Qcumber

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

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.

Even though it has less pixels than the P4 the image quality is better (subjective) and a wider fov. You can get your eyes much close to the lenses. Eye tracking gives a massive performance boost. I can push the foveated resolution high for a very sharp image which you can't do across the full image even with a high end rig.

Yes. Definitely. I moved from a Pico 4 to a Quest Pro. It's a very good headset. Eye tracking makes a massive difference in performance.

I have followed the methods used in the above video and have compared several tracks in different situations. Edit: This has been updated so that I can share more data. See below.

I would advise starting with something simple and cheap like a used Quest 2 then you can get a feel for VR and all the various complexities. If you don't get on with VR then not much wasted. If you like VR you will then be in a better place to decide what headset would work for you later.

The 9070xt does not look promising for VR at the moment.

Here are my Firestrike results. Single test at each configuration. I plan to do repeat tests and average them. Core Mem Overall GPU Physics Combined Base 0 0 51588 67955 37721 22879 OC 400 2000 53218 72775 36590 22804 % n/a n/a 103% 107% 97% 100%

Interesting video on benchmarking in DCS

Rtx 5070ti VR performance

Will do. I have run Steel Nomad as I figured this was newer and therefore better but will test Firestrike too.