vicx

The driver view which is not attached to a barrel is also headlocked. It is so clumsy that it seems temporary at least. The view which does work is the arcade view and it is fine as an arcade view but HOTAS controls are ignored (in favour of mouse) and the position and tracking behaviour is hard coded so it can't be used as the basis for a mod. Aww. So yeah a way to make VR mods for CA is important to me at the moment and all that is really required is a basic VR head mode ... just like in the aircraft. The VR head mode in DCS aircraft is what I would call "standard" for VR. The VR camera inherits the orientation and velocity of a node representing a cockpit/seat and then adds it's own 6dof values to get the view ... just a standard VR mode for CA would be great. For CA you would just use connectors for the root head node because they are already used and they let you create multiple seating positions and rotating stations and other dynamically generated orientations. VR in DCS is starting to get gud. If CA can be gud in VR too it would be :thumbup:

Oh come on.. It's not anywhere near a slippery slope, it's not even a banana peel left on surface of the moon. This is image was doing the rounds on reddit last week. Just so you know. Current day VR HMD have a pixel per degree that is not that far from functional blindness. :) hyperacuity : 460 PPD perfect vision : 150 PPD average vision : 85 PPD normal vision : 60 PPD (also HDTV at manufacurers recommended viewing distance) Rift : 13.6 PPD For anyone interested in conducting their own tests ... Snellin chart testing apps are recently available for the CV1 and the Vive. Test out how close you are to 20:20 in VR. For Oculus For Vive TL;DR In VR you are a LONG way from 20:20 and uncomfortably close to being Mr Magoo, Anyone who is a fan of VR already knows this and maybe they could just fly in VR with other pilots with very poor eyesight.

There were issues with VR in Combined Arms but I can't say the new solution is any improvement. You don't lock off head motion in VR ... it's just a big "DO NOT DO THIS". Binding the root of the VR camera to the motion of a connector is absolutely the right direction to go (points for that) BUT locking off 6DOF head movement after that is the wrong way to go. Here is hoping that this is just a glimpse of an implementation under heavy construction and the brokeness is just evidence of MUCH bigger and better things coming soon.

Bump ... not a fan of this either. Do not know why the turret control should be disabled for joystick input when in ISO view mode. I use a joystick axis for turret rotation and buttons for elevation up/dn.

Thanks for providing another data point to the VR performance thread. I am not that surprised to learn that having a i7 4790K @ 4.9Ghz helps with satisfaction levels. Still there is probably no need need to rub other peoples noses in it. i7 3820 @ 3.8Ghz 16GB GTX 780 (Stock) Vive

There is a value to sharing information. I believe Jars positive feedback on multi-player and it's pretty interesting. It could be less workload (due to client prediction) compared to the single player experience. Something to test. Another pattern. VR system and PC hardware being used. We get to the point where a list of players HMD and systems being used could provide good data if it was in a table.

Damn mil contractors and their supercomputers running whole earth, air, sea, water, combat sims.

Some people who OC their 980TI claim they can match the 1080. They might be right. I think this is where the noise is coming from. But if you OC 1080 then ...

I think you would be too. I have tested 3.2x3.2m and now I can't go back to 2.5m so I had to empty my room for good, just for the Vive :) Budget Cuts! Mind blowing. H3VR is also really great. It is a kind of physics based gun-sim and I like it a lot. But it does look like I'll be sitting DCS VR out until I upgrade at the end of this year. I did some testing and my rig is not even close for DCS.

Glad, gotta disagree in spirit with Viv, I actually think the 1080 is a great step from Nvidia. They move VR forward a bit more with the 1080. I think an ideal VR card for current software architectures is one that can support higher clocks and Nvidia have sort of kept shader performance per clock steady and focused on increasing the clocks with the 1080. I think if NV disregarded VR they could have easily boosted perf for traditional GPU loads lots more, so I'm glad that they focused on VR as much as they have. People who complain that the +1080 is not much of an upgrade from a 980TI just need a 1080 on water. It will slay.

From the RoadToVR review. Absolute nonsense. This must be a review from someone who doesn't play games because that statement is not correct. Sure many of the highly optimised VR launch titles (mostly single player) can run on a 980TI but sandbox engine games, multiplayer shooters and flight/space sims all have highly variable and demanding GPU loads and even the optimised titles can benefit greatly from 8xAA and 2x oversampling; much harder to sustain at 90fps. I doubt a reviewer will test DCS but I hope someone has at least seen what a 1080 can do for Elite Dangerous.

Vivoune, Now we have fluffy content of dubious technical merit for the Vive to go with fluffy content of dubious technical merit for the Rift.

Fluffy content of dubious technical merit. The differences in SDE are not that stark in practice. I believe I could take a photo that shows SDE on any current HMD, however the basic premise in this video that SDE is imperceptible on the Cv1/Vive still holds. On the subject of SDE (I am Vive owner), I can say that the only time I have ever noticed SDE is when an experience is loading and the image in the HMD freezes and becomes static. This means when you move your head the image doesn't change in the HMD - this make my eye focus on the pixels instead of on the world the way it normally would. Anything that looks like a static image in the HMD during an experience might also cause your eye to refocus BUT this has not happened to me. Basically I believe that in practice on the Vive (and probably CV1) you could observe SDE but most of the time you don't because your eyes relax and track the world instead. What is WAY more impressive for me going from the DK2 to the Vive(probably holds for CV1 too) is the reduction in chromatic aberation. This is way more impressive than the gains made on SDE or resolution. One step backwards on the Vive/CV1 is the "god rays" ... yeah they aren't as bad as chromatic aberration BUT if they can reduce "god rays" for Vive2/CV2 it will be a big selling feature.

This is a conflation. Valve most certainly CANNOT be bundled with managers and marketters from failed 3D TV companies. Where did you get this nonsensical idea? Don't let your passion for your area of interest make you lose your mind when you make comments on the internet. Your characterization of VIRTUAL REALITY systems as "3d goggles" indicates an anachronistic understanding. Modern VR system have capabilities that place them far beyond mere stereoscopic displays. I think you need to revisit your understanding of this subject matter so you don't come across as ignorant. Yes you have experience but a lot of that knowledge and experience is old and dated. On the subject of VR your prejudice is obvious and is more limiting to an honest discussion than the contributions of a person who comes claiming less, but more current knowledge and experience. The maturation of sensor fusion tracking is what distinguishes modern VR from efforts at VR in the past. The head and other objects are now tracked with HIGHER levels of fidelity and images delivered to the HMD now match this movement and are presented at low latency. People catching objects while in the HTC Vive is not a special effect. The fidelity of the Vive tracking system is a technological reality and the videos are just showing a logical result. This is the MOST honest thing you have said. I think we can agree that many display technologies are valid and specialty displays will retain their value for very good reasons. If you were simply to make this point without all the other nonsense I think you will find many people you thought opposed to your views ... actually agree with you "on this point".

I have seen some comments in previous threads which ask a pretty silly question. Why do you need a physical pit for VR when you can't see where the controls are anyway? Only someone who has NEVER used a modern VR system would consider this a serious question. It's silly question because in VR it is possible to sit inside a PERFECT VIRTUAL REPLICA PIT AND sit inside a PERFECT PHYSICAL REPLICA PIT at the same time. If the physical and virtual matchup then you CAN most certainly operate the PHYSICAL pit using your VIRTUAL vision. Why you would want to do this is also completely obvious. It becomes intensely real and this approaches the IDEAL. --- This guy in VR is NOT using a pass-through camera. He sees a virtual replica of a vive controller flying in his HMD and he catches the physical controller. What makes this possible is that the virtual copy matches the physical in ALL visual characteristics. The concept also works in reverse. A virtual rock in that scene could have a physical copy placed into the room. In so much as the physical characteristics of rock matched up with its virtual representation you could sit and stand on it from inside VR and it would feel very real. --- We can (if we want to) make physical and virtual objects match up. Syncing virtual and physical replicas is not that hard (and a pit is simple for being almost static). What is hard is the process of making a PHYSICAL REPLICA PIT. It is true that by not modelling the purely visual elements (for a physical pit made for VR use), you COULD save a lot of time and money. Still, creating perfect physical replicas of real cockpits will remain hard. For this reason many people will not pursue this type of VR immersive cockpit. Others will pursue as far as their budget and skills will allow. The more things change ...

I don't know. Without looking I'm gonna guess the same as Maxwell. My point is that all else being equal , higher clocks on NV cards PROBABLY equal better VR performance and this is perhaps evident seeing as Nvidia IS using the VR perf slide (1080 VS 980/TitanX) to pimp the 1080. Of course I got questions. Is memory thoughput a big deal with current VR workloads? I do not know. Maybe it is a big deal. Of course HBM is going to EVENTUALLY be a big deal BUT when? When will all that extra memory bandwidth make a difference in an application/game. HBM on the FuryX did not turn it into a 980TI killer in VR workloads so memory throughput was not THE bottleneck. So that video posted earlier has an unanswered question over whether people should take Nvidias GDDR5X solution ASAP or be patient and wait for a card where HBM actually makes a difference. Even if GDDR5X is a stopgap; Nvidia will use it to increase clocks ENOUGH to increase VR workload perf so they have performance leadership for another year. People will pay for that. I'll certainly be tempted.

Once again a cool video. The 1080 perf was always going to be about higher clockspeeds because that is what our games need the most right now. There are different types of workloads and some benefit much more from higher clocks than from memory bandwidth. Not all workloads are equal. Going WAAAY back it used to be that if the memory bandwidth was sufficient for texturing then higher clocks directly translated into maximum framerate. Things are slightly different in the shader age but I think MAXWELL on SPEED makes a LOT of sense even if it doesn't have the memory throughput of HBM. If you need the framerate for VR then you can tune memory thoughput demands via in-game settings. Correct me if I am wrong. The GTX780TI has a memory throughput of 336GB/S which makes this old card the equal of any new card. BUT the card was still not fast enough for simple VR workloads. This is why NV has turned towards higher clockspeeds. Higher clocks in 900 series and now even higher clocks with 1000 series.

You have to use the standalone versions of DCS. The "Steam" version of DCS is not new enough. I just mention this because you did not mention which version of DCS you are using. For further assistance you probably need to provide more details.

If you read up on DX12 you will see that the great performance increases in DX12 come from having access to the 'bare metal' of the GPU. DX12 engines are harder to write - this is the accepted view at this point in time. Easier to say, perhaps harder in reality. IMO you say these things with too much confidence.

I think this is the card to get in the short/medium term IF you are MOSTLY interested in DCS performance. The biggest things going for Nvidia 1080/1070. 8GB of VRAM. DCS loves more RAM. Much higher clocks. DCS can use higher clocks without ED needing to add any new code to DCS. Faster is just FASTER. A similar architecture to the 980TI. Some would consider this a negative because AMD is pushing a more advanced architecture in their cards. BUT new architectures requires games to use DX12/Vulcan to make the use of the new features and DCS is going to stay with DX11 for the forseeable future. Want the fastest DX11 card ever made. 1080 will probably be it. Re:AMD AMDs new cards will have great DX12 perf. Perhaps better than NV. Most certainly better perf at a lower price point.

Is Pascal just a Maxwell refresh with higher clocks and a cheaper price for 8GB of GDDR5? MAYBE ... but it represents some nice perf for the price and you KNOW it can deliver that perf in DX11 titles (like DCS). For DX12 it is very possible that cheaper AMD cards might out perf BUT not many DX12 titles out there right now. Unless I'm mistaken this is also the first NV card with HDMI 2.0 so that might figure into some peoples decision. 4K@60 over HDMI.

Same but different. Sure, recognising the motivation for building a pit differs from person to person is important. One person sees the act of building a replica pit as very important to them while another person only wants the physical pit as a simulation peripheral. These two uses aren't the same thing BUT most people already know this, so we don't have to explain it in every thread. Just focusing on a pit as a simulation peripheral, with a VR pit you COULD save a lot of development time not replicating visual elements like dials, VFD and labels, however your dimensions for tactile elements needs to be very exacting so that the physical exactly matches the virtual. It means the requirements for a Phys-Pit in VR are simpler BUT also harder at the same time. Would it be possible to make a flat-pack Phys-Pit kit for players who just want a bare bones pit for VR immersion; it is too early to say.

Thanks for the replies S3nt and Liq. Looks like I wasn't as lucky as you guys; I have had to pay import duties ($205). I have been a bit unlucky across the board. My delivery address got rejected by Digital River when orders went live and made me miss April. Finally got a credit hold from HTC but the AUD tanked before actual charging and then the final FU from VISA was a currency conversion mugging. Oh well ... just waiting for the box now.

How high on the release?

A question for the Aussie who has ordered and received a Vive. Did you have to pay Fedx import duties? Did you receive paperwork?