Qcumber

My AI friend HAL informs me that: "...the Mosquito saw service in various roles, including reconnaissance, strike missions, and anti-shipping duties." I would appreciate some expert (and human) advice on this. Is there any scope for historical use in the WW2 Marianas map?

I agree. Finish PTO first. However, I would like to see some early-mid WW2 at some point.

Inspiration for multiple scenarios and missions. I would love to have a Hurricane and Beaufighter! "Glacial" is moving faster now due to global warming

Thanks. I'll take a look. The main reason for doing it this way is because XRFrameTools is optimized for VR. I did enjoy the process of using excel but now I have less time so anything that could automate the process would be good.

I want to bump this again to see if there is any interest.

Also the 3d chips have a larger cache than others which makes them well suited to gaming.

It is very difficult to give an answer on this until to 9060xt is released. If it is similar to the 4070 then yes you should get a reasonable performance but you will likely need to use fixed foveated rendering (QVFR). However no DLSS 4 so you will need to rely on MSAA which is resource intensive. The 5070ti is a good option if your budget can stretch to that, and you can get hold of one at MSRP. Or maybe a 5070 but that only has 12GB VRAM. That said, I only had 12GB with my old 4070 and I never had any major VRAM issues. So far with my 5080 VRAM use has not gone above about 11 GB.

Does this mean that Marianas WW2 could be coming soon too?

Good point. I should have said that too. A combination of higher resolution and frametime below what is needed for refresh rate is what will reduce ghosting. However, DLSS ghosting is slightly different to low frame rate stutter and the double image you get with reprojection. It also causes smearing and blurring. Like "bleeding ink".

Quest Pro for me. I got mine second hand for £300 about 18 months ago. You can still get some good deals new. The eye tracking makes a big difference. I've been considering a pimax super but it is very expensive and so far it appears to be very "buggy" according to various threads on this forum. I'm happy to wait a while as the QP is still very good.

I managed to get up close to one at Duxford a couple of weeks ago when they were moving it between hangers.

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.