Facebook reps mentioned that the controllers were redesigned with an emphasis on increased battery life and comfort, which I found curious. The original Oculus Quest controllers didn't last very long, but they only required one AA battery and were far more efficient than, say, the HTC Vive Cosmos controllers. What got the battery drain down further? This is when Facebook reps claimed that Quest 2's controllers have
fewer infrared sensor points: "We're able to find computer vision algorithms tuned to achieve the same [level of controller] tracking in fewer LEDs, thus [requiring] less power," a Facebook representative told Ars Technica.
I went back to compare tricky "expert"
Beat Saber levels on both Quest 1 and Quest 2, and sure enough, the older controller is noticeably more accurate. It's hard to perfectly measure VR controller detection without access to verbose data logs (which I've used to diagnose issues with SteamVR in the past). But I can safely say that after an hour going back and forth between Quest 1 and 2, the number of lost swipes on the newer hardware was higher. So this downgrade in sensor points checks out.
[
Update, 3:30 p.m. ET: Since this article went live, we've seen
infrared camera footage from Tested confirming an identical number of LED bulbs in both generations of Quest controllers, which puts Facebook's original statement into question. The FB rep may have been describing a downgrade in frequency or power for those LED bulbs in Quest 2 controllers.]
www.jbhifi.com.au
