The Pimax 8K MEGA Thread - First Reviews Now live - Page 31 — Oculus
New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

The Pimax 8K MEGA Thread - First Reviews Now live

1282931333472

Comments

  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,893 Valuable Player
    It won't matter which 4K panels they go for. Any 4K headset is going to struggle to sell without foveated rendering. Which is why anyone with any sense is expecting Oculus to release a 2K headset next year, and WAS expecting HTC to do the same during the same time frame.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • SyrellarisSyrellaris Posts: 1,035
    3Jane
    Seeing as the Human eye has around 210 horizontal and 150 vertical FoV, nearing that would be very impressive. 

    When it comes to comfort, I think that outweighs the graphical aspect. You can have all the best possible screens, graphics etc but if it isn't comfy to wear.. people will not wear it. 
  • hoppingbunny123hoppingbunny123 Posts: 488
    Nexus 6
    No small face for the go rift 2 or santa cruz facial interface please. The rift face size is grossly small imho.
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,662 Valuable Player





    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,662 Valuable Player
    edited January 2018
    Despite some negative press including an article from one publication that wasn't even a hands-on getting tossed into the mix, some impressions from the CES show floor. Although always be wary of these hand picked impressions alongside the validity and experience of those commenting.




    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • zbosonzboson Posts: 994 Poster of the Week
    edited January 2018
    I'm still trying to understand what hardware design is optimal.

    As far as I can tell the focus of the eye drops rapidly within a small window in degrees.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

    Another problem is that displays are usually flat. This means that at angles further from zero that the arc intersected per degree increases. In other words the pixels per angle increases further from zero. This is the exact opposite of what would be optimal due to the rapid drop in focus away from zero. That's probably why some want to have curved screens so that the pixels per degree is constant. I think I read something about Microsoft putting LEDS at higher angles which produced horrible resolution but they eye could not tell the difference. So I think having a flat 8k screen to large angles is just a huge waste. It's the brute force solution. I wonder what could be achieved with piecewise displays  which drop in steps from the regions that the eye could focus.
  • hoppingbunny123hoppingbunny123 Posts: 488
    Nexus 6
    look at the side of your face towards your nose there's a ratio, the comfortable eye position as the eye points to the nose and the extreme turn of the eye that's slightly painful to look towards your nose, thats on a curve between the two values, find that curve radius value and map it across the entire eye to find the curve the eye uses when it looks at the nose to see. The small value is seeing number, this curve is probably the maximum allowable curve the eye sees comfortably in.
  • nosys70nosys70 Posts: 466
    Art3mis
    edited January 2018

    probably oculus will jump on it, easy way to fill the gap with pimax, and after all they are already hand to hand with samsung...(something like your hardware/our software)

    Pimax being chinese and samsung korean, i do not see a match here.

    Chinese would likely wait to get the product locally for cheaper.

  • TenaciousJTenaciousJ Posts: 58
    Hiro Protagonist
    kojack said:
    The rift has a native resolution of 2160x1200 (or 1080x1200x2, both have the same pixel count).

    Pixel density isn't a direct multiple of this. 1.0 doesn't mean 2160x1200 and 2.0 doesn't mean 4320x2400.
    Pixel density is the desired ratio of texels to pixels in the centre of each eye after the post processing distortion phase. Due to the barrel distortion done in the distortion phase, you need to have a higher resolution (centre pixels are bulged larger than outer pixels).

    To achieve 1:1 ratio of rendered texels to panel pixels (this is pixel density 1.0), you need to render at 1.23 times the native res. (DK2 lenses needed 1.5 times, DK1 was around 1.7 I think)
    So setting the density to 1.0 means your game is really rendering at 2664x1586 (the panel is of course still 2160x1200).
    Pixel density 2.0 means two full texels (per axis) per panel pixel in the centre of your eye, which means the game is rendering at 5328x3172.  Get out your calculator and you'll see that 5328x3172 is 16,900,416.

    So when it comes to performance, the Pimax 8K X sounds like it will require extreme hardware. But anybody who can run a rift game at density 2.0 is already doing a bigger GPU hit.

    Potential vertex pipeline hit due to wide fov, however, is a discussion for another time (I'm at work).

    Not only that, but given that sli vr rendering is still in its infancy, even with a huge advance in hardware there aren't any GPUs out there now that can do 8k VR resolution on one gpu.  This may have been discussed in another post, but since I don't have time to read 31 pages I'll just assume it hasn't. lol.  When you render VR, it's not just simple pixel multiplication that has to be taken into account.  You also have to account for off-camera rendering that the gpu does in order to prepare itself for when you move your field of view, and it has to do all these calculations twice since the viewpoints aren't identical, but have different depth, slightly different perspective, etc. that must be rendered independently to make the result stereoscopic - not to mention it has to keep a 90hz refresh rate to keep us all from barfing.  So it's not just the simple 16.9M pixels that it has to render, its more like trying to run two different games at 4k simultaneously on different screens in order to  give you 8k resolution, and doing both at 90fps.  A little compute time is saved on overhead obviously by running the same exe code, but I think this is a good way of visualizing the power required to generate that pixel depth in vr.  There may be some rendering power efficiency to be gained by using foveated rendering once eye-tracking is added to HMDs, and that could take the load off the GPU allowing higher res areas at your focal point while dithering areas that are out of focus more akin to how your eyes actually work.  To get 8K VR seems like a REALLY tall order without some serious R&D backing to make it happen - and to do all that for only 250 units seems a little insane to me honestly lol.  

    At any rate, I'm mad curious to see how their project turns out and what new tech they come up with to make 8k a reality - even if it doesn't quite hit the mark, it's likely to open up a whole new range of VR tech.
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,568 Valuable Player
    edited January 2018
    My concern with the Pimax, and maybe someone here who is more familiar on the Dev side knows, is how many games really allow a FoV past 110? Most games cap between 90-110 and don't allow wider for competitive reasons. Seems to me like stretching a 110 fov to 180+ would look bad. Is there a solution for that? 
  • zbosonzboson Posts: 994 Poster of the Week
    I found the article about Microsoft using LEDs at large FOV. They also found that it reduced motion sickness. That's very interesting because one method to reduce motion sickness is to reduce the FOV so a technique that reduces motion sickness by using a higher FOV is highly desired.

    https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/05/how-side-mounted-leds-can-help-fix-vrs-tunnel-vision-and-nausea-problems/



    Something like this seems to me to be a much better solution. Upgrade the resolution in the region they eyes can focus. I am not sure exactly that that is but I think probably the Rift and Vive got that covered. Somewhere around 100 degrees. But then add low resolution displays at larger degrees (apparently even some LEDs may be sufficient). This would probably save costs and require less rendering performance/power.

    BTW, I never thought I would say this but my impression of Microsoft has improved a lot at least relative to other big tech companies.
  • IriodusIriodus Posts: 12
    NerveGear
    I've been following all of the Pimax "8K" threads that have popped up on the forums pretty much since they started opening up, and my 2 cents on the matter:

    I'm going to hold my overall judgement of the Pimax 8K until after the final product is in the hands of reviewer, and ideally I'd hold my "final" judgement until after I have had a chance to try it myself. I maybe know of one person that may jump for this headset once all the backers get their headsets, but that's not a for certain thing.

    Ultimately, I'd be more excited for a headset that has better FOV and resolution, but to the extent that the increased resolution, FOV, etc., is offset by any High Tech Sorcery (hardware or software) that has been done to improve performance (Foveated Rendering). The ideal upgrade for the Rift, for me, would be said High Tech Sorcery offsetting the improved specifications to the point where you can use the same specifications as the current Rift (More or less). I think that this is a better target to shoot for than making an enthusiast headset that only a Niche Of People³ would buy.

  • Phil007Phil007 Posts: 56
    Hiro Protagonist
    Im really interested to see how these new headsets turn out. I'm sure Oculus won't leave it too long until they announce a successor. 

    Again, about the 8k x resolution... I read that rendering at 2x pixel density is roughly the same as the Pimax. However, i feel that even a 1080ti cannot reach this at 90 for most current more graphically intense games. Actually quite far off. Also we need to consider, that future games over the next couple of years will be even more gpu intensive. Negating somewhat, the boost new gpus will give. A gpu in 1yr that is 40% quicker isnt going to run the games released in 1yr at 40% fps boost.
  • IriodusIriodus Posts: 12
    NerveGear
    Phil007 said:
    Im really interested to see how these new headsets turn out. I'm sure Oculus won't leave it too long until they announce a successor. 

    Again, about the 8k x resolution... I read that rendering at 2x pixel density is roughly the same as the Pimax. However, i feel that even a 1080ti cannot reach this at 90 for most current more graphically intense games. Actually quite far off. Also we need to consider, that future games over the next couple of years will be even more gpu intensive. Negating somewhat, the boost new gpus will give. A gpu in 1yr that is 40% quicker isnt going to run the games released in 1yr at 40% fps boost.
    Yeah, I'd rather any game I play (VR or otherwise), play at a stable FPS, and having my FPS be as high and stable as possible (in general) is more important to me than high resolutions. It is for this reason that I have no intention of moving away from 1080p at anytime in the forseeable future, my 1080p144hz display is sufficient for my purposes, and would only replace it if I fail. Were it to fail, I would see if there are any 1080p high refresh rate gaming monitors still in production and get that, but if not I would do the same for 1440p and so on.
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 3,896 Valuable Player
    edited January 2018
    Iriodus said:

    Ultimately, I'd be more excited for a headset that has better FOV and resolution, but to the extent that the increased resolution, FOV, etc., is offset by any High Tech Sorcery (hardware or software) that has been done to improve performance (Foveated Rendering). The ideal upgrade for the Rift, for me, would be said High Tech Sorcery offsetting the improved specifications to the point where you can use the same specifications as the current Rift (More or less). I think that this is a better target to shoot for than making an enthusiast headset that only a Niche Of People³ would buy.

    Personally I think you are looking too short term..... the Rift CV2 wont be out for another 12 months..... by this time what is now high end level of performance WILL be cheaper...... whilst i do not expect min cpu to change much i do not think it is reasonable to expect CV2 to aim for a GTX970 level of hmd.  (possibly GTX1070 though?)

    2ndly CV2 is going to be out for at least 2 years, maybe 3 before being replaced... again, even if it is  considered high end at launch, over the life of the CV2 it will fall into the main stream.

    finally....... even if the resolution of the panel is higher, i am not expecting people to be forced to output to the native res. IF you have a CV2 but your PC is a little weak, then i would imagine you will be able to output to your HMD at CV1 resolution.

    The thought of foveated rendering is nice, don’t get me wrong but at this early stage I do not want oculus to hold back too much just to allow people with a (relative) potato be able to game on it.... oculus are servicing that market with go, and Santa Cruz. There is a happy medium of course, i dont expect oculus to demand we all buy the newest titan.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,893 Valuable Player
    Iriodus said:

    Ultimately, I'd be more excited for a headset that has better FOV and resolution, but to the extent that the increased resolution, FOV, etc., is offset by any High Tech Sorcery (hardware or software) that has been done to improve performance (Foveated Rendering). The ideal upgrade for the Rift, for me, would be said High Tech Sorcery offsetting the improved specifications to the point where you can use the same specifications as the current Rift (More or less). I think that this is a better target to shoot for than making an enthusiast headset that only a Niche Of People³ would buy.

    Personally I think you are looking too short term..... the Rift CV2 wont be out for another 12 months..... by this time what is now high end level of performance WILL be cheaper...... whilst i do not expect min cpu to change much i do not think it is reasonable to expect CV2 to aim for a GTX970 level of hmd.  (possibly GTX1070 though?)

    2ndly CV2 is going to be out for at least 2 years, maybe 3 before being replaced... again, even if it is  considered high end at launch, over the life of the CV2 it will fall into the main stream.

    finally....... even if the resolution of the panel is higher, i am not expecting people to be forced to output to the native res. IF you have a CV2 but your PC is a little weak, then i would imagine you will be able to output to your HMD at CV1 resolution.

    The thought of foveated rendering is nice, don’t get me wrong but at this early stage I do not want oculus to hold back too much just to allow people with a (relative) potato be able to game on it.... oculus are servicing that market with go, and Santa Cruz. There is a happy medium of course, i dont expect oculus to demand we all buy the newest titan.

    If Oculus manage to get foveated rendering sorted out the current Recommended Spec VR Ready PC should be enough to run the CV2 as the new Minimum Spec VR Ready PC I reckon.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • kojackkojack Posts: 5,349 Volunteer Moderator
    pyroth309 said:
    My concern with the Pimax, and maybe someone here who is more familiar on the Dev side knows, is how many games really allow a FoV past 110? Most games cap between 90-110 and don't allow wider for competitive reasons. Seems to me like stretching a 110 fov to 180+ would look bad. Is there a solution for that? 
    Yep, this can be a concern.
    First, stretching is REALLY bad. If you stretch 110 to 180 then nothing is where it should be. Something that is 55 degrees off from the centre in front of you would look like it's really beside you.

    Now for games... there's a standard way that 3d engines and gpus render. Probably 99% of all games these days are doing this. With this method, the wider the fov, the lower the image quality on the sides. 180 degrees is impossible. Larger than 180 will render everything wrong. Usually 150 degrees is around the max you can get away with, but even that is really pushing it (the centre loses detail and the sides are stretched)
    There's two ways to fight this:
    - split the fov into multiple cameras
    - use a different rendering technique that doesn't use rectangular projection, like ray tracing.
    Ray tracing would be amazing, but it's way slower than normal rendering. It would be the best solution for VR in general though, since you can get it to render based on the true geometry of the lenses and pixel distribution over them.

    So the only real solution is multiple cameras. This is what StarVR do with their 200 degree headset. They split each eye into two cameras. That means they need to render the scene 4 times, which is a pretty big hit.

    On the Pimax, each eye covers around 140 degrees or something (can't remember). So it's pretty close to the point where the sides look garbage due to stretching. Now that sounds fine, but it's both sides of each eye. The peripheral vision is bad, but the area of stereo overlap in the centre of your vision is the overlap of the sides of each eye too! To keep the quality up, developers should split the 140 (or whatever it is) into maybe two 70 degree fovs per eye, or 90/50, etc. This is something that has to be done explicitly by the developer, there'[s no way for steamvr to do that transparently.

    Here's a good comparison of typical rectangular projection and non typical (software fisheye in this case) at high fovs:
    http://strlen.com/gfxengine/fisheyequake/compare.html

    StarVR have been public about the issues, I haven't seen Pimax mention it yet.


    Long story short, if a vr api like openvr tells a game to use a high fov, it will probably work, but the result won't be as high quality as if the game itself was designed for high fov.

  • IriodusIriodus Posts: 12
    NerveGear
    @bigmike20vt - Well, I don't believe we'll see the Rift for about that long as well, and I'm ok with the recommended specs going higher, I care more for overall accessibility or adoption rates for people considering PCVR, and that's why I answered as such. I'm perfectly alright with, let's say, a GTX 1070/Vega 56 becoming the recommended GPU, and maybe the current recommended specification would become the minimum specification?

    I don't believe that foveated rendering will be the magic bullet that people on the forums seem to thing it will be, I do think that Oculus and Valve will come up with additional methods to reduce VR overhead, as well Microsoft, Khronos Group, etc, so I mean more of an overall improvement in hardware/software will allow for this. Granted, I'd want the Rift 2.0 to be 2k and 150 FOV, as I think that's a nice compromise regardless of the above.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,893 Valuable Player
    I think 150° is too much of a leap to hope for imo, 120-130° is more likely I think.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • IriodusIriodus Posts: 12
    NerveGear
    @snowdog
    Well, I think 150° is much more realistic than, let's say, anything over the 2k VR equivalent for the CV2, but if memory serves increased FOV (in general) has much less of a performance hit than a resolution increase. If you just mean that the actual lenses themselves likely won't go over 130° for the horizontal FOV then I agree.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,366 Valuable Player
    edited January 2018
    Iriodus said:
    @snowdog
    Well, I think 150° is much more realistic than, let's say, anything over the 2k VR equivalent for the CV2, but if memory serves increased FOV (in general) has much less of a performance hit than a resolution increase. If you just mean that the actual lenses themselves likely won't go over 130° for the horizontal FOV then I agree.
    Increase FOV has double effects. One, it requires that heavy object environment has to draw more objects and to keep them there instead of culling the ones that are not important to the main focus. This means more work for the GPU over all and this can lead to the programmer/designer not to draw as detail of an environment over all to keep performance down (up?).

    Two it puts more work on the CPU by forcing more animations onto the screen resulting in more work that the CPU has to do because not as many objects again are not being cull in the process.

    In this case, then resolution has less effect than a increase in resolution would have. Drawing pixels is always cheaper than drawing objects and or animations. Example: a 2D game can easily run at 4k at 60Hz while a 3D game might only get 30 FPS. Obs. the 3D game has more going on than a 2D game - but both are the same resolution. That is my point - the work has more of an impact than drawing pixels alone does and by increasing the FOV you are increasing the amount of work needing to be done as well.

    Pimax will have problems not because of the resolution that everyone keeps pointing at - but because of the amount of work that is going on in the headset that the GPU has to now keep up with now. 210 FOV is just silly not because no one else is doing it, but because it's a increase of GPU resources that isn't needed yet. A Modest increase in FOV goes a long way in both directions (good and bad) that they could have thrown the extra pixels to just making the resolution that much better instead.
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 3,896 Valuable Player
    edited January 2018
    I agree..... dont get me wrong, CV2 needs to increase the FOV, indeed the FOV has steadily declined from DK1 - DK2 - CV1....  but 200 degrees imo is just too much, it means the HMD needs to be massive, and the resolution needs to be increased otherwise the "perceived" resolution decreases, and you need a monster PC to run properly (even reports from those who are impressed with the 8k note performance issues, and this is on pokier machines than their min spec)... and this is why i think some are commentating that the visual quality in the "8k" is not quite as good as they expected for thinks like virtual desktop.

    The vive already has the edge on the rift in terms of FOV, but it would have been nice to have seen a minor bump for the vive pro.. but i guess that would have meant more retooling needed than HTC were prepared to do for what is in effect a mid cycle refresh.

    for the CV2, i think there is definitely room for a happy medium compared to the 8k.  Sure, you can bet your left nut some people will look at the (hypothetical) specs and say   "only" 140 FOV and "only" 4k spread across both eyes... but then these would be the same people who when they buy a new camera only look at the megapixel number or buy a TV and only look at the resolution to decide if it is any good or not.

    I hope the pimax 8k is good I really do, however looking at it, and the tiny number of sensors on it compared to the vive, and the reports i have read from some on the tracking, not to mention the fact that unless it undergoes a major facelift for the consumer version it looks more like a dev kit than even the vive (fair enough it IS a dev kit for now)................

    Lets just say i have my concerns for the pimax**** and have more faith in oculus (and htc it would appear) to bring a more rounded headset out.

    **** I was shot down in a number of places when i said there was no chance pimax were launching their HMD when they said they would at KSer. I wanted to be wrong, but i wasnt... just like i want to be wrong about the 8k when it does eventually come out....  I think the 8k will be ok, but i do not think it will be the market leader that some are convinced it will be.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • Atmos73Atmos73 Posts: 3,128 Valuable Player
    edited January 2018

    DK2 owner - Vive owner - Pimax 8k backer - Waiting for Knuckles on Valve time.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,546 Valuable Player
    .....
    **** I was shot down in a number of places when i said there was no chance pimax were launching their HMD when they said they would at KSer. I wanted to be wrong, but i wasnt... just like i want to be wrong about the 8k when it does eventually come out....  I think the 8k will be ok, but i do not think it will be the market leader that some are convinced it will be.

    I understand your scepticism - I was very wary of the system and developers when first investigating - having seen their original Pimax VR platform. I have to say I am heartened by what I have seen lately - they are committed, and moving forward. I still think they could be swallowed up down the road if their momentum continues to grow.

    We are very interested in the lesser known Pimax 8K X system that is aimed squarely at commercial interests, and offers a great system. Seen the latest DK2's of this and they have come a long way. It is little known that the first systems off the production line are aimed at being deployed in Out-of-Home entertainment projects, and will act as a great promotional tool for what the platform can achieve regarding level of immersion.

    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • nosys70nosys70 Posts: 466
    Art3mis
    edited January 2018
    Pimax could as well implement its own foveated display, under the form of a 140deg FOV window sliding on the 200deg space in sync with your eyes direction (eye tracking was part of KS)
    This would be darn easy, ensure game compatibility , allow higher refresh rate and emulate the microsoft device with LED with even very basic eye tracking.

  • Atmos73Atmos73 Posts: 3,128 Valuable Player
    Pimax 8K Progress Update
    Posted by Pimax 8K VR (Creator)

    Hi Futurists,

    Following a very busy start to 2018 at CES, we've been taking on board all the feedback from both press, and you, the Pimax community.

    As a result, we thought it best to update you on where we are in the build and iteration process, and to give you a bigger picture of the timeline and progress thus far, and what it means for you.

    First off, we figured a timeline would help provide you with some context:

    PIMAX 8K TIMELINE: V1 - V5 HARDWARE ITERATIONS

    Jan 2017: Prototype V1 - The 1st prototype was built - more of a display unit, and to give our audience an idea of what the HMD would look like

    Aug 2017: Prototype V2 - Our first Roadshow prototype was developed, giving users the first chance to try Pimax 8K for themselves - from this we set goals for V3:

    • Enable IPD 
    • Change HDMI to DP 
    • Improve build quality

    Sept 2017: Kickstarter went live!

    Oct 2017: Prototype V3

    What we improved for V3:

    • Hardware IPD enabled 
    • Changed HDMI to DP1.4 
    • Changed USB to Adapter 
    • Build quality - Improved sealing for dustproof; Improved tablet compressing to prevent screen damage

    Goals for V4:

    • Enable software IPD 
    • Extendable interfaces 
    • Quality - Damage resistance; Dustproof 
    • Comfort - Reduce weight; Improve ergonomics

    Dec 2017: Prototype V4

    What we improved for V4:

    • IPD - Optimized the IPD adjustment design and mold; Changed the cloth around the lenses for better elasticity and dustproof 
    • The extendable interfaces enabled 
    • Quality - Reliability / Crash Test; Dustproof 
    • Comfort - Better heat dissipation and strength with light-weighted alloy; Optimized structure material to reduce weight
    • Optimized ergonomics e.g. Increase distance of exit pupil to prevent eyelash from touching the lenses

    Goals for V5:

    • Improve brightness 
    • Optimize visual quality with new lenses 
    • Prepare for mass production

    Jan 2018: Prototype V5 - The CES build!

    What we improved for V5:

    • Added LEDs to improve brightness 
    • Lenses changed 
    • Mass production - Production testing software and tools read; New material to cover sensor; Mockup lens - lens tooling v1.0; Headset tooling

    Goals for M1:

    • Fine-tuning 
    • Debugging 
    • Change the medium number of IPD 
    • Optimize ergonomics

    It's also worth noting, that for each iteration, the circuit boards were tested and optimized too!

    So this brings you up to date with where we've been over the last year, and you can see, at each stage we've been painstakingly tweaking features and making improvements, to ensure that the end result of what we deliver to you is what you'd expect.

    So, what's next? Well, after spring festival (when our suppliers usually take vacations for half a month), we will have the M1 version done - this is our close-to-mass production unit, so we're getting very close to delivery!

    Starting from mid-March, we plan to showcase M1 in roadshows and bring the new build to you, our backers, to put your hands on the first mass production version. While this is happening, we also have a small, closed group from the community testing M1. From there, we've been working hard with our manufacturing and development teams to give you a realistic timeline for the completion of the final version, so we can give you a date for shipment of the finished product.

    Currently, taking into account the fixes for the final version, we are now looking at a delivery window of Q2. So we're certainly getting there! We will continue to offer you more frequent updates as we pass those milestones and tweak towards our final version. We are so grateful for the feedback you've given us, and for the patience, you've shown in allowing us the time to really hone Pimax 8K to be the best it can be.

    We do understand that our initial estimate for delivery was perhaps generous, and for this we sincerely apologize. It's been very encouraging to hear from press and community that have tested the latest version, and that they feel we're almost there, but we of course know we've got a lot of work to put in over the coming weeks. We don't want to let you down on final build quality, so we're back at the grindstone, and as M1 becomes available, we'll have an even clearer idea of our trajectory, which we will of course share with you ASAP.

    Thanks again, and look forward to updating you very soon!

    Best Regards, 

    The Pimax Team

    DK2 owner - Vive owner - Pimax 8k backer - Waiting for Knuckles on Valve time.
  • MorgrumMorgrum Posts: 1,596 Valuable Player
    Im still thinking June-July timeframe.
    Good Luck!
    WAAAGH!
  • kojackkojack Posts: 5,349 Volunteer Moderator
    On a related note, Sixense sent out an update today, Stem has been delayed again.
    :)
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,546 Valuable Player
    kojack said:
    On a related note, Sixense sent out an update today, Stem has been delayed again.


    I though a group of backers had requested that they close the KS and requested refunds and a inquiry by the site organisers? That this is still a thing just stinks.
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,893 Valuable Player
    kojack said:
    On a related note, Sixense sent out an update today, Stem has been delayed again.
    :)

    An update sent from the Cayman Islands lol :D
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
Sign In or Register to comment.