WipeUout

I am switching back to nvidia with a 3090ti that is coming in the mail in about a week. Meanwhile I sold my 6900xt and re-installed my old 2070 for now. Going back to nvidia was a revelation. The AMD card was an outstanding performer (FPS wise) but the quality of the image was not as good as what I see now even in the 2070. Blacks are more dark, lines are more straight contrast blew me away and this is especially apparent in SteamVR portal. I now understand why people were stating that AMD does not support VR very well. Also, none of their adrenaline software options work in VR.

Your CPU usage should be around 15-20% and if it is running at 36% it means you have something else running. If your windows has been installed a while ago, I would suggest saving your data and do a clean windows install following FR33TY's guide : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J31Q8T-1eNk&t=1121s This is a bit of work but will give you a fresh install, optimize your PC and get rid of anything impeding your performance. Other than that, what are your DCS settings? Maybe lower your textures and increase pre-load to max?

No matter which board number is typed in the ME, it is displayed as 000 on the 3D model of the F-16.

Oh but I tried, and results were just the same with 0.3 FPS apart. Use a track, it is more rigorous and credible.

Is this some kind of a joke? It not even the same video and you compare FPS? At least go through the effort of making a track and test with a minimum of rigor!! With the same settings, if pixel count is the same, performance will be the same and image quality will be the same. As it was said and demonstrated, there is no magic.

There is logic in it. Depending which software layer you use for supersampling, there are slight differences. I found that SteamVR is better for upscaling than using DCS pixel density or even ''render quality'' in PiTool. There are many ways to upscale an image and all those software do not use a universal upscaler.

I think there was a check box in settings/special but eventually I simply uninstalled it

...and the tacview FPS cost is a well known issue both in 2D and 3D. Personally, I switched off tacview a year and a half ago.

Using a dedicated server make a huge difference in some scenarios. Bellow are two screenshot I took while running the attached mission which is full of action and units shooting at each other. You can see that running local has a lot of spikes in the CPU frame time graph, while running the mission on a server is much flatter with a 3ms reduction in the CPU frame time. In these example, the GPU is heavily bottlenecked so FPS is not relevant, nevertheless things run much smoother and with less stutters. I use an i7-8700 as my server with a GTX1060 connected to my home network. You do not need a whole lot of horse power to run a dedicated server but it make a difference! plazma_torture_map_2022_flanker.miz

Well, it is a solution, but the most expensive one! We need more cheaper/accessible solutions (other than to scale down settings and resolution) like an optimized graphic engine!

@ismaeljorda: Impressive performance from the 4090. Seems though that your CPU frame time is higher with the 4090 than with the 3090. Can you explain this? I ran the mission directly and I am getting CPU frame time between 14ms and 18ms. I tend to believe that although the 5800x3D is very good, it does not reach the performance of a 12th gen i7 in DCS.

All very true. Seems that people are opting for OB in order to get early access to new features and modules forgetting that OB is a testing and bug identifying vehicle before it goes to stable. Nevertheless, the reaction to 2.8 would have been very different if there had been some warning about the performance drop in VR. Sharing information and transparency always pay off in the long run.

Yes, same here. Double vision or ghosting is breaking immersion. Find the acceptable setting that will allow you to run your GPU frame time bellow what is require to maintain your FPS higher than your refresh rate. Big performance hits are: Anisotropic Filtering: keep off, no significant visual difference and can save you several FPS. Shadows: Presently broken and a big FPS hit with 2.8, keep off until it is fixed. MSAA: Try to keep it at 2x or off. Supersample a bit instead to reduce shimmers. I find SteamVR is the most efficient to supersample vs pixel denstity in DCS Mirrors: Turn off while in flight, can save you up to 1 ms off your frame time. Textures: Medium/Low will save you 2-3 FPS over high/high. Can make the difference between staying over your refresh rate or having stutters. Use a dedicate server: You have a good CPU but it does not have a good single thread performance and DCS uses only one core. Your CPU will be less taxed by using a dedicated server to run your missions.

2.8.0.32235.1 gave me less performance than 2.8.32066 with a FPS drop of 9.4% compared to 2.7. After updating my AMD driver to 22.10.3, my performance with 2.8.0.32235.1 is equal to 2.8.0.32066 which is 7.5% loss in FPS compared to the last 2.7 version. I use flat shadows only in my test track and settings. On the positive side, the clouds are really nice now in VR! Hats off!!

There are many options to gain FPS, depending on your tolerance to lack of realism or shimmers or... The point here is to have a baseline to compare between version and these are the settings I use to make sure I do not reach near my HMD's refresh rate of 72hz. This way I can see the accurate gain/loss between versions or settings changes. My personal preference to gain FPS is to reduce MSAA.

Sadly I have to report a further drop in VR performance with 2.8.0.32235.1. In my test track, I now have a 9.4% drop in FPS, it was previously 7.5% with 2.8.0.32066. The drop is caused by increased GPU frame time almost exclusively. Version Average FPS 2.7.18.30765 59.3 2.8.0.32066 54.8 2.8.0.32235.1 53.7 Settings and track attached. null performance track 277.trk

You are absolutely right. I think a lot lost the primary objective of this beta version which is to identify and squash bugs before it goes stable. Seems that the "early" access to new features and platforms became the primary reason to opt in the OB, forgetting why it is there mainly. I would also agree though that some warning before hand would've changed the reaction greatly.

Had similar drop, 7.5% less FPS in my test track (F-18 Caucasus) with increase in GPU frametime mainly the culprit.

Seems consistent with my 7.5% FPS drop. My HMD is at 72hz and my CPU frametime was around 11ms with a bit of headroom prior to 2.8. Now I am exceeding the limit of 13.7ms quite often hence the drop. CPU not a problem, still bellow 10ms in my test track but higher than before a bit.

I reverted to Stable 2.7.18... Very disappointing to say the least. Dear ED, please share with the community what is going on. I was expecting VR improvements as stated in GS`s great preview of 2.8 on YouTube ( https://youtu.be/GVlRcYaQMZ4) but instead we got serious dip in FPS. It would be much easier to swallow if you shared some of the challenges/problems/issues you faced before posting the update. In keeping and fostering collaboration, sharing information and transparency will only help. When information is missing, people make it up and most of the time it will be negative. Please help us understand.

Seems that part of the performance decrease comes from the shadows processing. Going from flat to high, I used to drop by about 2 FPS in my test track and now it is a 4 FPS drop. Shadows is one of those setting that is both CPU and GPU demanding. I will switch it off for now as no shadows is a 6+ FPS gain.

Drop also here, I am getting 7.5% less performance in my test track. Seems pretty much the same for all aircraft in all terrains.

Very good and valid point. I'm not sure anymore if it would be worth upgrading to 4090 now. We have 2.8 on the horizon which will have improvement for VR, and also progress on Vulkan and multi-threading which will be implemented first. There is also the 7000 GPUs from team red coming soon that should be more affordable. I thinking now that a 4090 is a lot of money spent for a marginal improvement and would require to spend even more on another CPU upgrade. I am very happy with my steady and smooth 72 FPS now. I will sit and wait for a while.

Makes you wonder if the jump to 4090 must be followed up with a CPU upgrade to the 13th gen or a 7700x in order to fully unleash it...

and for me it's like this at low settings also: