@CA1-PAINLESS I just finished testing.
Running a test farm here for VR, so most hardware is available to me (nonAMD, and yes, that does mean all headsets as well), I ran a quick iteration of ultra and low settings with all variables for 2 mins per session (not nearly enough to call it a real test, just a quick indication).
There's still a distortion effect (something gaussian) even when forced off, there's still in discrepancy between unique frames presented and frames on offer versus frames/render times/latency reported by the headset.
Your point #2 means nothing or very little, since there's a lot of people who claimed it was fine during initial release as well, no offense meant whatsoever but that isn't indicative of much.
#3, if you read carefully, I was not "complaining", I am merely pointing out that the fix you mention didn't quite contain patch notes. Don't read into it what isn't there.
In conclusion, not complaining about anything. Merely pointing out that on 2 of my machines of my test farm (mid and highest end, both running an Index cus I am lazy and that was wat what connected) no matter if I'm generous with settings or not some problems remain both
@90 and 120fps.
I'll be the first one to admit that it's a small test, and not really something I'd present to a customer, but usually this is more then enough to see if something's still afoot. Which it is.
Coincidentally, this is something industry standard; something their QC undoubtedly has access to as well. Perhaps not as VR centric as mine, but that's why it's currently a good /service to sell.
It's better then it was, but there's quite a few points remaining (hint to the devs if they read here, stereoscopic global timer seems off by a ms or two and that variance is variable, hence some of the perceived blur).
I'll wait till it's a proper experience again.
This could have been tested beforehand. Easily.
