Actually I put a couple of posts related to IPD issues in an attempt to get an official response detailing a solution to the problem, because Pimax was avoiding and diverting from the question asking for solution in the IPD thread, but my posts in this thread on the IPD issue and eye strain were in fact deleted, meaning my posts had been seen, they were not addressed and the subject was avoided. The Actions and Plans on Pimax after-sale services
Eyestrain issues are a unanimous assessment among Reddit testers during group meetups to test the 5k and 8k
No your post was not deleted. I moved it to topic already existed for ipd.
Your profile shows what was deleted & by whom.
There’s in fact a forum poll on the issue which can give a pretty good indication on the severity of the issue on the basis of the average of results from users who participated. Regardless, an issue like this where people between 60-65 IPD can’t use the headset at all due to eye strain should not be ignored when the minimum on screen says 60 (but the real measurement is 70?)
Look at the details listed in the pamphlet provided in the box your 5k came with, it’s on there. I’m almost positive I saw it on the Kickstarter as well ages ago, I’ll try to find it now.
The poll will be good to measure members in the forum yes. But without doing a real poll sent to all whom have received the headset will not give a real level of accuracy.
There are also users reporting no eyestrain at 60mm. Now in that group hard to say. But from what is seen might not be as common. But needs proper research. The lens design you even said I believe said 60mm by angles of the bubble.
From scanning the kickstarter if there must be buried in comments section.
But yes the pamphlet does say 55mm.
Results are indicative of a potentially large scale problem going by the average of the results already given, and out of the current participants there are more users who have the problem than not.
It’s not just the polls either, 6 testers with 60+mm IPD have met up to test eachothers headsets and unanimously found eye strain issues, so all 6 in in agreement. So there is clearly an issue, even for the users who have above the minimal supported IPD for pimax at 60mm.
That explanation still doesnt entirely make sense to me when its measured to 70mm minimum physically, and users with 64mm have a problem at “60mm” on screen. The horizontal physical distance between both lenses is 70mm right? How can the diagonal lenses even affect the horizontal measurement of distance between the nose?
Truth as there are also nimbers of folks with ipd around 60mm without strain also can indicate biological factors by region. But cannot measure a true scale without a proper evaluation with proper sampling. We simply do not have enough users with headsets in the forum.
Much like the true statemrnts 2 out of 3 people prefer coke & 2 out of 3 people prefer pepsi.
Convex mirrors help remove blindspots. Simply put special purpose designed lenses. Without knowing there properties we can’t rely on conventional means.
Because the bubble is is convexed it can alter how the center is viewed. Granted I suspect there will be limits as to how far this will work as it needs more complicated warp calculations as it needs to add angle of the pupils as well. This is likely why there is a split in perceived distortions as for some ipds it is more optimised for some. With this lens design eye tracking for dynamic corrections is more of s need than gen1 headsets.
A unanimous assessment of eye strain issues from 6 testers with over the minimal 60 IPD and the current status of the poll lead me to believe the issue is bigger and more prevalent than acknowledged, and in fact it may only be 1/3 of users with over 60 IPD who don’t experience eyestrain and the other 2/3 do when their measurements are supposed to work.
Definitely as more results come through if the ratio of divergence remains the same between users who experience the problem and those who dont, then the average result will have more weight as results are input by wider audience.
If anything, a convex or curved line would increase in length when straightened, not decrease. That wouldn’t make the measurement of the physical lens distances (70mm) any less, it would make it more. (If the convex lenses/line was straightened) The physical minimal IPD range of the hardware has been measured at 70mm.
Here’s more users saying the same thing on a different reddit thread. So it’s being said by many users on this forum, multiple reddit threads, a unanimous verdict of eyestrain from 6 +60IPD backers and more users than not so far have voted having experienced clarity/eye strain issues in the poll on this forum.
The above demonstrates the possibility that biological differences by region can be a factor as I am sure this meetup was not 6 international friends but ones likely live in the same region.
There is also the problem of biased testing without using things like blind testing.
Keep in mind; I am not trying say it is or isn’t a big problem. It is a problem and maybe fixed to a degree with software augmemted ipd offsetting or dynamic correction via eye tracking.
Vr frames with special lenses msy help as well.
Interestingly enough the 60mm seems to be a general barrier in VR atm as the link I posted regarding Vive Pro also lists 60mm from an HTC staff saying screens & optics currently limit ipd.
From my general inet research over the last few days. Grounding down the optics for lower ipds might be way needed & likely only work on something like a wide fov headset due to unique lens shape install would be more consistant than round ones.
But cost vs gains becomes a pickle. With Gen1 on theory they could build 2 skus of hesdsets but the low ipd headsets would cost likely condiderably more & risk more QA issues in gen1 low ipd headsets.
Which is causing this to be fragmented. Multi threads simply make it harder to have a proper picture. But as you can see some in tge sweet spot of the ipd range are experiencing similar issues. I for example have 67.1mm ipd & have clear images in both eyes.
Since there is s mix it suggests the Root cause needs more research. An interm solution to try would be soft ipd off setting /eye. As I believe it is calculated pupil trajectory msybe causing some of the disparity in experiences between similar ipd ranges. But could also be related to inconsistent repeatable msnufacturing in assembly.
All this means is that the user can focus better when not looking thought the sweet spot, no matter how you try and defend this situation it IS still a problem or we would not be having this discussion
If you gathered together a bunch of people for the purpose of testing for ‘eye strain’, and then had them look at anything for any length of time and then asked them if they felt any eye strain, I would be shocked if you got fewer than 75% saying they did.
Study design matters.
Or that simply more software optimisation needed & maybe a soft offset to ipd.
This is where a study is needed to find root cause(s) before jumping to conclusions.
Biology is of course always interesting factor. So your right a set of camera’s should be used to test ipd for blur between eyes as this eliminates human factor.
@Pumcy might have a setup to test something like this. I know there was a nice Robot head for testing headsets.
Anyone know if Doc-ok has obtained a headset?
Indeed proper scientific procedure weighing variables & factors to obtain good results.