.jpeg.1950dad3c75d21c1e43ee8f6dca04d62.jpeg)
.jpeg.7752bfbe76ec20e31515648c85b7b615.jpeg)
Qcumber
-
Posts
2150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Qcumber
-
Have you followed all the instructions here: https://github.com/mbucchia/Quad-Views-Foveated/wiki/Meta-Quest-Pro#if-you-use-link-cable-or-air-link Or are you using VD? https://github.com/mbucchia/Quad-Views-Foveated/wiki/Meta-Quest-Pro#if-you-use-virtual-desktop I don't remember it being that difficult.
-
.thumb.jpeg.e9a5eea36533302653032ca510164dc5.jpeg)
AMD Radeon RX 9000 series GPUs
Qcumber replied to LucShep's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Updated driver and results for 9070xt. Not tested in DCS yet but looks like a big improvement for VR. -
I would advise that too. Depending on where you live you might be able to get a 5080 at MSRP. I'm in the UK and used a tracker app to alert me of availability. I just managed to get a 5080 FE at the new price of £949 from NIVIDIA. Just be patient and keep your phone nearby for alerts. You need to be quick.
-
I can vouch for what diego999 says. Hopefully though this will get easier as more people use VR and can share experiences. The problem is that things change very quickly so advice from a year ago may no longer be relevant.
-
Ghosting is much better than it used to be with DLSS 4 and preset K but it is still there. It's noticeable against the ground and in some situations against clouds. I find it is very usable compared to how it was. I'm still on the fence about wether I should use DLSS or MSAA. I noticed it was better going from a 4070 to a 5070ti. I also think that increasing the resolution as high as possible helps too. I'm speculating here but I do think that maintaining consistent GPU frametimes helps too. How does it compare to MSAA? Well, MSAA is still a sharper image and no ghosting but comes with "jaggies" and "shimmering". DLAA/DLSS is much better in this regard. If you look at one of my comparisons above DLSS does come with a significant performance hit (about 1.5 ms Vs MSAAx4). It's even worse with DLAA (+2.5 ms). I need to do some more benchmarking on this, particularly in challenging missions. I am planning to use "xrframetools" so that I can capture every frame. I think this is important in more intensive GPU loads so that there is a more accurate reporting of missed frames etc. I don't think OXRTK does this very well as it only reports and average of about 10 frames.
-
Yes. Or at least check.
-
I've just posted some GPU benchmarks for VR.
-
Here is the thread with my latest benchmarking
-
The final results and my current settings. Very similar to the "Low" settings and better than my old settings Comparing the F-16 flight over Syria with F-4 take off from Syria and Marianas Some dropped frames on Marianas but overall a playable experience. The F-4 take off in Syria has a biphasic component which relates to longer latencies on the runway and much lower latencies once airborne.
-
In the next run I tried maxing out all the details sliders. T8 has these sliders set mid range. T9 are all maxed out. You can see that the "Flight over Tripoli" part of the track is causing an increase in the latency which is as expected but overall its a small amount and can probably be controlled with backing off on some of the details sliders and not others. I am not sure why the VRAM is showing as lower. I think this is some error in the recording. I will try to repeat it.
-
"Low" terrain textures looks quite bad so I compared this with "High" This is the only difference between these two groups so have opted to use "High". There is very little difference in terms of latency but a 1.2 Gb increase in VRAM.
-
The only difference in these groups is the visibility range. "Medium" versus "Ultra". You can see that the low latency part of the chart has gone, so I think the Visibility Range is the major factor when flying over dense urban areas.
-
I am just working on some VR benchmarks and I will post the results which relate to this soon so you can see what the potential impact of various DCS setting are.
-
Some more results. This is using the F-16 track from above. I started off comparing three setups in DCS: low, medium and high (screenshots below). QVFR smoothen_focus_view_edges=0.15 sharpen_focus_view=0.9 horizontal_focus_section=0.25 vertical_focus_section=0.25 peripheral_multiplier=0.8 focus_multiplier=2.2 QP at 72Hz, link cable 960mbps. Its not a surprise that the high settings really push my setup. The medium settings are close to what I would normally run. What interested me about this is that the medium and high settings produced a biphasic chart, corresponding to the flight over rural terrain (low latency) followed by the flight low over urban terrain (longer latency). The long latency component was not there for the low settings. So I spent some time testing various combinations of settings and found that the main cause of this longer latency part were visibility range. These are for the next post.
-
That's what I meant. What QVFR settings are you using? I've been experimenting with various QVFR and DCS settings recently and you could significantly reduce your GPU frametimes if you reduce the visibility range to Medium and reduce the details sliders. It also helps with VRAM.
-
I am surprised that you can run vr at all given your headset, GPU and settings. I can't quite see your fps and latencies on the images you have posted. What are you managing to achieve in a typical scenario? Are you using FFR?
-
There should have been some text to support this. I'm not sure why it is not here. The results suggest that, whilst a 150k preload increases VRAM use by about 1Gb, There is a 1 ms improvement in latencies in less demanding scenarios. The track I used was the instant action F-16 free flight over Syria. F-16 over Syria.trk The first part is mid altitude over rural terrain ( the lower latency part of the chart 7-9 ms). The second part is low level over Tripoli (the longer latency part, 11-13ms). With the 150k preload, the VRAM increased by about 1Gb, but the low latency part of the chart improved by about 1 ms. I am not sure if this has any meaningful effects in game terms. I have been testing other DCS parameters which I hope to post soon.
-
Personal preference. I find the QP very comfortable, especially if you turn the back pad upside down. I also prefer no mask/light block. For anyone buying a QP try it vanilla first before buying any extras.
-
F-16 over Syria.trk
-
F-4 take off Syria.trk Edi: @TED Sorry text was missing for some reason. I have updated this. These tracks compare 2 settings. One with the foveated region at 0.2x0.2 for DFR. One at 0.4x0.4 to represent FFR. All other settings are the same. These areas are 4% and 16% respectively; 4x greater so has a bigger impact on GPU usage. This track is an F-4 taking of from Syria (instant action mission). Quite demanding. With the lower settings the GPU latency remain below 13.9 and so maintains a steady 72 fps and us a smooth experience. The higher settings show nearly 60% of frames are missed resulting in a lower average fps and some stutter. I hope this helps.
-
Thanks. I'll test that and see if it makes a difference.
-
Not airshow pics but I still found them exciting. Sofia Military Museum. There are "five" Mig 21 Bis
-
A whole new rig building question for DCS
Qcumber replied to Vnavspeed's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
I'd agree with that. I had planned to get a 5080 but they are so overpriced. I found it easier to get a 5070ti for about 10% over MSRP. I "hoping" there will be a 5080 super with 24Gb VRAM. So far the 5070ti has impressed me. I use only VR and it produces good results although you will still need quad views foveated rendering. -
I've just posted this benchmark to compare full image versus QVFR so you can see how much performance boost you can get.
-
I have two tracks of a 109 flying over the desert for about 1 min. I have compared a range of settings to see what impact this will have on performance and GPU latencies. This is using a Quest Pro with QVFR unless otherwise stated. 72Hz The base resolution coming from quest link is set to x1 (1808x1856 per eye). This is then upscaled using QVFR (or OTT when this is disabled). Equivalent full resolutions across the whole frame. Base 2.2 1.6 1 0.8 0.5 Hor 1808 3978 2893 1808 1446 904 Vert 1856 4083 2970 1856 1485 928 The foveated region is set at x2.2 and is 0.2x0.2 in size The data show the frequency at which the latencies fall into 0.1 ms bins expressed as percentage of a total number of events. The vertical red dotted line shows the 13.89 ms level which equates to 72 FPS. If a latency goes above this then you will see stutters and missed frames. Comparison of no AA, MSAA and DLSS All settings are foveated 2.2 at 0.2x0.2 and the periphery at 0.8 Interestingly MSSA has less impact on the latency than DLSS quality. I think this is because it is only having to work hard on the foveated region (!?). The DLAA latencies were more variable for some reason. This compares the tract with no QVFR and with QVFR with a foveated region of 2.2 with different settings for the peripheral resolution. As expected there is an increase in latency when the peripheral resolution is increased. I have also done some analysis of a more demanding track flying low over Cairo and can post the results if anyone is interested.
.jpg.c6189c882a43c3660aef51fb034fe2b8.jpg)
