cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

The "Why I Still Love My Oculus Rift CV1 in 2024" Thread

RuneSR2
Grand Champion

6mitq22myy1i.jpg

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."

 

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 ;))

 mwoqickliahz.jpg
https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/91998/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-which-one-has-the-b...

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."



5. Using temporal antialiasing (TAA) 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 Ark Park, Robinson the Journey, Asgard's Wrath and Stormland, enabling TAA using a lcd hmd easily creates a very blurry image quality. Like having your eyes dropped with liquid butter - or something. Using TAA 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 does not cost a lot of gpu performance. Having to replace TAA 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)
nuqd4iaq8jk8.jpg

Image quality with no scanlines (like modern high-res lcd hmds)
0wpwosiikqm1.jpg
 

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...


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! 🙂

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"

104 REPLIES 104

Ya, if my Q2 ever breaks down I'll resurrect my good old cv1 and enjoy 2-2.5x SS again with my rtx3090.  The audio is broken but I do have a pair of headphones with long leads I can use.  Right now my cv1 is connected to my retired Alienware 17r4 gaming laptop (now my home office pc).  With its gtx1060 6Gb gpu and 32Gb ram it still runs most Rift store games pretty well but SS is pretty well limited to about 1.1-1.3x SS.  Still a nice blast from the past to use once in a while.

 

Aside, hopefully you are happy that the FB requirement is being lifted prior to your cv1 losing support.  Cheers mate.   

i9 13900K water cooled, RTX4090, Z790 MB w/wifi6e, 32Gb 6400 ram, 2x2TB SSD, 1000W PSU, Win 11, QPro, Q3, w/Link and Air Link, Vive Pro1 with Etsy lens mod and Index Controllers

RuneSR2
Grand Champion

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_...

 

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"

RuneSR2
Grand Champion

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...

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
MVP
MVP

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. 

"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.

G'day and Happy 2023!

I agree that the Q2 is overall better, and way more versatile than our good old cv1's (still have mine as well).  It only pips out the Q2 is you have a rtx3080/3090 and can add 2xSS or better.  This helps mask the SDE a lot and produces much nicer oled blacks.  Actually the Q2 does a pretty good job with blacks anyway.  I don't see grey blotches like some Reddit kiddies report. 

I will say that my wired OG Vive Pro (with Etsy Gear VR lens mod, 2x 2.0 base stations, and Index controllers beats the cv1 in every area and, being DP connected. it performs better than my Q2 with complex flight sims like msfs.  Still a bit mor SDE than I'd like, but not too bad.

I now have a Quest Pro and it even works better than my Q2.  I'm not sure it was worth $1,500 (aud$2,450 for me) but I'm very glad I could afford to buy it.  Now my Q2 is starting to collect a bit of dust, lol!

I'm now running a dual VR headset setup with my VP1 mainly used with flight/racing sims and my QP mainly wireless PCVR with Air Link for everything else.  Thanks to the Vive Link Box on/off button and OTT audio/runtime switching options it's very easy to go back and forth between the two headsets.

I'm having a new PC built right now and I should have it within a couple of weeks.  It has an i9 13900k/rtx4090.32Gb 5200 Ram.  I'm looking forward to seeing how much this improves everything.  For what it cost me (aud$7,000) it better improve things a lot, lol!

It will also be interesting to see new headsets coming out in 2023/2024 and see how they perform.  Cheers.

i9 13900K water cooled, RTX4090, Z790 MB w/wifi6e, 32Gb 6400 ram, 2x2TB SSD, 1000W PSU, Win 11, QPro, Q3, w/Link and Air Link, Vive Pro1 with Etsy lens mod and Index Controllers

Sounds like a great setup.  I've often thought of investing in SteamVR since Meta are dragging the Quest 2 life out for too long.  The headset is a fine PCVR device.  But I want a wider FOV and a new GPU to run it.

If Sadly its Bradly's youtube leaks are to believed, the Quest 3 will be a major upgrade.

I hope Meta give us rear mounted batteries, as the Quest 2 is very front heavy when compared to tethered headsets.


@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.


@TomCgcmfc wrote:

I agree that the Q2 is overall better, and way more versatile than our good old cv1's (still have mine as well).  It only pips out the Q2 is you have a rtx3080/3090 and can add 2xSS or better.  This helps mask the SDE a lot and produces much nicer oled blacks.  Actually the Q2 does a pretty good job with blacks anyway.  I don't see grey blotches like some Reddit kiddies report. 


Hiya buddy! I missed ya 😊

 

Same here, this idea that Q2 has grey blotches or whatever is another farce. We have 3 Quest 2 units in our family and the black levels are just as rich and deep as the blacks on my Rift CV1. I remember posting screenshots of the black levels as they appear in my headset, but once someone has made up their mind about a product (without trying it themselves), there isn't much that can be had in the way of evidence lol

Cheers!

RuneSR2
Grand Champion

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

OculusScreenshot1674681808.JPG

The volumetric light and real-time shadows are awesome

 

OculusScreenshot1674681385.JPG

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"