KLR Rico

Not really. The only real effect I notice in the 60-89fps range is a little bit of stutter as the ground moves by, while 90 locked is perfectly butter smooth. It's still perfectly playable at >60. On the other hand, the dips into the 45 FPS range cause significant ghosting, and I would like to eliminate dips that deep completely, but based on that last test there's absolutely nothing I can do about it.

I was messing around today trying to see if I could improve my average frame rate. I'm pretty happy with what I have right now, but I wanted to see what this mythical 90fps for 99.9% of the time felt like. To start the test, I put EVERYTHING on the absolute lowest setting, even 0.5 pixel density. I had 90 fps almost all the time, but I'd still hit occasional microstutter and I even hit 45 fps in some situations; most notably during the F-15 instant action mission when the bombers dropped their loads. To me, this just confirmed that there's just so much that can be done on the user's end, and I need to tune for the average frame rate. I guess I'll go back to my normal settings with 2.0 pixel density and medium/high settings across the board because it was looking really good and I had 90 FPS more than 80% of the time, and at least 45 FPS for 99% of the time.

I don't know for sure, since I don't use the Steam version of DCS, but it seems that the standalone gets the updates much faster than steam. For that reason, I'd prefer the standalone to be on the bleeding edge since there's something VR specific in every update.

I've beven trying to eliminate the microstutters from the A-10 standalone on up, and never got them to go away. Beer is the only thing that really works.

I also have mirrors turned off, but I did turn them on a few times. I didn't notice the frame rate hit during those short tests, but I didn't like how the parallax and view angles were all wrong so I kept them off.

That's very interesting. So losing that "middleman" software layer is part of DX12? What kind of performance gains do we expect to see when games can work with the GPU directly? I've been trying to understand all the facets of computer graphics lately, like starting with the architecture and going up. It's a hugely complicated topic, but definitely interesting how it all works.

At 1.0 density I have a GPU utilization of <50%, and 45-90 FPS. Alternatively, I can have 80-90% GPU utilization with 2.0 pixel density set, and no discernable FPS loss. The only way I get 90 FPS solid in DCS is by turning off the shadows, none of the other settings have nearly the same impact.

I believe you're referring to the tooltips. You can turn them off on the settings menu.

The performance threads always end up blaming the DirectX overhead for DCS's CPU bottleneck. I guess it's a penalty for working from such an old base, even with the EDGE face-lift. I've been able to run other very good looking games at 2x density and a solid 90fps, so I know the GPU power is there.

To think... there has to be nearly a billion pixels per second rendered to run 2x density at 90fps. I thought my i486@66 MHz was killer at running Doom...I wonder what kind of power we'll have in another 20 years.

I think it'd be the square of the density setting, since you're multiplying the setting for both width and height. :geek:

Well if you're lucky to own a GPU with computing power equivalent to the top 500 supercomputers in 1995 (combined), you won't have a problem running the only AA method that actually increases detail instead of interpolating it. All the better that DCS is completely CPU bound with any decent GPU, and increasing pixel density is basically free.

Ah, no shadows... that'll do it. They are by far the biggest FPS killer for me. I just refuse to turn them off because I think the cockpit shadows are a huge immersion factor. I wish I could turn off all the other shadows to get the FPS back.

I'm smiling every day I fly. Today's highlight moment was when I was in the Su-27, launched a missile, and watched it depart as I flew through it's smoke trail. The feeling of depth was over the top. Even in the current, early state, VR is nothing short of amazing... I'm really looking forward to how much better it will get over the next months and years; I have the feeling I'm going to be spending a lot of money keeping up. :D

Remember these? It didn't look like you're looking at the pictures from 2 inches away either. A VR viewer and an iPhone will give you like 10% of the experience as a real VR headset or even the GearVR, but at least you'd get an idea.

I can only sustain 90 FPS if I turn off shadows. Unfortunately, I find that no shadows is a huge immersion breaker. With shadows on, I spend most of the time at 45 FPS. While I'd rather have 90, 45 FPS is still playable because of ATW. As long as you have the GPU overhead you should get ATW frames at 90 FPS no matter what the in-game framerate is.

There's a "lens adjustment" option in the pause menu that shows the crosshairs and IPD setting. I think the instructions for measuring your own IPD is mainly intended for the people who don't have a rift and want to see if it will work with their IPD.

I just got my 1080 the other day. I was sad (but not suprised) to find no real FPS improvement over my 970. However, I can now run 2x pixel density with no frame rate impact. The improvement in visual quality is remarkable, it's nearly like a whole new headset.

Uh... Try it now and see?

Looking great!

Active USAF Aerospace Propulsion (engine troop) 2002-2006 @ Ramstein 2006-2010 @ Pope 2010-Current @ Fairchild Got an assignment to go back to Germany next year, this time to Spangdahlem.

Lol. To each their own, I guess. I bought a 4k monitor for my wife's computer and gave up my 970 to drive it. Its really a ploy tof weasel myself into a 1080 or the 1070, but the wait is killing me...

That's awesome! I'm interested to hear how it works out for you.

My PayPal is primed and ready, I just need a download link and a donate button. ;)

I just look to see if the stick is following my inputs.