Jump to content

1.0 vs 2.0 base stations? What's the real difference?


Recommended Posts

@SanityGaming -

The primary differences are:

  • Enhanced horizontal FOV (increase from 110 to 150 deg) means that you can mount the station in a wider range of mounting positions.
    • With 1.0 stations, we recommend mounting in opposite corners of the playspace. With 2.0, you're not really limited to specific placing - just whatever provides the coverage you need for your specific playspace.
  • 2.0 basestations do not have optical sync but rather integrate the sync into the laser sweep. This means that the two basestations do not need to be in direct line of site with one another like BS1.0 and it also eliminates the need for a sync cable if you're not using optical sync.
    • The lack of optical sync is the primary reason you can mount BS2.0 in a wider range of positions. Since the two stations
  • You can only run 1 pair of 1.0 stations in a room without conflict but you can run upto 16 2.0 basestations in a room without conflict. This is a hugely important feature for VR professionals. 
    • If you want to use more than 1 pair of 1.0 stations in a close environment, you physically have to separate the bases station pairs using things like curtains, walls, ect... This is because the 1.0 stations emit a bright optical sync flash that travels over 10m.
  • You can use 2.0 stations to array upto 4 stations together to expand out to play-spaces approaching 10x10m.
    • 1.0 stations are only rated for a playspace that about 5m across the diagonal which is about 4x4m usable play-space.
  • There is generational compatibility between stations and devices. In a nutshell, older hardware with older sensors can only use 1.0 tracking whereas newer hardware with newer sensors (Vive Pro, Vive Cosmos Elite) can work with both 1.0 and 2.0 stations.
  • You cannot use 1.0 and 2.0 basestations at the same time - they conflict.
  • Here is a detailed breakdown of how basestations work. This video will make the whole sync system make sense.
  • There's no stated accuracy improvement for 2.0 tracking. It's about the same although if you use more than 2 stations, you're risk of tracking loss from occlusion is lower.

Overall, there isn't tremendous advantage to 2.0 tracking over 1.0 tracking if you're doing simple roomscale in-home. The real advantage comes if you're doing any sort of commercial application (arcades, trade shows, ect...) or if you really want a larger playspace. For the most part, the playspace size gets way more attention from in-home users than I think it warrants because almost no VR content is optimized for playspaces above 4x4m outside of the arcade space. I can't off the top of my head think of any game you can use off the top of my head where they've specifically optimized the game for larger spaces - although some of these games are on the horizon for release.

If you presently have 1.0 tracking and are thinking of upgrading to 2.0 - it's really not a crazy big difference unless you have a specific use case that requires the 2.0's advantages. It may be a disappointing upgrade if you're doing simple room-scale at home.

 

image.thumb.png.63a33e600983e1859bc10b5a14e6a7fa.png

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@VibrantNebulaThat's what I thought thanks, so all these people saying 2.0 is way better than 1.0 are clearly insane, thanks 🙂 As I plan to buy the COSMOS ELITE!
 

And I'd only be using the headset in a standard size bedroom that I use for a gaming room, as I live in a 5 bedroom house (Got to do something with spare empty rooms)
 

That leaves me to, why the heck are "HTC" selling 1.0 controllers instead of 2.0 with the "ELITE", what's the difference? Please.
 

Edited by SanityGaming
Because I can?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SanityGaming Don't get me wrong, there are definitely huge benefits to 2.0 but mostly if you're doing advanced setups. For standard room-scale setups, there isn't a huge difference except that 2.0 will give you more flexibility overall in where to mount the stations since you don't have the optical sync limitations. I believe that 1.0 tracking deals with reflections a little better because the algorithms are more mature and the solves are computationally simpler since you only have two stations but that situation may have changed since the launch of Index proper.

I don't have a great public answer for the recent question except that "it's complex" and that it relates to supply chain constraints. Since Valve is the only authorized manufacturer of 2.0 stations, that part of the supply chain is not directly within HTC's control (unlike 1.0 stations which we're authorized to manufacturer).

Fun fact: I actually bought a house in-Denver based on the fact that it had a room that was perfect for VR. It unfortunately only ended up only directly serving me for about 8 months before I got called up to the major leagues to work for Vive directly but it's super funny that I'm that big of a VR nerd that VR was influencing my living situation that deeply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, VibrantNebula said:

@SanityGaming Don't get me wrong, there are definitely huge benefits to 2.0 but mostly if you're doing advanced setups. For standard room-scale setups, there isn't a huge difference except that 2.0 will give you more flexibility overall in where to mount the stations since you don't have the optical sync limitations. I believe that 1.0 tracking deals with reflections a little better because the algorithms are more mature and the solves are computationally simpler since you only have two stations but that situation may have changed since the launch of Index proper.

I don't have a great public answer for the recent question except that "it's complex" and that it relates to supply chain constraints. Since Valve is the only authorized manufacturer of 2.0 stations, that part of the supply chain is not directly within HTC's control (unlike 1.0 stations which we're authorized to manufacturer).

Fun fact: I actually bought a house in-Denver based on the fact that it had a room that was perfect for VR. It unfortunately only ended up only directly serving me for about 8 months before I got called up to the major leagues to work for Vive directly but it's super funny that I'm that big of a VR nerd that VR was influencing my living situation that deeply.

Well I'll be using "Full-Body Tracking" should I use 1.0 or 2.0 stations?

Also why are HTC giving 1.0 controllers with the "Elite" when we have 2.0?  Isn't 2.0 far superior? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SanityGaming, full body tracking would technically be the most stable on 2.0 tracking with 3 or 4 stations because the additional stations will reduce the chance of tracking loss from occlusion. That said, it will work fine with BS 1.0 - you are just more susceptible to occlusion. Unless you're using a mo-cap with a tool like Ikinema Orion - there's probably not a huge performance gain relative to the cost but it depends on your use-case. We recommend Trakstrap for mounting them.

Note that there are two generations of trackers. The original (grey logo) and Vive Tracker 2018 (blue logo). The older one works only with 1.0 stations whereas the newer one works with both generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VibrantNebula said:

@SanityGaming, full body tracking would technically be the most stable on 2.0 tracking with 3 or 4 stations because the additional stations will reduce the chance of tracking loss from occlusion. That said, it will work fine with BS 1.0 - you are just more susceptible to occlusion. Unless you're using a mo-cap with a tool like Ikinema Orion - there's probably not a huge performance gain relative to the cost but it depends on your use-case. We recommend Trakstrap for mounting them.

Note that there are two generations of trackers. The original (grey logo) and Vive Tracker 2018 (blue logo). The older one works only with 1.0 stations whereas the newer one works with both generations.

Still haven't told me about the "Wands" / "Controllers" ,  about 1.0 vs 2.0 why is elite getting 1.0 and not 2.0...

 

aren't 2.0 way better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SanityGaming I think that the main reason the new Cosmos Elite is coming with 1.0 base stations/controllers is because Vive still holds manufacturing rights for 1.0, but not for 2.0 base stations/controllers.  This probably allows them to have more security of supply.  Also, since the Cosmos Elite is still considered a 'consumer' product there is little difference in performance for most typical PCVR consumers.  Lastly, the 1.0 versions are less expensive so it helps them keep the total price a little lower.  This is all speculation on my part since I am in no way affiliated with HTC/Vive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I bought some Base Station extension cable switches, but they don't fit my 2.0s. I expect they're different than the 1.0s. What are the specs for the Base Station plugs so that I can explore third-party options. The Base Stations cables should really have switches so they don't have to remain on all the time. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason for 2.0 lighthouses, in my opinion, is that 1.0 lighthouses are limited to just using two for sync purposes. That's acceptable for most home users, but it's a major drawback for more professional applications. I believe the latest lighthouses can employ up to four, but I doubt that's a fixed limit; modified software could certainly allow for even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...