Eyestrain discussion / Problems and Solutions

events
issue

#625

Reviewers saying 55mm or 60mm is another, or the fact the on screen IPD reading says 60mm so thats clearly a misrepresentation of information, and all these sources for specifications would have informed the decisions of customers who purchased under the premise and assumption they could use the devices with their IPD ranges which are either at or above the minimum IPD values of 55/60mm.


#626

Reviewers are not company employees so that is on the reviewer. Epic Games went after a Youtuber for promiting hacks & cheats on Fort Nite even though he was not the creator ofvsaid exploits.

Now in the reviewer their way out is the pamphlet.

60mm is confirmed by a few as working pimaxusa comes to mind with his ipd.


#627

Some can’t use at 65mm, what about them? Even after extensive fitting adjustments.
As far as I see it everyone under 70mm IPD - 55mm IPD who can’t use due to intense eye strain and discomfort require a solution and address by pimax and until a solution is provided users in those ranges, they’re also entitled to a refund.


#628

What I dont get about this problem is WHY some people on this forum do not want to help those that have an IPD problem, but just keep coming out with excuses for PIMAX. there is a problem so lets try and get a fix. just shift the lenses towards the nose, problem solved.


#629

No helping those who dismiss help offered. Risa has explained the matter, but people persist in being contrary.


#630

Risa’s explanation does not adequately serve to explain the cause of the IPD measurement discrepancy. It serves as a useful tool to understand how cantered lenses work that’s for sure. It doesn’t explain why theres a 10mm less software ipd reading when by geometry and divergence it should result in additional measurement added to software ipd reading to compensate for the reduction in the space between the centre of the lenses which a divergent display would cause over a 180 degree flat planed VR lens.


#631

Demonstrate this claim with a diagram, please.


#632

On screen ipd of 60mm not a misrepresentation as it does support folka with 60mm (pimaxusa) bur other factors doesn’t seem all at that set point are having same usuable result. As said you can’t use lens measurement wirhout knowing how it’s being utilized as per what Risa said.


#633

We went over that. Possible manufacturing problem or other factors. I know ppl that cannot use psvr/og vive & rift due to strain & not nausea.


#634

Risas own diagrams illustrate this if you look at the fact the flat planed diagram he shows has a greater IPD range than the divergent diagram IPD that he shows! How do Risa’s posts explain a lesser on screen IPD reading when it should in fact have a greater on screen IPD reading to compensate for actual IPD measurements since divergent displays result in a lesser IPD than a 180 degree flat-planed vr lens?


#635

What I don’t get is those with issues can’t accept that the software may need more optimizations & ignore that has been said things like soft ipd adjustments including per eye offset.

Or that there headset might have an improperly setup/calibrated ipd.


#636

It does if you accept the design of the headset is not to have to look dead center of lens sweetspot.


#637

Why even have the smallest circle fresnel rings indicating the centre of the lenses if that’s not actually where the sweet spots are ??

Much more likely everyones looking at the inner edges of the sweet spots which fall within 65mm IPD since 70mm is the true minimum, and the diameter of the sweet spot is 2.5mm-5mm in each direction from the middle of the smallest fresnel rings.


#638

Soft IPD/Per eye adjustment can’t be done on the lenses though with one IPD knob, only the screen rendering may be changed


#639

Ignore looking at the lens. Now consider eye tracking. Eye tracking makes it so the software knows where your looking through the lens. With this info it can render an appropiate image warp to the part of the lens your looking through. Regardless of “sweet spot”

If your eyes are not match to be looking through the lens equally say 4th ring from sweet spot. One is looking through #4 & other is looking through #2 you get an improper image per eye.

Now add a soft ipd per eye offset & we can have compensate for 1 eye looking through 4th ring while other is looking through the 2nd ring.

Fine tuning render position per eye.

Btw both of my eyes are pretty equal for clarity.


#640

These problems could likely be solved by shaving off 5mm off of the interior of each lens and making a rubber adapter for the outer periphery.
No lens redesign required just shave off 5mm each side and an adapter.

Future models could also have two IPD knobs to move the lenses individually to solve the assymetry of faces @Heliosurge.


#641

“Flat planed”? “Range”? Etc…

As I said: “Diagram, please”, because I can see several possible ways to parse your words, and need something clear and unambiguous.

I see nothing in Risa’s diagrams, that would reverse the conclusions and perfectly adequate explanations they offer – you’ll need to show how, in order to be convincing.


#642

Or software offsets as explained.


#643

I don’t think that software IPD is a good enough fix if your eyes are outside of the sweet spots due to being too narrow, because isnt the lack of clarity in the inner and outer peripheral unclear due to fried egg design and fresnel design?

I can definitely see moving the render would help get rid of the cross eyed feeling for some with smaller IPD


#644

Risa’s explanation relies on the centre of the lenses not being the focal points. My explanation does.

For deliberation between both points of view you have to ask:
Why even have the smallest circle fresnel rings indicating the centre of the lenses if that’s not actually where the sweet spots are ??

Much more likely everyones looking at the inner edges of the sweet spots which fall within 65mm IPD since 70mm is the true minimum, and the diameter of the sweet spot is 2.5mm-5mm in each direction from the middle of the smallest fresnel rings.

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.

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, which is why extra software IPD measurement should be added to compensate for the divergent displays to give an accurate 180 flat planed vr IPD reading (which corresponds to real IPD), not by reducing the on-screen IPD reading. This is my explanation for the IPD measurement discrepancy being 10mm less on screen than the 70mm physical minimum distance between the lenses on Pimax.

I believe the measurement discrepancy is caused by Pimax opting to reduce IPD to increase lens real estate as much as possible, and why the minimum distance between the centre of each lenses is 70mm, whereas most other 100 fov consumer vr headsets have a 60mm minimum IPD and IPD values which correspond to the users IPD measurements.

I’ll draw a diagram and post a thread later if you still don’t understand.