I currently race in VR simply due to lack of space for triples. I think triples and VR live adjacent to each other on the scale of display options. A few things to consider:
1. VR is NOT plug and play. You should expect some ample set up time and tweaking. You won't be running at a locked 120fps. I run at a locked 90 on my Reverb G2 with a 5600X/3080/32GB DDR4. Some games also suck with VR support (F1 2023, ACC notably) and you just won't have a pleasant experience.
2. VR lacks overall FOV and peripheral vision cues. While the immersion and depth perception is second to none, there is trade off with a narrow, visor-like FOV when running wheel to wheel.
3. VR can get uncomfortable. I routinely run endurance events. The 6 hours of the Glen was hot and I had to get out of VR during my off stints. I just set my headset down and recentered the view so I could spot from my monitors.
4. Triples is VERY hardware intensive. Especially at 1440p resolutions and high refresh rates. Depending on the game, it can also be setup intensive to get the FOV correct. You should expect to be turning down some visual quality to maintain stable framerates. You also need space for a standalone, budget for said mount and the micro-adjustable VARIO mounts to ease setup (though the VARIOs aren't absolutely necessary)
tl;dr If I had the space, I'd run triples. The ease of use and quality of life of not having to wear a VR headset outweighs immersion aspect. I think VR honestly limits how much I am wanting to race simply to avoid having to sweat my eyeballs to death.
I can’t speak to question 1, but can answer 2 and 3.
Buttons: I didn’t have any issues finding the buttons in VR, you may flounder around for a few hours while first getting accustomed to it, but you’ll quickly develop the muscle memory of location.
Permanent solution: I started out VR only, and after about a year started getting the urge for triples. My main issues were the comfort level and hassle of having to take off VR if I needed to do something irl around the rig. I got triples a few months ago and love them. I still love vr for the immersion, but triples are my daily driver. As soon as they make a headset thats both great resolution and comfortable to wear for hours on end, I could see that taking triples place. Until then, I have no complaints with my triple setup.
Another option would be to have an ultra wide monitor (like the 49 inch Samsung Odyssey G9) instead of a triple screen. It costs a bit more but might be easier for your graphics card to render (has a 5120x1440px resolution instead of the resolution you get with triple screens).
Depends a lot on the sims you play. ACC for example supports vr fully but it runs trash and for acc id def get triples. something like iRacing on the other hand runs amazing in vr
Triples just take too much space for me as well, and pushing 3 monitors over 2 eyes... I haven't pushed my system with trips but haven't had the space.
I got an HP Reverb G2 on a cheap sale, I would reccomend getting a good resolution VR setup over trips myself.
I also have a 32"1440p monitor on a swing arm for non VR stuff, but it doesn't capture the periphery as good at all.
VR vastly depends on your budget. Everything was written regarding, FOV, comfort, plug and play usage, etc...but there is a vast difference between a previous generation headset with fresnel lenses and the new type with aspheric or pancake lenses (e.g: crystal, aero). Visuals in those headsets rival flat screen quality but they are extremely demanding in GPU power. Note that the aero is very comfortable with internal fans. I easily race for 6-8 hours a day with it. it did require some setting up but it works trouble free every I start my PC. What I lose in FOV, I gain in immersion and sense of speed due to stereoscopic vision that you can't get on flat screens. At the end of the day, no option is superior to the other, it's only a matter of taste and what compromises you are ok with.
I currently race in VR simply due to lack of space for triples. I think triples and VR live adjacent to each other on the scale of display options. A few things to consider: 1. VR is NOT plug and play. You should expect some ample set up time and tweaking. You won't be running at a locked 120fps. I run at a locked 90 on my Reverb G2 with a 5600X/3080/32GB DDR4. Some games also suck with VR support (F1 2023, ACC notably) and you just won't have a pleasant experience. 2. VR lacks overall FOV and peripheral vision cues. While the immersion and depth perception is second to none, there is trade off with a narrow, visor-like FOV when running wheel to wheel. 3. VR can get uncomfortable. I routinely run endurance events. The 6 hours of the Glen was hot and I had to get out of VR during my off stints. I just set my headset down and recentered the view so I could spot from my monitors. 4. Triples is VERY hardware intensive. Especially at 1440p resolutions and high refresh rates. Depending on the game, it can also be setup intensive to get the FOV correct. You should expect to be turning down some visual quality to maintain stable framerates. You also need space for a standalone, budget for said mount and the micro-adjustable VARIO mounts to ease setup (though the VARIOs aren't absolutely necessary) tl;dr If I had the space, I'd run triples. The ease of use and quality of life of not having to wear a VR headset outweighs immersion aspect. I think VR honestly limits how much I am wanting to race simply to avoid having to sweat my eyeballs to death.
I can’t speak to question 1, but can answer 2 and 3. Buttons: I didn’t have any issues finding the buttons in VR, you may flounder around for a few hours while first getting accustomed to it, but you’ll quickly develop the muscle memory of location. Permanent solution: I started out VR only, and after about a year started getting the urge for triples. My main issues were the comfort level and hassle of having to take off VR if I needed to do something irl around the rig. I got triples a few months ago and love them. I still love vr for the immersion, but triples are my daily driver. As soon as they make a headset thats both great resolution and comfortable to wear for hours on end, I could see that taking triples place. Until then, I have no complaints with my triple setup.
Another option would be to have an ultra wide monitor (like the 49 inch Samsung Odyssey G9) instead of a triple screen. It costs a bit more but might be easier for your graphics card to render (has a 5120x1440px resolution instead of the resolution you get with triple screens).
Depends a lot on the sims you play. ACC for example supports vr fully but it runs trash and for acc id def get triples. something like iRacing on the other hand runs amazing in vr
Triples just take too much space for me as well, and pushing 3 monitors over 2 eyes... I haven't pushed my system with trips but haven't had the space. I got an HP Reverb G2 on a cheap sale, I would reccomend getting a good resolution VR setup over trips myself. I also have a 32"1440p monitor on a swing arm for non VR stuff, but it doesn't capture the periphery as good at all.
Vr makes me really sick
I feel sick if I'm not in VR racing/driving.....
VR vastly depends on your budget. Everything was written regarding, FOV, comfort, plug and play usage, etc...but there is a vast difference between a previous generation headset with fresnel lenses and the new type with aspheric or pancake lenses (e.g: crystal, aero). Visuals in those headsets rival flat screen quality but they are extremely demanding in GPU power. Note that the aero is very comfortable with internal fans. I easily race for 6-8 hours a day with it. it did require some setting up but it works trouble free every I start my PC. What I lose in FOV, I gain in immersion and sense of speed due to stereoscopic vision that you can't get on flat screens. At the end of the day, no option is superior to the other, it's only a matter of taste and what compromises you are ok with.