Qcumber

What are your pc specs etc? Is this just the Cold War Germany map?

The 5080 super sounds interesting (if the rumours are true). However, the 5080 16Gb is a great card for VR too. The highest VRAM use I have seen is 12Gb. I got mine at MSRP. In the UK the stock/price is very good at the moment so hopefully the same is true for your location. It would be a good upgrade to a 3090. However, you might also need to upgrade from a 5800x.

No. The BSB2 has much better lenses and the potential for eye tracking. No. The G2 has limited life and old lenses. My point is that you could consider a Quest 3 (or Quest Pro if you want eye tracking). Whilst I like the look of both BSB and the MeganeX they are very expensive and unlikely to give you a significant boost over other, cheaper headsets. On paper it looks great. However, there are no real comparisons with other headsets in DCS. Do you have one yet? How does it compare to a Quest 3?

I did not think that you needed a Bluetooth connection. I'm not at home at the moment so I can't check.

I was just interested in seeing if it gave you good advice. An AI may not have used very reliable sources.

Is your headset connected to your pc through the Meta app?

You don't need to connect the phone to your headset. Just go into the meta app on your phone and enable "Developer Mode".

By shimmering I presume you are referring to aliasing. As Speed-of-Heat says, increasing the resolution will reduce aliasing regardless of headset. I can run my Quest Pro at 5000x5000 pixels and the image looks great but performance is terrible. The only difference in this context (ignoring lenses etc) between a rift s, quest pro and a Megane x or BG2 is the pixel density and whether you can see the "screen door". So buying a very expensive headset because it has avery high pixel density and native resolution is not necessarily the best option. In terms of resolution and aliasing it is best to push the resolution as high as your system will allow and apply antialiasing with MSAA or DLAA.

That's what I did. Managed to get an FE for £949. But then I was upgrading from a 4070.

Did it cover setting outside of DCS? It would be useful if you posted the specific recommendations.

I have updated the first page to reflect an update of XRFrametools and a newer version of the Spreadsheet.

It might be worth checking the open XR layer order. OXRTK and QVFR need to be ordered correctly. You can check this from the QVFR Wiki. https://github.com/mbucchia/Quad-Views-Foveated/wiki/Troubleshooting

What changes did it recommend?

You don't need open XR toolkit but it can still be useful. I don't really use it much other than fine tuning sharpening and the overlay monitor. Sometimes I adjust contrast and colour.

Glad it works. Welcome to VR. Let me know if you need any help with tweaking settings.

Start with meta link cable at 72Hz and resolution set with the slider max to the right (about 2800 Mp). You can use Oculus Debug Tool to increase the resolution by x1.2 or QVFR (below). Try setting the bitrate as high as possible. A safe start is about 500 mbps. For sharpening set this to quality. If you use QVFR try the default settings first then try playing with QVFR settings in the config file (or using Quad View companion app). The sweet spot is probably setting the foveated resolution to about 1.3 with 0.35 x 0.35 and peripheral resolution to about 0.4. Set sharpening to about 0.1 - 0.2, otherwise it is too much if sharpening is also enabled in ODT. For DLSS I find that preset K is the best but to completely get rid of ghosting you need to push the resolution up quite high, which is where QVFR helps as you can do this just to the centre region. You might find some issues with 32Gb RAM so I would suggest setting visibility range to Medium, keep terrain shadows off and set the resolution sliders (for trees, objects etc) to the middle. Keep preload radius to about 60000 or less and LOD switch to about 0.6.

This is a test I did to compare different CPU loads. It is based on a track flying parallel to Utah beach in the instant action mission for the P-47 free flight on D-Day. Out to sea are a lot of units and, combined with explosions and smoke on the beach, creates an intense situation. However, flying a mile or so inland is much less demanding. Theses are three recordings based on looking looking right towards farmland (blue, T2), left towards the beach (green, T6), or looking straight (purple, T10). Looking towards the farmland (T2) is easy on the system as CPU and GPU load are low. so this has the lowest latencies. Looking straight (T10) is mixed but overall 72 fps is easily maintained. Looking towards Utah beach (T6) creates big problems for the CPU with frequent spikes and very variable render times. Overall, FPS is maintained at 72 fps but micro stutter was prevalent in T6. There was none in T2.

Yes it is a good way to go but yes it will also involve Pandora's box. Yes it will but be prepared for some work optimising settings. I don't have experience with AH-64 but I understand that it is a performing hog. I have the F-16 and this runs well I'm VR.

Open XR is the API which allows DCS and meta link to communicate so yes this is still required but not something that you need to download or setup. Do you mean Open XR Toolkit?

Yes. My setup can handle most things in DCS but when there are too many units etc the CPU render time starts to spike and that then impacts on GPU latency. It's a real mess. The problem is it can be hard to find a track which allows you to look at this objectively. I have done some work on this but have not yet posted it as it looks a bit messy. I'll try to do this later.

Thanks. I'll try using Intel Present Mon. I did try running QVFR at x1 and x1. I'll try and dig out the data. It was part of another test so it would not necessarily compare to this one. I really need to try running these tests again when I can also see CPU and GPU usage.

My findings with various QVFR settings. The test run is a flight over Cairo in an F-16 at about 300 ft. T2 (green) is without QVFR. Base resolution 2756 (meta app) and 1.2 in ODT (total resolution 3300 pixels). Mean GPU render time 11.5 ms. T4 (light blue) is with QVFR centre x1.35, 0.22x0.22, periphery 0.37. Mean GPU render time 8.1 ms. T7 (dark blue) is with QVFR centre x1.2, 0.8x0.8, periphery 0.3. Mean GPU render time 12.26 ms. I had thought that T7 would be better than T2 but it is slightly worse. The only difference is that 64% of the resolution is at the equivalent of 3300 pixels. Whilst the remaining 36% is at 826 pixels. The total count should be ((3300 x 0.64) + (826 x 0.36)) = 2.4 Mp. Compared to 10.9 Mp without QVFR. There must be some overhead on GPU us when using QVFR. T4 has a total pixel count of ((2756 x 1.35) x 0.048) + ((2756 x 0.37) x 0.952) = 1.15 Mp. There is a very big increase in performance (mean 3.4 ms lower render time compared to T2). The best use of QVFR is to use a narrow foveated region. CPU render time is increased with QVFR as expected but this is relatively small.

And in game test shows no difference either. Green is 276. Blue is 272. This is an F-16 flight low over Cairo.

I have just compared 272 vs 276 in Firestrike extreme. There is no overall difference except in the physics test. 5080 (272) 40404 45765 38136 22583 5080 (276) 40804 45609 41343 22549 101% 100% 108% 100%

Yes. Particularly since the 576 driver update. I get a 10-11% boost over stock. And a 16-17% boost over 572 stock speeds.