing their purchase was that reviewers and product information said 55mm or 60mm IPD was the minimum required to use the headsets? They are just cheated out of a product they were bought under the premise they could use and they have to sell if a software fix doesn’t work?

That’s false advertising by my understanding, which is why an adequate solution should be provided so that Pimax isn’t liable and can avoid civil litigation.


Believe keyword. inferred keyword = pressumption. As said this being a custom designed 1 application lens only the designer knows if your meant to use it as per conventional lenses or something unconventional.

Without the designer’s input we have nothing but presumptions.


Yes an inference is available to be made that that is the most likely reason for the IPD discrepancy.

Not 100% certain, but well beyond almost all reasonable doubt at this point, as no other adequate sensical explanations have been offered to make sense of the IPD measurement discrepancy.