> I feel like such a hybrid device would have a number of obvious operational advantages, e.g. much lower bandwidth/render-power requirements (each frame, your GPU would only have to render a high-resolution image of a little square, along with a very low-res image of the rest of the scene.)

Foveated rendering provides these benefits without needing a mechanical mechanism. (Though it does still require full-field high resolution displays and apparently the eye-tracking requirements haven't been fully solved yet -- which would also preclude your suggestion of a hybrid device.)

> I'm just waiting for tech that uses eye-tracking to put a tiny hi-DPI display that "moves around" so it stays right in line with your foveal vision, while having a static, head-wrapping low-DPI display behind it, to cover your peripheral vision.

Isn't that what Varjo is doing? They do have headsets out, but they are strictly targeting enterprises at this point (cheapest headsets start at 5k + mandatory support for 800).

[edit] actually no, I remember them discussing that approach, but apparently they went with some kind of semi-transparent mirror to combine the images. https://varjo.com/blog/introducing-bionic-display-how-varjo-... & https://gfycat.com/perkywastefulhorsechestnutleafminer

My regular glasses don’t block out an additional 30% or more of my vision. I can see fine peripherally, it’s just a bit blurry.

I have a Valve Index and love it. Yes it's immersive regardless, but VR still has such a long way to go on the quality front. FOV is fairly poor, pixel density is awful.

I'm looking forward to an actual "retina display"-like option (60+ PPD) with higher FOV in another 5-10 years, but I'd assume that'll be 8K minimum per eye, maybe more like 10-12K.

I'm not the person you're asking but I've tried it and it goes both ways for me. Sometimes it's still very immersive, and other times the reduced FOV (compared to reality) does take away from the experience.

Psychologically, yes one does forget about the real world. But in terms of actual FOV measurements the human eye is far better.

However having that narrower FOV in VR is actually a good thing, as it makes for a smaller arc subtend for each pixel. If you were to give the wearer a 60 degree FOV in VR, they'd see very crisp and detailed things. But the more you stretch it out, the worse the effective visual quality becomes.

As someone who owns a Pimax 5k, you do not want a Pimax 5k.