Qcumber

You don't need your link cable. Just a female USB c to male USB c cable such as this one: https://amzn.eu/d/aHXLYVf Otherwise you could strap the ethernet-usb adaptor to your headset, which is not an ideal way.

This is the one I use. https://amzn.eu/d/3FTqgWD And a USB extension cable

Thanks. That gives us a starting point. In theory you should be able to get a reasonable performance from your setup with a Q2. As above are you using Meta link with a usb cable? Virtual Desktop can produce better results but meta link is very close in terms of quality so if you are currently using meta link I would stick with this until you are more confident with VR and tinkering with settings. This post has a lot of information for anyone new to VR. You might find it useful.

The movie "Devotion"?

Very good! I'm really looking forward to flying it.

That's what I have read too. Hence the difficulty landing in deck with sudden changes in throttle. The widdowmaker. I was wondering how it handles in general flight and dogfighting.

That makes sense. I wonder how the F4U handles compared to the P-47 and P-51.

The first thing I would advise is to make sure that the output resolution is sufficiently high. You need to aim for at least 1.5 times the native resolution. So for a Q2 that would be around 2900 pixels. I would aim for something like 3300 pixels if you plan to use DLAA or DLSS. Set the Meta link app to x1 output then use Oculus Debug Tool or Oculus Tray Tool upscaling to x1.5. There are lots of things to try before getting a new headset. It also helps to "learn" VR with a more basic headset so the Q2 is fine. I still have a rift s and use it occasionally. Once you understand the various VR settings then you can make a more informed decision about another headset. Edit: what are your PC specs?

It's better to do everything in one place if possible so I would advise using Meta and the Oculus Debug Tool or Oculus Tray Tool

Have you tried VD using an ethernet-usb cable connected to the headset? This is for the quest pro but I think the Q2 and Q3 can use this by default without needing the android tweak.

I can confirm that the problem still exists for me as per YoYo's summary. It lasts for about 1 minute in the hanger. By the time I have loaded a mission it has settled down so I have not worried about it too much. I have a fast NVME drive so perhaps this is it. No further stutters in missions and the flying is smooth.

What is your Meta link scaling set to? This is the base resolution before applying a multiplier with PDx1.6. It helps to know what your final resolution is so that we can properly advise. Try pushing the whole image resolution to about 5000 pixels. This should help with ghosting in DLSS, but will give a huge performance hit even with a 4090. You will need to use DLSS performance settings, which is now surprisingly good. I use Quad View Foveated Rendering to increase the centre resolution to the equivalent of about 5000 pixels. This eliminates DLSS ghosting and gives a very crisp image. With a Quest 3 you will need to use fixed foveated rendering mode with QVFR which means a reduced peripheral resolution but you should be able to find the right balance of settings to work for you. For example you could try setting the PD in DCS to 1 then set the periphery to x0.8 in QVFR and the centre to x2 with a size of 0.3x0.3. it will increase your CPU load but a 7800x3d should be able to handle it OK.

What point have I missed? For me QAG is better.

Could I please ask you to send me a track of your data? I have similar spec PC to you and am trying to gather data on VR. Ideally several tracks with different settings with a a subjective review of the stutter experience. I just need the XRFrametool log. I can convert this and analyse. Cheers

@whitav8 I have updated my working spreadsheet to include levels of FPS as a factor of refresh rate times 0.95, 0.75, 0.5 and 0.33 (at 72Hz this would be 68, 54, 36 and 24 fps). However, I still think that measuring coefficient of variation is better as this looks at the standard variation in fps relative to the mean fps, including fps going higher than 72 fps. Remember that the fps here is calculated from Frame Interval for each frame. This is not in version 4 as I still need to work on this. For the examples below 20% of frames drop below the Frame Interval needed for 68 fps and only 0.4% drop below the frame Interval Needed for 54 fps.

Sorry but I have only just getting around to looking at this. Life has been busy. To clarify, you are suggesting that we look at the number of events where the Frame Interval exceeds that required to maintain the target frame rate. But we would also need to know the relative "size" of the deficit. So we would need to look at the number which exceeds the Frame Interval by levels. For example, if the target Frame Interval for 72 fps is 13.8 ms then we would need to look at perhaps 1 ms bins (13.9-14.8, 14.9-15.8, 15.9-16.8 etc.). Have I got this right? I will have a think about how I could do this and what information it would give us and how to display it in a format that makes sense.

Call for data If anyone is interested please could you use the guide in this thread to record tracks with various parameters and then send them to me so that I can collate and analyse data from different setups. I am interested in the following at first: DLAA/DLAA vs MSAA and no AA. Effects of QVFR Visibility range. Pre-load radius. Detail sliders. Shadow detail. If possible please send me recordings of the same track with only one parameter changed. I will need the following data alongside the XRFrametools log file: PC specs VR headset: including method of connection (e.g. Meta link, Virtual Desktop etc.), base resolution and any scaling. DCS settings Use of any other other third party software and/or XR layers (e.g. OXRTK, XRNecksafer etc.) If using QVFR the config settings. NB: Please remember to disable "Turbo mode" or "prefer framerate over latency" as these will invalidate the measurements.

Spreadsheet and original post updated (v4). Updated CPU latency to include both app and render time. Default latency setting on charts set to 30 ms Added FPS by occurrence and Frame Interval. Added new feature called "smoothness" which calculates the variation of FPS and Frame Interval from the mean. This is useful if the average FPS counter shows that you have 72 FPS but you still may have some stutters.

Why not use XRNecksafer as this is designed for open XR applications and is more recent. Also NobiWan usually responds to queries if asked nicely. He is on this forum. https://gitlab.com/NobiWan/xrnecksafer

Try checking the resolution in OXRTK to see if it matches the Godlike settings. You can view this by enabling FSR but without any scaling. As a comparison it woul be worth looking at what your resolution would have been with Meta link. What was the scaling set to in the Meta app? Was it set to x1 or to the far right, x1.5 I think. At x1 this would be about 1760 pixels. At x1.5 it would be about 2700 pixels. So if you add scaling from DCS through PD to 1.5 your final resolution could be anywhere between 2700 and 4000 pixels. VD Godlike is about 3200 pixels so if your meta link settings had given you a resolution of 4000 pixels the Godlike will not look as good. Try checking this using OXRTK.

I don't think the Mosquito saw action in the Marianas but it did in other areas of the PTO under British and Australian use.

Meta link does not work very well at the moment. It is very unstable for me. It just keeps dropping out of DCS. I have moved back to using Virtual Desktop. The latest update is very good. Equal if not better than Meta link and more stable.

Overall they are both about equal in terms of quality and performance based on my use and extensive testing. Meta has better reprojection than VD and has a higher Bitrate (up to 960 Mbps) but VD has better codecs. VD relies on a good internet connection via a dedicated router connected to your PC via ethernet. Meta link just needs a suitable cable which cost about $15 from Amazon. At the moment VD is my preferred choice, mainly due to stability but it also has slightly better quality and performance (subjective). That might change with the next Meta update. Things are that close. PS: I should add that I use an ethernet-usb connection to the headset through the router as this is much more stable for me but is not officially supported by VD.

Please could you provide some more information including your headset and pc specs? Are you using any other tools such as OXRTK?

It would be worth measuring this. If locking fps to 72 appears smoother then you would expect to see a tighter distribution of frametimes. I have been working on this using XRFrameTools and hope to publish my updated spreadsheet soon.