Hacker News Reader

Comment by dharmab | Hacker News Reader

1. Is only the case _when using Quest Link_. Virtual Desktop > Quest Link USB > Quest Link wireless.

2. I never figured it out, since Virtual Desktop fixed a bunch of my other issues too.

Is VD actually better than USB link? If that's the case, I might look into buying it. I thought that the post reaffirmed this, but I may be wrong.

I was under the impression that the inconvenience of using a USB cable is compensated by the higher throughput/lower latency of using a direct cable connection vs. a theoretically more limited wireless connection. Does VD simply have a better compression algorithm than Link, or can it actually push through more data?

It offers better compression algorithms, and importantly exposes settings for you to fine tune for your network and GPU. If you have good enough network equipment you may be able to push more data over wireless than wired (most motherboards are bottlenecked by the USB controller bandwidth).

If you have a Wifi-6E access point, VD is better for sure.

With ALVR you can make a tunnel over usb with ADB.

The issue is not software. It's that on consumer motherboards you can push more data in practice over Wifi than USB.

I'm just pointing out different options that exist. Virtual Desktop is WiFi only but ALVR can do either.

If you're not capped by bandwidth because you can hardware encode into H265 or AV1, it shouldn't make a difference (besides the bugs and software quirks in both programs)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com