diego999

There are some tricks you can try, but they come at the expense of visual quality. - If you're struggling with VRAM, set Terrain Textures to low. - Reduce PD a bit. I think 1.5 is too much, too many pixels to render. If you can read mfds and the HUD with 1.4 or 1.3, don't go any higher ( I play at 1.25). - Are you using motion reprojection (or whatever name Pimax uses for it)? It can make the game playable, but there's going to be artifacts with fast moving objects or rapid head movement. In nvidia control panel, set "Low Latency Mode" to Off, and "Virtual Reality Pre-rendered frames" to 1. Then find the option to activate Motion Reprojection in Pimax software. - There's a program called OpenXR Toolkit. I don't know if it works with your headset, but it has the option to activate foveated rendering. This renders only the center at full resolution and the edges at lower resolution. For me, this brings a 3-5% better performance. - Reduced fov. This option is the worse when it comes down to visuals, but it is what made DCS playable in VR for me back then when I struggled with a regular 2060. What this does is simply cutting the edges. You lose immersion but can gain a lot of performance. It depends on the headset obviously, but in my case with 0.90 (90% of the total size of the image, you're cutting 10% of the most external pixels) I can't even see the edges, and that's 10% less pixels your GPU has to render all the time. Once you start to see the black square limiting your view, you've gone too far. Yes, it's horrendous for immersion, but it's worth to try if you're on the edge of playability, as it seems to be your case.

Nothing in VR. I leave it on for playing in 2d sometimes.

Your GPU won't let you reach the max possibilities of your headset I'm afraid. But, with some compromises I think you can reach acceptable visual quality with decent fps. These are my DCS settings, running with 125% resolution from Oculus software. 3060ti - Quest 2.

Depends on where you're setting it: 1.0 in the Pimax software? Yes I think that's the native resolution (anyone with a Pimax correct me please) 1.0 in DCS? No, that's the multiplier applied to the resolution that's being fed to the game. If you've changed it in Pimax Software or SteamVR, that's not native resolution. It depends on those settings. First is the resolution you set in Pimax That resolution is modified by your SteamVR settings Then it is modified again by DCS Pixel Density setting DCS Pixel Density is just the final layer of the resolution's cake, so to speak. Sorry if I can't explain myself in a more clear way. In my case I leave DCS PD at 1.0. I've had better results changing the resolution in the first layer only: Oculus software.

Yes. It is possible to adjust headset resolution. The software of your headset should let you do it. You can change it too in SteamVR options and in DCS itself. The option you're looking for within DCS is "Pixel Density". For example, 1.0 is "normal" resolution (not quite, but more on that later). 1.2 means 20% more pixels, 1.5 means 50% more pixels, and so on. Lower than 1 means downsampling and it should be avoided as it's going to look bad. The golden rule for this is to change resolution / pixel density in one place only, as these settings multiply each other and it can get complicated very fast. Plus, SteamVR measures it differently, in a "per eye" basis, so for example, setting 1.2 PD in DCS equals 144% resolution in SteamVR settings (1.2x1.2). Final resolution presented before your eyes is: headset's software configured resolution * steamVR resolution * DCS pixel density So, again, it's better to change only one of these and leave the others at 100% or 1.0. I can't answer your second question as I use DCS standalone with OpenXR Toolkit (and I'm loving it). Which headset are you using? If you have a Quest I can show you how to find the settings.

How can the G2 offer better picture quality while having virtually the same resolution as the Quest 3? Did you test the Quest 3 connected to the PC or standalone? Wifi or cable? Those conditions can affect picture quality. I agree eye tracking is amazing, but that comes at twice the price tag. Plus the high end rig you need to drive all those pixels.

Enjoy!

Quest 3. Reasonable price, good specs, and it's just brand new, so you're getting support and improvements for at least a couple of years. Doesn't require base stations. No eye tracking though, but if you want that you're looking at $1000 or more.

After more testing, I think I found the best settings for my hardware. QVFR didn't work for my older CPU, so I went back to the OpenXR's Toolkit fixed foveated. Then I switched from Oculus ASW to Turbo Mode in OpenXR Toolkit, then turned on DLSS in quality mode with sharpening slider to max (1). This combination gave me better performance with slightly better visuals. Nothing amazing, but it was noticeable better. I remember testing Turbo Mode some months ago and discarding it as the artifacts were bad. I don't know if it got better or my perception is wrong, but now the visuals seemed better and the artifacts were not worse than the ones you see with Oculus ASW. PROS: - Slightly better performance - Slightly better visuals in general - Almost no terrain stuttering (this is the most important for me) - No more shimmering CONS: - some minimal but annoying ghosting. - no way to measure frametimes as Turbo Mode ruins benchmarking tools I will play with these settings for a while see how they perform in complex missions with a lot of units, but I think I now have headroom to crank pixel density a bit more, from 1.15 to 1.25 perhaps. i5 10400F, 3060ti, 64GB RAM, Quest 2.

I think this is indeed the case. Tested again, QVFR with turbo mode off, OpenXR Toolkit disabled. Hornet instant action mission on Syria (you spawn over a town with mountains and a lot of trees: CPU frametime around 16-17ms, sometimes going higher than GPU frametime. Tried without QVFR, only OpenXR fixed foveated (quality/wide): CPU frametime around 9-10 ms. All other settings were the same. Just for comparison, tested the same mission in an older Release version I also use (2.8.4). CPU frametime around 7-8 ms. I guess my old 10400 just doesn't have the extra juice required by QVFR + 2.9.

Will try that. What I'm interested in is QVFR's ability to supersample only the central region.

Thank you. I looked through the wiki to learn about the settings and didn't see that part. Will try again tonight.

I'm seeing the same. I guess my particular hardware combination (not as good as yours, I have to say) doesn't benefit from the new graphic options. Tried QVFR last night and got noticeable worse performance than fixed foveated with OpenXR Toolkit, althought it seemed with less terrain stuttering. Couldn't benchmark, because for some weird reason when using QVFR, both Oculus Tray Tool and OpenXR Toolkit were reporting absurd frametimes. Strange. i5 10400, 3060ti, 64GB RAM, Quest 2.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

This is my understanding too. Frame generation is a DLSS 3 feature. DCS is using DLSS 2.

This. 14th is just a "refreshed" 13th with marginal improvements and higher price. Avoid for now.

Do you play in VR? I do. With a worse PC than his.

That rig is very solid for VR with a Quest 3. Be prepared to spend a month changing settings tho.

Don't forget there are fantastic mods, totally free. A-4 Skyhawk and OV-10 Bronco to name a few.

You gain points, ranks, awards and medals for your profile. Killing an ally only means you lose all combat points for that particular mission. Nothing else. You can see your stats in the "Logbook" option in DCS main menu.

Well, going by the "multirole" title, I'd choose the Hornet. F-15C is an exclusive AA platform. You can't carry any air to ground ordnance (only amraams, sparrows and sidewinders) and the Mirage doesn't have any guided AG weapon. You have to rely on just rockets and dumb bombs. EDIT: you have laser guided bombs but you can't self lase. For me the Mirage 2000 is the perfect blend of modern stuff without being too modern, if you catch my drift. You have decent radar and missiles, but still no Fox 3s and no computers with wings like later planes as the Hornet, Viper or Mudhen. This is, of course, personal preference. You should go for what you like. So your options for true "multirole" here are, in my opinion: F-18 F-16 F-15E F-14? If you love naval aviation it's a fantastic module, but you have to live with Jester and that can be frustrating sometimes. And there's the JF-17, but I know nothing about that module.

As far as I know, IFF functionality not simulated within DCS except for the most basic stuff. So there's nothing Viggen devs can do when the game itself does not support it.

This. Tried on FS and noticed a lot of artifacts while the performance gains were minimal. Let's wait and see but as far as I've seen, it might help a bit but it won't be the holy grail some people are expecting.

It looks like a decent upgrade from the Quest 2. Nothing more, nothing less. With a $499 price tag you can't go nuts with the specs. It's just an entry level headset.

Not at all. It only matters for standalone use when not connected to your PC.