Remote work has long been part of everyday life in plant engineering, yet compute-intensive activities such as 3D CAD and programming place particular demands on it. Anyone working from home, on the move or at a second site needs the same performance as at a fixed workstation. So that productivity does not suffer outside the office, the hardware has to stay smooth even with demanding models and be comfortable to wear for hours.
Against this background, we at IntegaDesign compared three current headsets in an internal test: the Meta Quest 3, the lighter Meta Quest 3S and the XREAL One AR glasses. The idea behind it is to use virtual or augmented reality to set up a virtual office anywhere, with large screens and access to a powerful workstation, without being physically in the office. This article summarises the setup, results and practical experience of the test and draws a conclusion for productive use in a CAD environment.
The test setup
We tested the devices in several test series under conditions close to real working life. We used Meta Horizon Workrooms as a virtual office environment, the Glue collaboration platform, and classic remote desktop access to our workstations. Games or short demos were deliberately not the focus; compute-intensive activities were: working on detailed 3D CAD models and programming across longer sessions. Three criteria in particular were assessed, as they determine everyday suitability: the latency between input and display, wearing comfort over several hours, and image quality together with field of view.
Meta Quest 3 and 3S
Both VR headsets work wirelessly and standalone, which allows a lot of freedom of movement, and they draw on a large app ecosystem for collaboration in VR. Setup was straightforward, and for meetings or joint sessions in a virtual environment the approach is genuinely appealing. At around 97 degrees, the field of view is pleasantly wide, so the virtual environment feels immersive.
In practice, however, clear limitations emerged as soon as concentrated, productive work was involved. The latency between input and display was often too high. With detailed CAD models and fast programming in particular, the image build occasionally lagged behind. What may be tolerable in gaming disturbs precise work considerably, because every small delay interrupts the flow of work.
On top of that came heat build-up. After one to two hours the headset became noticeably warm, and combined with the weight, wearing comfort suffered. Longer uninterrupted working sessions therefore became a challenge, even though those are exactly the rule in day-to-day design work. Our conclusion for the Quest 3 and 3S: for meetings in VR or simpler tasks they are usable, but for hours of focused work in compute-intensive applications they reach their limits.
XREAL One
The XREAL One follows a different approach. It is a pair of AR glasses for displaying virtual screens and not a standalone device; it is connected to a notebook or smartphone. Our test was carried out mainly with a powerful laptop to which the glasses were connected directly by cable.
After a short time the most important difference was clear: thanks to the direct cable connection there was practically no noticeable latency. The virtual screens responded quickly and smoothly to input, even with complex CAD drawings or a lot of scrolling through code. For productive work that is the decisive point, because the delay that was disruptive with the VR headsets simply does not occur here.
Wearing comfort is another plus. The glasses are very light, sit comfortably even over a longer period and became only moderately warm in continuous use, as the open design dissipates the heat. It was therefore possible to stay in the virtual working environment for hours without the device itself becoming a burden. Two points stood out negatively: at 52 degrees the field of view is somewhat more limited than with the VR headsets, and the full range of functions requires a cable connection, which restricts freedom of movement because you have to stay within reach of the connected device. Overall the verdict was nevertheless clearly positive, because performance and wearing comfort convinced us for productive use.
The tested devices compared
Setting the devices side by side reveals two different profiles. The Meta Quest 3 and 3S score with wireless, standalone operation, a large VR ecosystem including mixed reality functions, and a generous field of view of around 97 degrees. Against that stand a noticeable latency, the heat build-up and the limited wearing comfort during longer use, which make sustained productive use harder.
The XREAL One reverses this picture. Its strengths are very low latency, light and comfortable wearing and low heat build-up, in other words exactly the properties that count for hours of work. Its weaknesses are the smaller field of view of 52 degrees and the necessary cable connection. For productive use in a CAD environment, the XREAL One therefore tipped the scales in our test, while the Meta headsets play to their strengths more in meetings and collaborative VR scenarios.
Outlook
Our long-term vision is a workplace without external displays and bulky workstations. A first step has already succeeded: in a pilot project we paired the XREAL One with a Samsung Galaxy S24+, put the smartphone into a desktop mode through Samsung DeX and connected it securely to our workstation in the company network by VPN. The result was a fully usable virtual workplace that manages without a fixed screen and still accesses the full computing power in the company network.
Further tests are already planned. The XREAL One Pro with a somewhat larger field of view is about to be released, and with the Visor 4K another pair of AR glasses is on the way that may deliver even better results. We will examine both for their suitability for productive use as well. Despite minor hurdles, the results so far make us optimistic that mobile, location-independent working is becoming increasingly practical for compute-intensive CAD tasks too.
