Jump to content

npole

Members
  • Posts

    332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by npole

  1. Something correct, something not. First the 1080 is true a good 25% faster than a 980Ti in every DX11 appliance, you don't need to optimize anything for it, it's just like that.. the issue here is that neither the 980Ti is used 100% in DCS. It's not a driver issue, it's a game issue. You are correct about the VR performance, you are probably referring to VRWorks, that we're discussing here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2802277&postcount=19
  2. I'm 99.9% sure that a dev is reading this discussion.. thinking at it, I don't really need to have a conversation with the devs, since I have my job and they have theirs, I just wanted to give an input, and they are smart enough to put an eye on it. They are interested to make their customers happy (more money), we are interested to have a better product (we'll give to them more money), this is how a business should be run properly. ;)
  3. I can't even quote each single sentence.. but this is all wrong and no sense. The single pass rendering has nothing to do with split frame rendering and the viewports introduced by VRWorks is nothing like what you wrote above. May you please get the proper documentation and the sample codes to figure out what's this about? You are mixing the dx calls with the VRWorks API that happen at driver level. This is why I'm asking the devs to look at it... I think it's better to continue this discussion with someone which is working at the code and that is interested to the tech, I don't wanna be driven in the gfx politics. Thanks.
  4. This is due to instant fps dropping because of poor game performance. You won't notice it with a monitor, neither you will notice it in VR while keeping your head still, but as soon you move you have the "ghosting" effect. If you enabled the fps counter (CTRL+PAUSE key) you will notice that your frame rate will go lower than 45fps, and this is enough to cause the ghosting you are experiencing: every instant your fps will pass the 45fps limit, you will experience the jitters, even if it's just a matter of 1 second. Don't worry it's not because of your low-end gfx board, well not completely.. I own a 980Ti and I do 18 fps sometime in multiplayer with everything set to LOW (everything .. literally). We can only hope the game will be optimized in the future, because as of today, you cannot have a smooth experience in VR, neither by owning the fastest card on the market (the nVidia 1080, that is 30% faster than my gpu).
  5. This is the part that I do not agree.. negate something without even looking at it, because of a preconception is IMO wrong. There's a reason for this, and it's due to the fact that in some circumstances the devs are trying to obtain the same results where that result is not possible, I call it: being lazy. Here's we're talking about a different matters: we won't a more realistic sea or the grass moving with the wind, we're talking about the frame rate, and apply a solution that could give a benefit to a potential large slice of users, the others will be unaffected. You can't say "no", just because you're scared of the nVidia evil and possible impact to the competitors, without testing/trying/looking at it. It halves the pixel count (this alone should be already a strong reason to look at it..). It also makes use of the SLI in VR, delegating each graphic card to each angle rendering, that is another strong point to give a look at it (SLI configurations are almost unused in VR nowadays), that's why I say that potentially the improvement could be huge. It's all hypothetical of course.. I'm not a DCS coder, so I don't know how this engine works, you can only guess about the benefits. In fact I'm not saying that they MUST introduce it at all costs, I'm asking to investigate a little more to see if it's worth it (and eventually they are already doing it.. while we're debating if it's worth it or not).
  6. There's already one: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139912 ..but as Milopapa have already noted: since the developer is updating this thread with generic VR updates (that affects every HMD on the market), people are replying here. If anything there should be a official "VR" thread and not segregate the users, we are already mad at Facebook trying to separate the VR users with their bad politic, we don't need to do follow their anti-consumer plans IMO. All the VR users want to have fun... there's no space for fanboys, let's not transform this in another console war pls.
  7. nVidia at the moment has a marked share of 71% overall (Q1 2016) for the desktop market. The above percentage is higher for the mid-end/hi-end solution (for the previous gen: 970/980/980Ti-TitanX; to be substituted by 1070/1080/1080Ti). The simmers (FSX/X-Plane/DCS/...), because of the hardware demand, are normally concentrate in the upper market, where nVidia is stronger (you can make a poll yourself to figure it out). That's the reason of why the overwhelming majority of simmers own a nVidia. "fanboy"? (nor I have the age anymore to make console wars, gfx wars, CPU wars.. and this childish things anymore.. :) ), I adopt both the solutions, where it is convenient to do so. Implementing the new viewports is a two week man job (for a game that already supports the multi monitor), and projected to the future it will give an advantage to your customers at "zero cost", it would be naive to not look at it. If you look at how it work: the single pass rendering is hardware driven, it cannot be done externally (not until the DX will permit it), that's why it give a such boost in performance, it's because it splits the "viewports" before the DX call. You can say AMD could do the same (probably they will do...), and in fact you could implement their solution as well as soon it's ready. None have asked to limit the others, I have suggested to look at the new tech because the boost in performance is huge. Indeed, we have a performance issue.. and it's especially evident while in multiplayer, and this issues are amplified when in VR because the fps is a crucial factor. While on a normal monitor you will notice the low fps but you can continue to play; in VR having a frame drop will make the game unplayable, so why not looking at the new solutions? It's a "free" solution, so again there's really no practical reasons to not adopt it. I know Project Cars is currently looking at it (from their forums), and they uses a independent engine. I honestly struggle to understand why someone is so reluctant to embrace a new technology, if there's some technical limitation of the current engine, it can be understandable.. but to ignore something that could help you and your customers to have a better performance.. hmm... dunno it sounds wrong. I'm not asking you to sell your soul to the devil.. I'm asking the devs if there's a chance to look at it.
  8. 75% of the circulating graphics cards are nVidia... and the serie 10 cards will be the new 970/980, do not apply a technology that would give ad advantage to the 75% of your user base isn't a smart decision. But the real question is: what's the downside? The real/tech downside, not the speculations.
  9. I don't have to trust you, I have looked at the API: the view port rendering delegation to the GPU saves 80% of the rendering calls if compared with a standard stereo rendering. I think your assumption are based on speculations (because of what happened in the past: physx, HairWorks), not about the real facts: I'm suggesting to apply a technology that would give a huge benefits to the nvidia users, that are actually the 75% of the gamers and where the percentage is even higher if we talk about the simmers. The 1070 and the 1080 (and the possible future 1080Ti), will be the new 970, 980 and 980Ti, you can't ignore a technology because of speculation, you have to actually looking at the tech. I'm not asking you to "like" VRWorks, I'm asking the DCS coders to look at the API if they have the occasion to do so... like others have done already (it's not that Unity and Epic are the last comers...). This is not about the look, this is about having the VR working properly: having a solid frame rate is essential to make it to work, and DCS is struggling on this front, you need to take advantage of the new tech.. you can't say: "we don't need it...", without really understand what's about.
  10. I think the main reason of why the VIVE is outselling the RIFT, is not linked specifically to HMD, but about the fact that the VIVE provides the controllers and the full room experience, it's not something you gonna use for DCS, but all the people out there does alot more than just playing DCS. (go in reddit to check the OR on sale... and then check the VIVE.. to figure the proportions)
  11. In another thread, I invited the developer to adopt the new VRWorks, which will basically double the frame rate in VR... it works on the serie 10 nvidia cards. Maybe it's not tomorrow.. but first or late, any of us will own a 1070/1080/1080Ti card... so it makes sense of adopt this new technology IMO.
  12. As I specified: it's VRWorks in this specific case, it's a set of completely new API dedicated to the VR frameworks. The graphic cards which will not support this specific feature will work normally, the ones which will support it, will take advantage of it. It's a feature given to those who can benefit of it, assuming that the developer won't be lazy to not optimize the code for anyone else as well. If you know something more about VRWorks (and specifically about the single pass rendering and the new view ports, please post it here.. otherwise it's speculation). Both Unity and the Unreal Engine have introduced the support to VRWorks, do not take advantage of it, it is a wrong move: NVIDIA cards are used by th 75% of the players... it's not two ppl.
  13. Pointless? You don't pay to use it (and it is VRWorks in this specific case). And you are not "nerfing" the other GPU: you are giving an advantage (actually an huge advantage) to those who (and will) own the new GPU's, while the others will continue to perform the same. It's called progress. I would invite you to read about the single pass rendering, to figure out what's the incredible benefit we would have. I would remind that those cards will be owned by more than 7 players of 10 (75%) from now to the next year...it's not just "two cards".
  14. What's the difference? I know they are not used, and considering the enormous benefit it gives.. they should really consider to implement it (there's no downside doing so).
  15. No, unless you manage to enter in a parallel universe.. :) In two words: with the super-sampling, the pixel color transition is better optimized, because the antialiasing is calculated using a much larger image than the original one (in example 2X) and then scretched to the original resolution. It gives a better result.. but it's extremely resource expensive, for obvious reason: a 2X image (in width and height) is 4 times bigger than the original picture.
  16. It's called super-sampling.. and you can do it already it now by enabling it on your gfx control panel... and it is a (expensive) antialiasing method. The issue is: we are already doing bad fps with hi-end cards, increasing the resolution will make it even worse, and you know that everything lower than 90fps (or 45 fps with retro projection) is an issue with VR (ghosting). I see people super excited about this, and I don't understand the reason: you can try it already today... and you will be disappointed by the frame rate, especially in multiplayer. I think the priority should be given to optimize the performance, and they should look seriously to the nVidia serie 10 API and their new view port rendering, because it's gonna give a huge boost (almost doubling the fps), reducing the workload of the stereo rendering they are using now... it's gonna work only with the 1070 and 1080, but at the moment is the only solution we have to have some rock solid fps.
  17. Are you actually making your tests with the VIVE as well? Is there any performance difference (in fps) between the VIVE and the OR or they are identical? If there's a difference in performance.. will it be eventually fixed? I'm asking because the VIVE atm is outselling the OR (due to the room-scale experience.. that isn't used in DCS of course...), so in the next future the VIVE could be the most used VR hmd...
  18. Honestly the resolution is OK for now.. the major issue at the moment is the performance, the fps goes down making it unplayable in multiplayer in the VIVE (it's different for the OR it seems..). However some gauges cannot be read, in example the fuel gauge in the F15, neither by moving your head.. the digits looks confused.
  19. Now try to do the same in multiplayer ... and lemme know. :) Ah.. what you see you on the screen (the one you recorded) is different from the experience you have in the HMD, because of synched frames: at low fps when the synchronization is lost you will see major stutters, while the mirror on the screen remains fluid because it's a single view port.
  20. I disagree.. the Mirage missiles (all of them) are currently useless. I play exclusively in MP (no PvE) and people with Mirages will end to use the gun because is more effective than this things! The magic especially, will only hit a going-straight target, otherwise is like launching a fridge to the enemy: any basic maneuver is enough to dodge it. Good as the R27 and Aim7? Are you joking yes? A R27 can be launched at almost 90° toward the target and it will still kill the bandit! Are you guys playing DCS in multiplayer ... or are you only doing SP? Because all this "mirage is so good" story is frankly odd. We can say the Mirage sucks in real life as well (so it's realistic) .. but you can't say its weapons are good... they are nowhere near the R27.
  21. Thanks, I believe the OR is better supported or the time warping is working better (since it's not limited to 45 fps minimum). But what about your fps? Are you doing the same low as me? (CTRL+Pause).
  22. Multiplayer (as I specified in the other post) ...SP performance is much better, but SP for me has no value, since I only play online. Btw I'm surprised that I'm the only one who have noticed it? Everyone who own a HMD is playing SP.... or what?
  23. I already tried it.. I also lowered the numbers of the LOW option.. it didn't made any difference (or anything noticeable). The fact is that if i run the game without the VIVE, it does something like 130fps ..I know the resolution is different and it has to double render.. but from 130 to a low of 18fps seems a way too much. I can't downgrade (I play online). I think the stereoscopic rendering in DCS is heavily bugged...
  24. I were used to think like this (I owned the Rift from the DK1...), until I tried the VIVE. I was all: but I don't need this room scale thing... I'm only interested to the sims, etc... then the day I tried the VIVE and used its controllers, I really understood what the immersion is. It's correct, for DCS only it doesn't make a big difference, but many of us doesn't play DCS only.. sometime you wanna enjoy something different, and ho man.. you don't understand what the VIVE is about until you try it.. the first day someone had to turn it off, coz I were by 5 hours "inside" there. :) It costs more because of the tech: sensors and controllers... if they'll release the same for the Rift, the Rift will be eventually more expensive than the VIVE.
  25. May I know who of you is playing on a crowded server (in example the 104) without having major stutters, making the whole experience a nausea festival? If so, may you post your config, device, and hardware please? I start with mine: I have stutters (duplicating frames while moving my head), with the following: - Sets all to MIN/Disabled & VSYNC OFF; - Device: VIVE - Server: 104 - Aircraft used: F-15 - Hardware: 980Ti OC, 4.3Ghz CPU. ..the game is almost unplayable for me. And you (only multiplayer experience pls)?
×
×
  • Create New...