im getting an oculus quest 2 to use basically only for vrchat. i heard it’s kind of really bad LMAO i don’t know too much about the limitations or if i’ll even be able to link it because i don’t even know if my pc is linkable, but like, should i get it?? maybe i should save up for a better one?? will i even be able to use my pc avatars?? it’s pretty stressful but it’s the only thing we can afford ahhh… whaddya thoughts??
Hi Milkii, Quest (2) can be used in two modes - standalone or linked to PC. When standalone, it uses its internal hardware (processor, graphics…) for all apps, including VRChat. When in link mode (connected to a PC) it uses your PCs hardware, which typically means better performance since PC usually has better processor and GPU. From the perspective of VRChat, it will register you as a ‘Quest User’ when you are in standalone mode and in that case you will be limited to Quest worlds and avatars. But when linked to a PC you will have access to everything, just like you do when running VRChat from your computer.
My experience with Quest (ver. 1) linked to a PC is really good and I expect Quest 2 should be likewise if not even better. Quest 2 is by far the most versatile and best buy VR headset you can get today IMO.
To add onto that, the Quest 2 will have better performance, meaning a lower chance of crashing.
Just made an account to bump this and express my support for better Quest 2 support on VRC. I tried playing on my Quest 2 just now and it appears to be running the Quest 1 version of VRC, which requires specially published models and worlds to be compatible.
Rather than treat the Quest 2 like a super limited console that requires specially published assets, maybe just limit the number of polygons it’s willing to render? I don’t know. This is the closest we’ve been to a desktop-like experience on a standalone device, and I want to see the Quest 2 used to its fullest on VRC because VRC can absolutely use it all.
Who else agrees with me?
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, because if they kept the current limits for Quest then the Quest 2 could run much better with those limits (as it already does). Or they could increase the limits but have similar performance to what Quest 1 is now.
Plus I don’t think a lot of Quest 1 users may be happy about people on Quest 2 being able to see more intensive avatars (and in turn more of them) then they can on their Quest 1. This could divide the Quest community in VRChat a bit.
This would also set different performance targets for each Quest, overall it seems too complicated and not ideal to do such a thing. Makes more sense to keep the Quest 1 and Quest 2 similar to what they can see, but ofc due to the Quest 2 having better specs it will very likely run better.
One last thing, you seem to be confused about why it is that the Quest 2 appears to be running the Quest 1 version of the game which requires models to be explicitly published to the Quest platform.
This is because they’re both running on Android, not Windows. The Android and Windows platform are completely different. Android can’t decompile a package uploaded to Windows, nor can Windows decompile a package uploaded to Android.
The Quest 2’s software is basically just the Quest 1 with some major augmentations behind the scenes. The hardware is much different and is where a lot of the obvious improvements are. It doesn’t have the capability to load PC bundles, shaders, etc-- it isn’t our limitation that Quest can’t load PC assets, its a Unity architectural limit. If you want to have something work on Android (aka Quest) and PC, you have to build two different programs. The same goes for bundles of assets (the things you upload to VRChat)-- they’re packaged specifically for that platform.
tl;dr: Stuff has to be built for Quest and for PC separately because they run different kinds of code, read files differently, and display graphics differently.
One other thing to consider is that all Quest headsets will soon require linking to your FaceBook account.
The Quest 2 has pretty amazing hardware for the price point, almost suspiciously so. I suspect that the cheaper price may be coming from FaceBook’s ability to monitor your usage and collect tracking data about you, what games you play, how you use the hardware, etc.
Not sure if you care about that, but it’s another thing to consider before going Quest.
I doubt tracking is driving the cost cutting. What I think we see here is mostly just optimizing the design to make it yes cheaper, but also lighter. What I think they are trying to do is dominate the market because they see the writing the wall - that’s my guess for the major driving force. The Zuck and friends drank the VR coolaid and it was good… I put them in the same position Apple was in in 2008 with Smart Phones. Up until the quest VR has been kind of like FlipPhones. Sure it’s a snappy Razer and looks cool… but alone comes that slick iphone touch screen. They ran that race and within a year everybody was aiming to put out touchscreens for cheaper. Quest is VR what the Iphone was to Cel phones IMO. Now we have things on the horizon like the Deca which is taking it farther for the same price point (We hope…please don’t be a bullshit hoax!!). And sure they love that delicious data, but not much more they can gather I think for most people. I’m sure we’re all very well profiled in various databases already. Although I suppose they can gather how you move, which can be used to track you if used by the nefarious THEM! I’ve personally disabled all the tracking on my quest using ABD commands, and created a specific side account on Facebook just for quest etc. just to throw as much sand in their eyes as I can.