>>396026928
>But you have to admit that your posts were kinda useless. Old man yells at clouds style.
If you want to generalize it down to that, whatever. Can't really throw stones when you call me a retard and accuse me of not knowing the basic VR things like using a program I've been using for years or even knowing how to isolate these devices to a 5ghz network. The entire argument behind the USBC thing is that there are fundamental limits to pushing all the headset data down a cable that wasn't designed for video transmission foremost. Yes, I realise that video encoding on the Quest-side and GPU side helps with this. Anybody who has pushed the quest 2 with high end cards will tell you, you can get most of the way to maxed out 120hz with a 3090, but you're going to run into issues depending on the game. In the case of the link, you are going to hit hitches and bottlenecks in performance and tracking at 120hz if you start super sampling so you can actually fucking see things in the distance. The bandwidth overhead for video encoding if you're maxing out the oculus slider puts even more of a strain on system resources more than running a native headset over a proper standard like display port. Hardware encoding is worse on AMD cards, and it's an undeniable fact that Airlink just straight up does not work for a lot of people regardless of how well their setup is. It's almost like pc setups and vr methods are highly variable and reproducing results isn't entirely simple?

There's undeniable overhead there. These things weren't meant to pushed this hard over usbc and there are fundamental limits to the video encoding on the headset. It seems more performant to keep both Oculus and SteamVR sliders at base and let the game do SS itself or FSR/DLSS. You get nearly identical visual results with objectively better frametimes and lower VRAM usage. Problem is, not every game has a built in internal rendering slider, and most don't go as high as you need them to.