Honored Contributor

Question

The "Why I Still Love My Oculus Rift CV1 in 2026" Thread

Forum|Forum|5 years ago
February 20, 2021
200 replies
91509 views

I've gotten slightly tired of repeating all the awesome stuff about the Oculus CV1 on Oculus Subreddit and in here - so why not try to collect all the great arguments for still using the Rift CV1 in a thread?

1. It's oled. Even with the oled mura (SPUD) Rift CV1 is still a lot darker than lcd hmds. It may not matter to all, and sure you can live just fine with lcd, but for those of us wanting to experience a really dark night in Skyrim, wanting to have true night vision in Saints and Sinners (and not constantly needing a flashlight) - and to enjoy all the very dark horror games - oled is still king. Although Rift CV1 and the original Vive aren't completely the same, they both use oled panels - and these results indicate differences in blackness comparing oled (Vive) and lcd (Index) hmds:

"Black level in nits:

Index: 0.153

Vive: under 0.02 with true blacks turned off via black smear compensation (default).

Vive: 0 with true blacks turned on, black smear compensation disabled via running the headset in secondary display mode."

https://www.reddit.com/r/ValveIndex/comments/c5sxu5/brightness_blackpoint_and_gamut_measurements_of/

In a few games, like Saints and Sinners - and Westworld Awekening - I found some very dark locations where I basically can see nothing using the Index (lcd), while I clearly can make out objects using Rift CV1. In those cases Rift CV1 provides true night vision, while lcd cannot show very poorly illuminated objects making everything vanish into a grey lcd-fog of pure nothingness 😉 That's probably why all the otherwise dark tunnels in Alyx are lit up with so many lamps, because you need light to create great blacks using lcd, and Alyx was made for lcd (Index). Also having oled or not in extremely dark games like Phantom Covert Ops is the difference of being able to see all the awesome tiny ripples and subtle reflections in the surface of the water or not.

2. Sound is second to none using the CV1, primarily the deep bass, thanks to the awesome Rift CV1 headphones. Even Index cannot provide the same bass as CV1 - at all. It's very easy to test. Try the song Embers in Pistol Whip and compare CV1 with whatever hmd you'd like. Even Index has close to no bass in that song, while the CV1 is simply perfect - the difference is close to day and night:

Also the larger Oculus exclusive games took years to make, like Asgard's Wrath, Stormland, Defector and Medal of Honor: Above and Beyond. Although such games were launched when Rift-S and Quest 1-2 hmds were available, these games were primarily developed using Rift CV1 hmd. In short, if you do not use Rift CV1 for these games, you're not experiencing sound effects and music exactly like the devs intended. This may mean you're getting too much or too little bass, and that may affect immersion. Maybe casual gamers don't care about this and might even accept the extremely poor piped-audio quality of Rift-S and Quest hmds, but getting the optimal sound experience should matter to audiophiles and enthusiasts.

3. Rift CV1 Touch controllers are built like tanks. Using Oculus subreddit, the amount of photos showing broken Rift-S and Quest controllers are numerous, and there have been many statements about the poor quality of newer controllers, also including Valve Index controllers. The new Reverb G2 controllers do not get a lot of love too, but more due to design and weight distribution. Instead, old Touch are still considered the reference when it comes to quality, design and durability. Batteries may even last for months - while some never controllers (like for the Reverb G2) may eat up batteries like there's no tomorrow 😉

4. Tracking. Although having sensors is quite a hassle for those needing to set them up for each VR session, permanently placed sensors provide next to no inconvenience and provide a level of tracking probably only beaten by the base stations used for Vive and Index hmds. Having used the Valve Index for 19 months, I really do not notice much difference between CV1 and Index tracking, which is a testament to the awesome tracking provided by the CV1. Although CV1 isn't included here, Index tracking was scientifically measured to be extremely much better than what inside-out solutions provide:

Results - tracking accuracy - lower scores are best (hint: Cosmos did not win ;))

https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/91998/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-which-one-has-the-best-or-worst-tracking-of-them-all

I would be very surprised if Rift CV1 is much worse than Index. Using Rift CV1 360 degrees tracking (needs at least 3 sensors) you can hold your hands on your back for as long as you'd like - you'll never lose tracking. And you can play in a totally dark room, you do not need any light for perfect tracking. Also kojack compared CV1 tracking here to both HP Reverb G2 and the Quest 2 - I hope he doesn't mind quoting him here:

"Tracking seems fine on the (HP Reverb) G2, it just has way worse coverage. It's too easy to lose sight of the controllers below or near the headset. Hold your hands out in front and they seem ok. While moving around the WMR home scene, there's big panels to look up at and I kept the controllers at waist level. The laser pointers on the controllers made it obvious every time the position tracking dropped out when I tilted my head up a little.

CV1 tracking is great, I prefer it to anything else. Q2 (Oculus Quest 2) tracking seems ok, but also has worse coverage than CV1. For example in Audica, if I try to throw the guns underarm from a resting position, they just release from my hands and float at my side, while on the CV1 they'd be thrown correctly."

https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/91084/hp-reverb-g2-available-pre-orders-up-november-release-date-confirmed/p39

5. Using temporal antialiasing (TAA), which is used for DLSS, does not create a blurry image with the Rift CV1. Some may not be aware of this - and that's entirely plausible for those never having tried using an oled hmd. In games like for example MADiSON VR, Metro Awakening, Riven. Ark Park, Robinson the Journey, Asgard's Wrath and Stormland, enabling TAA or DLSS using a lcd hmd easily creates a very blurry image quality. Like having your eyes dropped with liquid butter - or something. Using TAA or DLSS with Rift CV1 you get super-sharp image quality, maybe due to the screen-door effect (SDE) fooling our brains to experience a holistic and sharp image by filling out the blanks (blanks = the black stripes between rows of lit pixels which essentially make up the SDE). Furthermore, compared to other kinds of antialiasing like MSAA, TAA or DLSS does not cost a lot of gpu performance. Having to replace TAA or DLSS with 4xMSAA (or worse) may provide ok-ish image quality by severely reducing frames per second (fps), especially when combined with high levels of super sampling (ss).

6. Some games profit from the SDE and reduced res of the Rift CV1. Although many are annoyed with the Rift CV1 due to the low res and especially the SDE, sometimes the SDE can be a friend. Using high res lcd hmds with tons of subpixels may provide clarity so far ahead of the Rift CV1 that there's really no comparison. Unfortunately such clarity may also reveal tons of flaws and shortcomings in many (older) VR games. Using high-res lcd hmds, low res textures may easily be spotted and may reduce immersion. The advantage of the Rift CV1 SDE may in many cases be like having scanlines in MAME games (MAME = Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator) - or just an interlaced image quality. Remember how some games looked on lcd monitors, when some of us switched from using CRT monitors (or TVs)? The difference in image quality using Rift CV1 or a newer high-res lcd hmd may easily be like:

Image quality with scanlines (like CV1 SDE)

Image quality with no scanlines (like modern high-res lcd hmds)

There are many games where low-res textures look so much better thanks to the Rift CV1 SDE, while everything looks a lot more pixelated using high-res lcd hmds. Again a game like Phantom Covert Ops comes to mind - that game looks great using Rift CV1, but using Index you can easily see all the ugly low-res textures. Even a game like Arizona Sunshine looks so much better using Rift CV1 due to lack of jaggies and it's much harder to notice any low-res textures. One thing that amazed me in that game was the thorns on the cactus plants which looked very real using Rift CV1 ss 2.0, but using Index it's so easy to see the low-res 2D thorns on the plants which now looked incredibly fake and thereby broke the immersion.

7. Physical interpupillary distance (IPD) slider. With the Rift CV1 you do not just have one big panel like in Rift-S and Quest 2, but you have two separate oled panels. One for each eye that can be physically moved. This allows for simply perfect IPD adjustment (or close), covering IPDs from about 58 to 72 mm, probably only beaten by the original Vive hmds allowing for up to 73-74 mm. Rift S is more or less locked to 64 mm, while Quest 2 has three locked positions (58, 63 and 68 mm).

8. Comfort. This is a matter of individual preferences, but it's my impression that many still find the comfort of CV1 as second to none. Personally I do find CV1 comfort a lot better than the Valve Index, even though the Index is great. With the small weight of 470 grams and the way you wear the CV1 hmd, I rarely notice it's on my head when I'm using it.

9. Using high levels of super sampling, visual acuity may be a lot better than many persons seem to believe. Having tested the Rift CV1 with high levels of super sampling I found some quite surprising results. This is a comparison of how many meters you can go back from a text and still be able to read it - note that higher res provides increased ability to zoom out while still sharply seeing objects and textures:

Rift CV1:
Ss 1.0 = 4 meters
Ss 2.0 = 6 meters

Valve Index:
Res 100 % = 4.5 meters
Res 200 % = 6.5 meters

Source: https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/91907/testhmd-fov-sde-res-super-sampling-the-rift-s-against-everything-else/p1

I consider these results quite amazing, and they prove that increasing levels of super sampling has a profound effect on Rift CV1 image quality. I've heard several CV1 users say that you don't benefit from more than ss levels 1.3 to maybe 1.5 using Rift CV1. That's why we need science and to test subjective experiences thoroughly. Properly testing the Rift CV1 there's even a noticeable difference comparing ss 2.0 and 2.5. Going from ss 2.0 to 2.5 will probably require a RTX 3080/3090 or better to get 90 fps in many games, and the difference between 2.0 and 2.5 is more subtle than going from 1.5 to 2.0. For many it may come as a great surprise that perceived sharpness and ability to read signs etc. (=visual acuity) may really not be much different using Rift CV1 ss 2.0 or Valve Index res 200% - even though persons subjectively may feel that the res is so much better using a lcd panel with tons of subpixels, like the Index.

10. Many games were made for oled hmds - thus using an oled hmd may be the only way to play these games "the way it's meant to be played". This is one issue I've become more and more aware of since I got the Index. Many games made for Rift CV1 simply don't feel "right" using other solutions than the Rift CV1. Chronos may be a nice example. Chronos plays nicely using the Valve Index, but even forcing res 200% I can still see some jaggies and pixel crawling. And the blacks, textures and colors are nice too, but seem to lack something here and there. Now, using the Rift CV1 ss 2.0 there's simply no doubt I get the vision the devs intended to provide. I no longer see jaggies, and blacks and colors look the way the should - and I no longer notice any textures I think would benefit from a slightly higher res. Same with Mage's Tale: using lcd many surfaces look fake, like made of melted plastic - gold surfaces look fake - but using Rift CV1 everything looks so much more real, even including the gold. In short, there are still many of reasons to love the old Rift CV1. Even if the competition is fierce these days, there are many games and apps where the old Rift CV1 stands tall and bows to no one.

I've probably missed something - do let me know in a post below, if there're even more reasons to still love/like the Rift CV1! 🙂

Show previous replies

RuneSR2Author

Honored Contributor

Nice post - I guess I'm on that hill too:

https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/zkye0d/went_back_to_the_cv1_and_i_will_die_on_this_hill/

Right now I'm using Rift CV1 for Hubris, due to the non-removable TAA (temporal antialiasing) in Hubris, it's very blurry using lcd - looks totally sharp with CV1 and the blacks are perfect too.

A recent game like Ferd simply requires the CV1 due to the massive DLSS/TAA blur. And you cannot disable the blurry TAA - reducing the TAA blur using lcd can be done by using extreme res, but then performance tanks. CV1 does not need much res to look sharp and provide awesome performance.

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD "Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

RuneSR2Author

Honored Contributor

Just saw this interesting video:

Might be in line with the evidence found here - which also surprised me a lot:

https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/91907/testhmd-fov-sde-res-super-sampling-the-rift-s-against-everything-else/p1

That's why we need to test different hmds and not just to assume that newer is better.

Btw, theBlu on Steam was just updated with a new location and was made more friendly for lcd users - my short review:

"I have theBlu installed for my old Rift CV1 and now bought the new version for the Index. I've now tested both versions with oled and lcd. The re-launched version is not just the same as the old version. Especially the Luminous Abyss has been changed profoundly and is now optimized for lcd. Using the old version, you got awesome blacks with oled - but it looks very bad with lcd, way too dark for lcd. Now the new version looks really bad with oled, fish have giant halos of light surrounding them - basically the new version looks very bad and ruins the oled experience - but only for the Abyss, other locations look fine with oled. But Abyss with Index now looks a lot better.

My conclusion - if you love the deep blacks in the Abyss and have an oled hmd, do not delete the old version. For those with lcd hmds, like the Index, the relaunch is now greatly optimized for lcd hmds. Hammerhead Cove looks great with both oled and lcd - but Index does look a lot better than CV1 due to fov, less SDE and much higher res."

Using the old version of the Abyss, seeing the awesome blacks, just made me fall in love with the CV1 again - oled really is so much better, but Abyss always was a great showcase for the oled blacks, it does not represent the average VR experience.

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD "Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

Zenbane

Honored Contributor

I've never been a fan of 2nd hand information. For every user that prefers Rift CV1 over Quest 2, there's a Quest 2 user (like myself) who prefers Quest 2 over Rift CV1. Just as we have seen posts by Index users who moved over to Quest 2 for the superior experience.

I actually have both the Rift CV1 and the Quest 2, and use both for PCVR. The fact is that the Quest 2 is vastly superior to Rift CV1 in every way, for VR enthusiasts, videophiles, and audiophiles. The sound difference between Quest 2 and Rift CV1 is not distinguishable by the human ear. I'm sure some charts can measure a difference, but it simply doesn't play out that way in reality. Being able to turn your head and move your body to follow sound WITHOUT having a cable attached to your head is the perfect sound-immersion experience for a true VR enthusiast.

Visually, the Rift CV1 is quite terrible compared to Quest 2. Rift CV1 suffers dearly from Glare and SDE. The colors and clarity, along with the "sweet spot" are vastly superior in Quest 2.

The cable with Rift CV1 is immensely immersion breaking; a fact that isn't fully appreciated until a VR Enthusiast experiences high-quality tracking without a cable.

The idea that the tracking is bad with Quest 2 is a farce. There are so many people hitting top numbers in Beat Saber - which requires some of the fastest VR tracking on the market - using Quest 2. Even my own family members use Quest 2 for Beat Saber with zero tracking errors. Besides, Rift CV1 suffers plenty of tracking issues, such as the "floating hands."

I had my Rift CV1 since release, and I loved it dearly. But the Quest 2 is a far superior PCVR experience in every way, shape, and form. Some contrived charts and graphs make for a great conversation, but they do not accurately depict the reality of the end-user experience.

Hicks613

Inspiring

"Quest 2 is vastly superior to Rift CV1 in every way"

- No, but it is superior in the majority of aspects. And I'm not talking about my opinion of technologies used. I mean from a straight up review of the technical specifications of the devices in question. The list of improvements from Quest 2 over CV1 is long. But the CV1 had better audio, uncompressed (but lower resolution) video over hdmi (RIft S was display port if I recall correctly), Lighter and was less expensive to run (in terms of taxing a PC gpu with things like encoding). Whole discussions can be had about video transcoding and what the PC and network requirements are to get Link, airlink or virtual desktop running reliably.

Anybody that says wireless VR and tethered VR video quality is identical is a liar or blind. Uncompressed video streaming is holy grail of wireless VR. Quest 1 and 2 are not capable of providing this.

"The sound difference between Quest 2 and Rift CV1 is not distinguishable by the human ear."

- I worry about your ears sir. CV1's on ear headphones provided a far greater audio experience but were riddled with issues with the contacts wearing thin and audio cutouts were common. Quest 1 and 2's in arm piped audio is complete garbage. All reviewers of decent merit agreed on this. Having experienced it myself, I have bought replacement earphones and also have the Vive Deluxe Audio strap headphones on my Quest 2.

Wireless VR is the future, yes I absolutely agree.

Quest 2's inside out tracking is very well done. VERY well done when compared to the likes of Vive and their standalone products and Pico. It does not come close the accuracy of outside-in tracking using base stations, but is far easier to set up. I would choose Quest 2 over Index or CV1 style base stations any day. That said, playing beat Saber on extreme difficulties will quickly show you that the Quest 1 and 2 controllers are not perfect. In fact, the Quest Pro touch controllers (yes, those expensive self tracked controllers) are far more responsive.

Zenbane

Honored Contributor

Hicks613 wrote:
"Quest 2 is vastly superior to Rift CV1 in every way"
I'm not talking about my opinion of technologies used. I mean from a straight up review of the technical specifications of the devices in question.

In this comment, you are citing hearsay instead of first-hand experience. Many false arguments can be made when relying on theorycrafting.

"Anybody that says wireless VR and tethered VR video quality is identical is a liar or blind. Uncompressed video streaming is holy grail of wireless VR. Quest 1 and 2 are not capable of providing this."

Irrelevant point. My argument was not about compressed vs uncompressed video output at all; my argument is about the end-result of the visual quality between Rift CV1 and Quest 2. Having both headsets, I can say without any doubt (as many others have said as well who own both headsets) that the visual quality of Quest 2 is vastly superior - on multiple levels - to that of Rift CV1. The fact is that Rift CV1 doesn't benefit much from the "uncompressed video output" specifically because of its: lower resolution, smaller sweet spot, highly visible SDE, and strong glare.

Quest 2 Compressed Video Output > Rift CV1 Uncompressed Video Output

This doesn't mean that all compressed video output is on par, or greater than, uncompressed video output. We can't ignore the actual products in question when making the comparison.

"CV1's on ear headphones provided a far greater audio experience but were riddled with issues with the contacts wearing thin and audio cutouts were common. Quest 1 and 2's in arm piped audio is complete garbage. All reviewers of decent merit agreed on this. Having experienced it myself, I have bought replacement earphones and also have the Vive Deluxe Audio strap headphones on my Quest 2."

I am a life-long audiophile. I was not speaking to the default speakers in Quest 2, but the the audio output overall which, as you just proved, works perfectly fine when using a high-quality headphone add-on. Rift CV1 built-in speakers were great, no doubt. But there are so many superior earphone options. Quest 2 with high-quality headphones is just as great an audio experience as the Rift CV1's built-in headphones.

"That said, playing beat Saber on extreme difficulties will quickly show you that the Quest 1 and 2 controllers are not perfect. In fact, the Quest Pro touch controllers (yes, those expensive self tracked controllers) are far more responsive."

There are at least 2 users from this forum who used Quest 2 in extreme difficulties with success. Their progress was recorded on the Beat Saber competition thread somewhere on this forum. Granted, there will always be exceptions to the rule, but they are not the rule itself. Quest 2's Beat Saber rankings showcase that hand tracking at extreme difficulties is as flawless as it gets.

Hand tracking with Rift CV1 had many issues. I suffered plenty of "controller drift" when playing shooter games like Dead & Buried. The Knuckles have plenty of reported problems, as do most - if not all - of the other VR controllers from all other products.

However, when we stop cherry-picking examples and instead focus on the primary value that these units provide, it becomes painfully clear that Quest 2 is superior to Rift CV1 in "more ways than not." Perhaps not "every single way," I will give you that. But in all the ways that matter when it comes to the highest level of VR Immersion.

RuneSR2Author

Honored Contributor

Also note that if you want the Rift CV1 to work flawlessly with the Meta software, then only use the gpus on this list:

https://www.meta.com/help/quest/articles/headsets-and-accessories/oculus-rift-s/rift-graphics-cards/

Seems the fastest supported gpu is the RTX 3090 or maybe the 3090 Ti. Not sure about the Ti though. I'm sure many may not be able to fully understand this, but the Rift CV1 is still of the highest priority to me. I used it last night in Phantom: Coverts Ops, which is a game that simply needs oled. The game looked jaw-droppingly amazing with Rift CV1 ss 2.5 (27 mill pixels res) and all settings maxed in solid 90 fps. I do not gamble with the best computer-facilitated experiences I've ever had. I keep to the list of Meta supported Rift gpus, before I buy anything. If it's not on the list, then the gpu does not exist in my world. 2c.

Btw, a few shots from Phantom: Covert Ops

The volumetric light and real-time shadows are awesome

Note the high-quality reflections in the water. I've added tons of light to the above image, or it's close to impossible to see anything on my lcd monitor with a white background - but inside the CV1 hmd, you can see everything even more clearly than here, and that you cannot at all with a lcd hmd.

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD "Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

TomCgcmfc

Honored Contributor

If you ever decide to upgrade your PC, like me, to a i9 13900k/rtx4090/32Gb 5200 ram, then I think you'll notice a bit of a difference, lol!

For now you just need to ignore the Oculus desktop app warning about it not being compatible. Even with win11 it seems to be working ok, for me anyway. Cheers.

i9 13900K water cooled, RTX4090, Z790 MB w/wifi6e, 64Gb 6400 ram, 2x2TB SSD, 1000W PSU, Win 11, QPro, Q3, w/Link and Air Link, Vive Pro1 with 2x2.0 base stations, Etsy lens mod and Index Controllers

RuneSR2Author

Honored Contributor

Btw, seems the old king still can impress. According to a scientific investigation, Rift CV1 is the master of motion to photons latencies, at least it's much faster even than Index:

link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-022-01983-5

And Index in 80 Hz is the worst, 144 Hz is better, but still no match the Rift CV1, also CV1 beats Rift S and HTC Vive.

One quote: "This indicates that the HMD with the lowest latency was the Oculus Rift, and the HMD with the highest latency was the Valve Index operating at 80 Hz. The Valve Index operating at 144 Hz was only marginally better than the HTC Vive (90 Hz) and worse than the Oculus Rift (90 Hz) and Rift S (80 Hz), despite having a much higher refresh rate than these HMDs. The measured latency was consistent between recordings for all HMDs, with the highest between-video standard deviation being 1.75 ms for the Oculus Rift S."

Lowest is best:

____________________________________________________________________________________

So there's that too 🙂 The lower the latency the better for immersion, and it's believed that low latencies may cause less motion sickness. That said, I never had any issues with the Index, the latencies above are so small that these will not be consciously perceived, but can of course still have an impact on the brain.

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD "Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

RuneSR2Author

Honored Contributor

Just ran a few tests to check on my Rift CV1's motion-to-photon lantencies - and when the gpu has sufficient headroom, I can confirm the 20 ms latency:

Did see 18-19 ms a few times too. I'm running both games using ss 2.5, so this is 27 mill pixels per frame, and the gpu is under some stress - but not that much with about 50-60% headroom.

But latency is no constant, it changes depending on the gpu burden. See what happens in Red Matter 1 - where my headroom is lower:

Here 43% headroom - and latency rising to 26 ms. Going down to 4% headroom in Phantom Covert Ops we see:

Now only 4% headroom - and 31 ms latency. And if I break the 90 fps, things get worse:

Thus 20 ms is surely obtainable with the CV1, but only when you get 90 fps with at least 50% headroom. If you want the lowest latency, might be a good idea checking that you've got at least 50% headroom, or otherwise lower the res (or in-game settings).

Personally I would choose res before latency though 😉

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD "Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

elevator3

New Participant

I will forever love this headset. I got it back in 2020 when i was 12 but I always loved it (i even made my dad take me to best buy too look at the rift display when it first came out lol) but now ive got a q2, valve index, and an og vive and i still prefer my rift cv1 over all of them. might just be nostalgia but all the other headsets just didn't feel right, it always felt like something was missing but when i switched back to my cv1 it just felt like a way better experience. anyways i just absolutely love this headset and i cant see me switching to anything else any time soon.

RuneSR2Author

Honored Contributor

Agreed, also I've got the PSVR2, which is oled like CV1, but the PS5 is too slow, and the software res is too low and blurry.

If I could just run Call of the Mountain, Resident Evil 8 and Gran Turismo 7 in 90 fps with my CV1 and RTX 3090 I seriously would not need the PSVR2, but I do need the oled for Resident Evil 8, some levels are truly pitch black and will not work with lcd (unless devs add light sources).

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD "Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

JohSm67

Inspiring

Still the favorite one for me, best comfort and controllers.

JohSm

Sean5861

New Participant

What a great headset the CV1 is, ahead of its time for sure. The resolution and FOV are my biggest gripes, but I've been looking at every headset that's come out since and I just can't justify the expense so long as my CV1 is still working. Not that I'm willing for it to break, but I will probably replace rather than repair.

The sensors and their bandwidth requirements are annoying, but so would be tracking issues which I don't get. The construction quality of the controllers is truly admirable, I have thunderclapped them to many times to count. There is also something sentimental about owning the first consumer VR headset to make it to mass-market.

I'm out of depth with the scientific analysis in this thread, but if it explains why I'm not terrible at Beatsaber unlike most other games, I'm all for it!

RuneSR2Author

Honored Contributor

Got the PSVR2 Feb 22 along with Call of the Mountain. Rift CV1 has 1080x1200 res per eye, PSVR2 has 2000x2040. That 3.15 times higher res for the PSVR2. Both are oled. Still I'd so much love getting to play the Sony PSVR2 exclusives with the Rift CV1 and the RTX 3090. Why would any sane person want that? Because Rift CV1 with tons of super sampling looks much better than PSVR2 with very high res and subsampling (=low software res, much lower res than the PSVR2 panel res).

What's best?

Rift CV1 low-res panels with tons of super sampling?

PSVR2 high-res panels with no super sampling (but "under-sampling"/subsampling)

Many PSVR2 games look like CV1 ss 1.0 - 1.2 software res displayed on the PSVR2 high-res panels. And it does not look good - already 10 feet away the blur starts. But using CV1 ss 2.5 (27 mill pixels per combined frame) I feel I can see clearly miles away - especially when moving and SDE goes away.

I would much rather play Call of the Mountain using Rift CV1 ss 2.0 in 90 fps - than the current blurry (=subsampled) PSVR2 version only using 60 fps with reprojections.

Personally I do not consider Rift CV1 with supersampling worse than PSVR2, in fact I'd prefer CV1 in most games - and that even includes Resident Evil 8 Village and Gran Turismo 7.

So enjoy the oled, the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side. Btw, PSVR2 has mura - it looks much like the CV1 SPUD, the PSVR2 mura really lights up when it gets dark - just like the CV1 SPUD.

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD "Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

TomCgcmfc

Honored Contributor

Ya, pretty hard to beat oled screens, that's for sure mate. My good old cv1 did a great job with my rtx3090 and 2-2.5xSS. I gotta say that I think my +3yo OG Vive Pro1 with Etsy Gear VR lens mod and Index controllers is a bit of a step above though. I've ended up running a dual VR headset setup with a Quest Pro (mainly wireless PCVR with Air Link) and a wired Vive Pro1. Between the VP1 link box on/off button and the OTT audio/runtime switching features it's very easy to switch back and forth between these headsets.

I recently upgraded my PC to an i9 13900k/rtx4090 and the performance with all my PCVR games/sims is at least 50% better than with my previous i9 9900k/rtx3090 (which was about 50% better than my older gtx1080ti). I ended up selling that pc to a local friend for less than what I paid for the rtx3090. In Australia we call that 'Mates Rates', lol! The main benefit for me going to the rtx4090 was with my flight sims, like msfs. If it were not for me wanting to get better PCVR performance with flight sims, I probably could have just stuck with my rtx3090 for general gaming imho.

I moved my cv1 a while ago to my old retired (now home office pc) Alienware 17r4 laptop with a gtx1060 6Gb gpu and it still works fine. The audio gave up the ghost a while ago and I just mirror to the laptop speakers. It still plays all the old cv1 titles that were included with the touch controller combo 4-5 years ago. Pretty hard to push it much past 1.0-1.2x SS though, lol!

For fun, a couple of weeks ago I asked Meta support if they still had any old warranty stock that I could buy and I was surprised that they said that they would arrange a replacement headset. They sent me prepaid shipping labels and I sent off the headset/earphones back to them. I just got a note earlier this week saying that my replacement was being processed and should be shipped back to me soon. Anyway, pretty unbelievable support for a +4yo headset eh!

When I get it I may be temped to try it out with my new rtx4090 pc but I suspect that the results won't be much better than with the rtx3090 since you can really only super sample so much before getting diminishing returns.

Anyway, I'm always glad to hear that you and others are still enjoying their cv1's. Cheers mate.

i9 13900K water cooled, RTX4090, Z790 MB w/wifi6e, 64Gb 6400 ram, 2x2TB SSD, 1000W PSU, Win 11, QPro, Q3, w/Link and Air Link, Vive Pro1 with 2x2.0 base stations, Etsy lens mod and Index Controllers

RuneSR2Author

Honored Contributor

Funny that we're still seeing games made for Rift CV1 today. This tells the story of the very long time it takes to make high-quality VR content. HMDs may be made in 1-2 years, while games like Alyx and Lone Echo 2 may take about 4 years to make. That means when developers are done with the game, few users may use the hmds the developers intended for the game.

Agony VR is a new VR game using tons of TAA (temporal antialiasing), which looks really bad/blurry with lcd like Index, but looks perfectly with the Rift CV1. Some have complained the game is too dark for lcd - I'm confident this game was made for oled hmds like Vive, Vive Pro and Rift CV1. Sound does not always work with SteamVR, but the game support native Oculus drivers, and works af if you bought the game in the Meta Rift Store. All indicates to me this game was made for the Rift CV1.

Note: this is a game for the mature audience, you're basically in Hell and get to see the sights and horrors:

The game is here: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1654170/Agony_VR/

There's a playable demo to try too. The game feels like early access, but plays fine enough - like a simple adventure game or close to a walking sim. Trailers:

Here's the uncensored announcement trailer:

Spoiler

System requirements:

RECOMMENDED:

Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10
Processor: Intel Core i7-11700K / AMD Ryzen 7 5800X equivalent or greater
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: RTX 2070 or equivalent
DirectX: Version 11
Storage: 13 GB available space
VR Support: Oculus headsets (Oculus SDK), HTC and Valve (SteamVR SDK)

A few screenshots:

Spoiler

The performance is great with the Rift CV1 - I'm mostly getting 90 fps with ss 2.5. Performance is worse using SteamVR and Index. even when using same software res, and the image quality is very blurry. This game is worthless to me without the Rift CV1.

The game was launched in 2D in 2018, and the VR versions began it's development in 2020 - so it took more than 2 years to turn the 2D version into VR.

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD "Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

Show more replies

Get Help

Sign up

Login with SSO

Login to the community

Login with SSO