Community-Created Content
This article includes insights contributed by members of the Pimax community. Community contributors are independent creators, VR gamers, flight simmers, sim racers, and enthusiasts who share real-world experience to help others make informed decisions.
Contributor: Kane 142Sqn, valuable member of Pimax Discord community.
Combat Flying Impressions from the 4YA Project Overlord Server
We’re living through a golden era for virtual reality and flight simulation — something I used to dream about growing up in the 90s and early 2000s while playing any flight simulator I could get my hands on. Today, VR has completely reshaped how many of us experience combat flight simulation.
Depth perception and natural head movement allow pilots to visually track aircraft around the sky in a way that simply isn’t possible on a flat screen. This makes VR uniquely challenging but also suited to air combat - especially in WWII dogfighting, where the rule still applies: “lose sight, lose the fight.”
Most evenings I fly on the 4YA Project Overlord WWII server, where engagements are frequent and maintaining visual contact with opponents is critical. Because of this environment, I evaluate my VR hardware from a combat-focused perspective - it is how well a headset performs when you’re twisting your torso, checking six, tracking aircraft, and experiencing the overall level of immersion.
Over the past few months I’ve been flying with the Pimax Crystal Super, regularly switching between the Ultrawide optical engine and the Micro-OLED optical engine. After many hours of real combat flying, some interesting differences began to emerge.
This isn’t intended to be a traditional hardware review. It’s simply a reflection of my experience using both modules during online PvP missions.
My DCS WW2 Motion Rig
My setup has been built over years specifically for immersive WWII combat flying.
At the heart of my rig is a DOF Reality H3 motion platform, which provides aircraft movement cues during manoeuvres. I also use tensioning seat belts, which help simulate G-loading and keep me firmly planted in the seat during aggressive dogfights. Control inputs come from a FFBeast joystick and rudder pedals, while the cockpit layout keeps my body relatively fixed in position compared to a typical desk setup.
Because my body position is constrained, head movement in VR is also more limited. That makes several headset characteristics particularly important: comfort, weight, tracking stability, and above all visual clarity when identifying targets.
In WWII dogfighting, maintaining visual tally is everything. If a bandit disappears behind canopy framing or ground clutter even briefly, the engagement can be lost in an instant.
Ultrawide and Micro-OLED Optical Engines
For me, these Crystal Super optical engines prioritise different aspects of the VR experience.
The Ultrawide module focuses on maximising field of view by reducing binocular overlap. This creates an impressive sense of peripheral immersion and a wider visual window into the cockpit environment.
The Micro-OLED module, on the other hand, focuses on clarity, contrast, and really impressive colours thanks to OLED display technology.
Coming from wide-FOV headsets like the Pimax 8KX and the original Crystal with wide lenses, I initially assumed the Ultrawide module would be the only choice for me in combat flying. However, after extensive testing in real multiplayer engagements, the results turned out to be more nuanced.
Facial Interfaces Matter More Than I Expected
During my testing using different facial interfaces, I found they could significantly influence both my field of view and comfort.
With the Ultrawide module, thinner face pads allowed my eyes to sit closer to the lenses, which increased the visible field of view. After experimenting with several options, the Studioform Tribute pad produced the best results in my setup and face shape, allowing me to reach approximately 125° horizontal FOV.
The Micro-OLED module behaves differently because the lens housing prevents my eyes from getting quite as close to the lenses. Using the standard silk face pad, I measured around 100° horizontal FOV, and I found it provided the best overall comfort with the OLED module.
On paper that looks like a significant difference. In practice - particularly during combat flying - the gap felt smaller than expected.
Combat Performance: The Surprising Result
Before flying with the Micro-OLED module, I assumed the reduced field of view would limit my combat effectiveness - making it harder to check my six, reducing speed perception, and potentially missing aircraft appearing in my peripheral vision.
Instead, the opposite often proved true.
The improved contrast and clarity of the OLED displays made aircraft stand out far more clearly against both the sky and ground terrain. Tracking targets against ground clutter - one of the most difficult visual challenges in DCS - became noticeably easier.
While the Ultrawide module provides more peripheral vision and a stronger sense of speed when looking ahead, much of that additional space is occupied by canopy frames, cockpit structure, or peripheral blur that isn’t particularly useful during combat in WWII aircraft.
In practical terms, the Micro-OLED allowed me to make better use of the view I already had.
Understanding Field of View in WWII Aircraft
When comparing both modules inside a P-51 cockpit, something interesting became clear.
A significant portion of the Ultrawide module’s additional field of view is actually blocked by cockpit framing. In many WWII aircraft, canopy structures limit how much peripheral vision is truly usable when looking straight ahead.
Because of this, the practical difference between the two modules becomes smaller than the raw FOV numbers might suggest.
Modern jets with bubble canopies may benefit more from the Ultrawide module, but in WWII cockpits the clarity advantage of the Micro-OLED often proves more valuable.
Comfort, Weight and Tracking
Another noticeable difference between the modules is weight. The Micro-OLED optical engine is lighter, which is really noticeable when turning my head quickly to track targets and check my six.
Tracking performance has also been excellent. The Crystal Super’s inside-out SLAM tracking has proven stable in my setup, even while running motion compensation on the DOF Reality rig. I previously used lighthouse tracking with earlier headsets, but in practice I haven’t missed it.
Both modules are comfortable, but during longer multi-hour dogfight sessions the lighter OLED module tends to have the advantage.
Final Thoughts
Both optical engines available for the Crystal Super are excellent, but they prioritise different strengths.
The Ultrawide module is ideal for pilots who want maximum immersion and the widest possible peripheral vision.
The Micro-OLED module, on the other hand, excels in clarity, contrast, and target visibility.
For my specific use case - WWII PvP combat flying - I consistently find myself returning to the Micro-OLED module. Despite the smaller field of view, the improved visual clarity makes it easier to maintain visual contact with enemy aircraft, which ultimately makes a real difference for me in dogfights. Plus the colours look excellent!
Pilots who prioritise visual immersion may prefer the Ultrawide - for example when flying civil flight simulators - but for my competitive combat flying, the clarity of the Micro-OLED module proves to be a decisive advantage while also enhancing immersion by giving you clearer control of the fight.
Enjoy exclusive deals on Crystal Light or Crystal Super
Watch the full video comparison here:
Crystal Super Ultrawide vs Micro-OLED for DCS WWII PvP Dogfighting
See you in the skies!
