Qcumber

When you say resolution is set to 1.9x is this in the meta link app or via oculus debug tool? Do you know what the final resolution is? The real advantage of DLAA/DLSS is the superior Antialiasing. But the only way to get rid of ghosting is to use a higher resolution.

If you use QVFR try increasing the foveated region to about 1.8 and see how the ghosting looks. My settings: VD: Godlike QVFR: 0.25x0.25 at 1.8. Periphery at 0.5. No sharpening.

It should not look that bad. Are you sure you are running preset K? Are you managing to maintain a steady FPS at the headset refresh rate?

It would be worth making sure you are comparing like for like. I find that the quality is equal between VD and link cable as long as both are set to the same resolution and have the same degree of sharpening. Also worth considering is the quality of you connection in VD.

I need to try preset J again. Edit: just tested it and it does look better than K. Ghosting is still minimal though. I think I will use J.

Godlike resolution is 3072x3216 so this would equate to 9.9 pixels full image (monocular). Foveated region: 0.25x0.25 = 0.0625 or 6.25% of the overall image size or 6.2 Mp pixels. With 1.1 multiplier this would be 0.68 Mp pixels. Peripheral region: 100-6.25 = 93.75% of the total image. ((9.9 x 0.9375) x 0.5 = 4.6 Mp Total: 0.68 + 4.6 = 5.3 Mp QVFR vs no QVFR: 9.9 Mp vs 5.3 Mp, about half. DLSS: (x0.67) 6.6 vs 3.6. In theory QVFR should give a big increase in performance and it does. However, the image quality in the centre is worse than if no QVFR is applied. Even with no AA. I need to apply a 1.8 foveated multiplier to get similar quality to Godlike and no QVFR. Using the maths above this would mean that the foveated region would be 1.1 Mp. And the total of 5.7 Mp (3.8 with DLSS). Still a big difference to 9.9 (6.6). I am curious as to why this extra multiplier is needed to get the same image quality. Again I just want to emphasize I am not criticizing QVFR.

I see no difference in terms of quality between DLAA and DLSS. Performance is better with DLSS.

Thanks for the quick reply. Here are log files for DLSS Quality and no AA at foveated 1.1 (settings as above). If I push the foveated region to 1.8 (I know, this sounds crazy) it looks great in DLSS and there is no ghosting. For some reason it does not want to log the QVFR 1.8 run with DLSS. Not sure why!? I should add that I am not complaining about QVFR. It has made a massive difference for me in DCS even since I upgraded to the 5080. Quad-Views-Foveated-no AA.log Quad-Views-Foveated-DLSS.log Quad-Views-Foveated-no AA-res 1.8.log

Sorry. I looked at the wrong signature. Ignore me.

The only only way to get rid of it (that I have found) is to push resolution as high as possible. I see you have a quest 3. Have you tried using Quad Views Foveated Rendering? I push the foveated resolution up to about 5000 pixels (equivalent) and this virtually eliminates ghosting.

I have noticed today that the foveated region is not as clear and sharp as the image is without QVFR at the same resolution. For example, if I use VD at Godlike resolution the image looks clear and sharp without applying any sharpening. With QVFR set to 1.0x centre and 0.5x periphery (0.25x0.25 size) the foveated image is "fuzzy". I have to apply quite a lot of sharpening and it still does not look as good. [DLSS Quality, 72Hz, latest version of VD, HEVC 10bit at 150mbps]

Which update? Could you please post the version number? Headset and app. Are you using PTC?

I just loaded up a 4x4 dogfight over Normandy and was straight in. Took about 3 minutes. A lot faster than using the old fast mission generator. It also allows for better control of opponent aircraft etc.

I've tried this a couple of times and it works ok for me. For a very quick mission generator it does tho job. A welcome addition. It does need some improvements but is a reasonable start. It feels like a beta version that just has a way to go yet. I like that it has been introduced at this stage. It provides opportunity for constructive feedback about how we want the final version to look. The create fast mission generator was useless for me. With anything WW2 related it basically creates the same missions without being able to control specific planes etc. The new generator has more options. Yes it is not perfect but it has potential.

I asked above but I did not get a reply but I'd there any specific advantage using the autoexec config (DLSS_Preset = 'K') versus using NVPI.

NVPI has retained the DLSS settings for me the last 2 driver updates.

I have always found NVPI easy to use. Is there any specific advantage using the autoexec config file other than the MFD option? I presume it will need reinstalling after each DCS update.

Is it worth upgrading from 64gb to 128gb RAM for VR? If I did it would be 4 sticks. I've read that 4 sticks of DDR5 RAM can be unstable.

@BIGNEWY What is the default preset now for the least DLSS version? Maybe there is now a better performance optimization in DCS!? I need to do some tests but haven't had chance yet. BTW: The latest version of NVIDIA profile inspector allows you to automatically select the latest version of DLSS and choose which preset version.

DLSS 310.2.1.0 is DLSS 4. I know it does not appear to make sense. You would expect DLSS4 the begin with a 4 but this is the most recent version of DLSS. You still need to select DLSS in DCS. Now DLSS in DCS will default to the latest version.

Seriously though if this is the first time you have tried DLSS4 it's a massive improvement. I've not tested yet to see if there is any significant difference with the optimisation.

How much less? Enough to change your name to "ghost29"

Yes. It looks that way. https://www.techpowerup.com/download/nvidia-dlss-dll/

I use JoyToKey software. This can centre the mouse and also apply offsets to the mouse cursor position when it is locked to head movements.

How are you checking which version of DLSS and which preset you are using? DCS does not show this.