Hacker News Reader

Comment by 999900000999 | Hacker News Reader

This is awesome, I'm waiting for a VR manufacturer to add an HDMI input. Then I could use it as a monitor without jumping through a bunch of hoops.

View on HN

> Then I could use it as a monitor without jumping through a bunch of hoops.

bold of you to assume your hdmi cable won't naturally form some hoops.

You're not going to get HDMI (or at least not directly), but you can now get DisplayPort with many of the XR headsets. They're primarily using the alt-mode of USB-C as the cable is re-used for power as well.

Which headsets support this?

The XREAL glasses are trying to fill the niche of a headset that just mirrors a HDMI input on a big virtual screen.

I don't think anyone is currently making an all-purpose VR headset which can also do HDMI mirroring though.

I understand, but it seems trivial to add HDMI input here.

Technically you can just remote desktop into a computer from your VR headset, but that won't work in every scenario.

It's fairly trivial to add a HDMI/DP input which directly drives the panels in the headset through a mux (e.g. the Pico Neo3 Link could run standalone or from DP input), but that's probably not what you want, because in that case the HDMI source has to perform all of the 3D rendering and lens correction, using software that probably only supports Windows. If you want to be able to plug in any random HDMI source and have that rendered on a virtual screen then the headset needs a SoC with a low-latency HDMI receiver built in, so it can ingest the video and process it onboard before displaying it, and HDMI input isn't very common on these mobile SoCs.

Maybe you could convert the HDMI input into MIPI and feed that into the SoCs camera interface, but I think headsets like the Quest are already pretty much maxing out the SoCs camera capabilities just to read in all the actual cameras used for inside-out tracking. There's no bandwidth left to shove an extra HD video feed in as well.

tl;dr HDMI input that turns the device into a dumb PCVR headset: easy. HDMI input that mirrors arbitrary video: hard.

For Quest 3 specifically, "remote desktop into a computer" actually works surprisingly well if you 1) avoid the stock Meta software and use Steam Link instead, and 2) use wired connection to maximize bandwidth and minimize latency.

The second part needs some explaining. One undocumented feature of Quest 3 is that it supports (some) USB-C Ethernet adapters. There isn't really any UI for it that I know of; things just work so long as DHCP is there. This then gives you a direct wired 1GBps link to the PC, which Steam Link will happily utilize.

I have xreal glasses and a Quest 3. There's so much friction in using Steam Link/Quest Link/Virtual Desktop that it's barely worth using over the xreal airs. You need to use controllers to turn them on, and if you lose tracking or exit your guardian, the display turns off and you have to grab your controllers again to make any adjustments.

I agree; I use Goovis G3 Max myself when I need this kind of thing (which is bulkier and not AR, but has better FOV and higher resolution). But for people who already have a Quest 3, it can still be a useful trick sometimes.

Imo a good WAP connected directly to your computer works just as well as with a high end cable. I have both and didn't notice a quality difference either way.

Even the stock one is pretty good these days.

You don't want it. It's disorienting and uncomfortable.

XREAL as well as some drone FPV goggles support non-/partially-head-tracked HDMI input, albeit with much smaller FOV for comfort reasons.

There are quite a few options for non-head-tracked wearable display type headsets. Those generally get pitched as "portable cinema" though, e.g.:

https://goovis.net/products/g3max

(This particular one uses USB-C for video input, but they also sell an HDMI adapter for it.)

Of course, in practice it's just a display and can be used for any purpose. I do appreciate the fact that you don't have to mess around with all the usual VR setup chores with these - it's really very plug and play.

I would be worried about forking over $1000 to a fly by night company for a product which could easily break.

(xreal is also in this category imo but at least its a bit cheaper)

FWIW despite the weird name that invokes cheap Amazon noname brand vibes, these guys have been around for a few years now. They do have other headsets that are in the same ballpark price-wise as XREAL, too - e.g. GOOVIS Young, which is pretty decent for on-the-go use with a smartphone etc. I've owned that one for three years and used it many times with no issues before splurging on G3 Max.

And yeah, $1K is quite a lot, but the 65 degree FOV and 2560x1440 (per eye) OLED that you get for it really does look amazing - I haven't regretted that purchase in the slightest. It's rather bulky, though, although still nowhere near as heavy as VR headsets. Still, not something I'd want to carry on the go.

I hope we'll get 4K per eye some day with this tech. Whichever brand does it first for reasonable $$$, it'll completely replace my primary display.

Thank you! that detail helps a lot. I wish these companies were better at giving off a professional vibe when they make genuinely good products

I thought about getting some xreal glasses, but I think you have to activate them to use them, which annoys me.

Hmmm... I wonder if FPV goggles (from drones) could do what you want? lots of them have HDMI inputs...

https://oscarliang.com/fpv-goggles/

The original Vive has HDMI input.

LOL. The problem is the shitty software. SteamVR and Oculus apps are worthless and flaky, but when they work, there's zero need for any damn cables.

PS: I have a barely used Meta Quest Pro for sale. ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com