S3NTRY11

I recently got a 1080Ti, and have run a little in VR. I have an i7 2600k running at 4.5GHz, and man, getting FPS is... rough. It seems like most graphics settings do close to nothing to improve fps; screams CPU bottleneck. What I have found is that, generally, close to the ground is a headache-inducing slide-show (30-45fps), and up in the air, is a little better in fps (can reach 90fps). (if anyone has a definitive guide to max fps in 1.5/2.0 for VR, please help me out) Sorry I don't have great fps stats to share, but I can comment on the value of an upgrade, and my opinion on it. I think that if your main focus is simulation, you should go for raw clock and IPC (7700k). Having said that, I think many games are moving to multi-threading, and more cores are safer (6-core+?) and there the R1600/R1700 begin to look like better bang-for-buck. The real comparison I'd like to see is R1600/R1700/i7-7700 specifically in DCS. I have a feeling my 2600k@4.5GHz would likely be close to R1600/R1700@4GHz in raw single-threaded performance (pure gut-feeling, R-series may have a slight edge?), but the real point is simulation needs the single-threaded performance, so, even though 7700k is a dead-end in terms of motherboard, it's probably still the best option for DCS. Things get real muddy with Intel's latest X299-based stuff. If the chipset is going to last as long as AMD's AM4, it would likely be the way to go, but is it going to stick around that long? Intel change their sockets more than their corporate underwear.

Oh man. Sorry to hear that. It's so strange that you were charged duty where others of us did not. Sounds like something went awry there. I had payment issues too, but only resulted in a $40 step due to currency fluctuation. All be worth it in the end for you, I have no doubt.

Did receive paperwork, some time after it arrived. Did not have to make any extra payment over the original cost.

My R9 390X hits 90, so I don't see why a 980ti couldn't.

My understanding is that it is just 45/90fps and below 45, if real bad. At least that's been what I've witnessed in not a whole lot of testing.

That's good though. You've either considered what I've said and come to a conclusion based upon it, or already made up your mind and were not swayed. I'm just giving my opinion, and everyone should be allowed to do so, and where there is a counter to be put forward, a debate ensues. This is not a bad thing. If we can keep it civil (which a few of us can struggle with, at times), there should be no problem with it. I've learnt from many of the debates I've had. This notion that only "good things", or "zero comparison with Vive" should be posted in the Rift thread is absolute nonsense. There will be people coming here for information, good and bad, and if all that gets posted is echo chamber-grade information, that only serves those that have already made up their mind anyway. My problem is, if I see something I disagree with and feel like a counter should be offered, I generally respond, when a lot of the time it's probably not worth the effort.

For all intents and purposes, the Pre and CV are identical, so I'd bet that value holds true for both.

I don't agree, but time will tell. "less immersion breaking"? Have you used Chaperone? It's a necessary evil that can only be escaped by increased volume. Something inherently limited with the Rift, to start with. Chaperone hasn't bugged me or taken me out of the game more than a minor irritation. You don't care which is better, but will fervently counter any anti-oculus sentiment, or people stating a preference. You even agreed with mister FlyInside on everything but the one thing that was truly differentiating between the two. So fine, yes, you are completely impartial... And yes, it absolutely is zealous faith, read-back your posts. Roomscale capability is nothing but speculation on the Oculus side. I'll say what I've said already. If you have any interest in roomscale, I would strongly recommend not getting the Rift. Bit I'm out. Again. /thread derailment.

You have a zealous faith in Oculus. If you simply look at the underlying tech, it is very clear that there are a number of limiting factors to Constellation's capabilities. Just an example, have you ever seen anyone turn 360 in the Rift with Touch? Because I haven't. Unless they're going to pack 2+ cameras with Touch (they'll have to make a loss to make it appealing), it's not going to do the job. I'm not going to debate it further, but suffice it to say, the limitations will become abundantly clear in time.

Not sure, I'll take a look.

Read the last few posts :) TL;DR Yes, there is a flavour of reprojection that SteamVR/OpenVR uses that is effective in DCS. 45 fps is pretty smooth.

The 45 fps is with reprojection. This is a good thing. If it's smooth then that is what you are after. 45 fps without reprojection would make you feel ill fairly quickly. I had a DK2 without any reprojection and 45 fps or there abouts made me feel pretty awful.

Turn reprojection on.

Great post, Rico! I've noticed the same thing with the Vive's reprojection too.

Much better response. I would say that the point about roomscale is off though. The Rift is not going to come near the Vive for roomscale, I guarantee it. If he has the chance, I recommend he find a way to check them both out, physically before doing anything.

Try numpad 5

They didn't really give you great reasons, I mean one guy even simply told you to man up and stick with your decision. So dopey, but anyway...

Is V-SYNC off and reprojection enabled in your SteamVR settings?

So I turned on the framerate tracker and noticed that I was never at 90 fps, but I was floating on or just under 45 which is a clear indication that reprojection is in effect. It was stuttering madly. That's when I turned V-SYNC off and things became buttery smooth with occasional, but bearable blips in framerate. Not sure I can offer more advice than that at this stage. I've lowered all but textures to minimum until I get time to tweak. I honestly thought that the resolution was auto-detected, and basically ignored the ingame setting. Could be worth fiddling with, maybe, but that's also something I'm not too sure on.

I haven't used the camera in any serious way as yet, in fact I haven't been able to figure out how to get "tron mode" going yet. Must be in the settings somewhere. I was under the impression that it was just always available. I'll see if I can work it out. Won't be until tomorrow though, unfortunately. Not to rain on your parade, but I get the feeling that decent integration of the camera to achieve what you're after may require dev work on the engine side. ie ED would have to work some magic, or you'd just have to switch to chaperone mode all the time which may be frustrating. Not too sure at this stage.

The sweet-spot for the Vive vs the DK2 is definitely larger... but, this is offset in a negative way that looking away from centre becomes more blurry sooner than it was in the DK2. MFDs are fine, really - TGP is ok, TAD is a little tougher in the detail. HUD is fine for airspeed, but not so great for waypoint info. No resolution miracles here, folks, but the gauges and dials are incrementally more readable than they were in the DK2. CDU/warning panel require some serious lean-in to be legible. I'll write something more substantial up when I get the chance, but just had a quick run through DCS 1.5 and 2 in the A10C. Valve's reprojection works pretty great. I still had momentary stutters here and there, but 1.5 mostly ran well. Needed to disable V-SYNC to get rid of major stuttering, and I'm guessing, that also allows the reprojection to do its work, somehow.

If your gear is within the tracking volume, no need to change anything.

Except for the guy you said was wrong, of course.

http://imgur.com/p4le5Vx In reality, I highly doubt the difference is as stark, but that's an indicator of FoV

I hear that a lot, and I used to think the same, but then I realised I need to do the same with a mouse. I am thinking (yet to be proven, obviously) motion controllers will be far more intuitive, especially if we can see a virtual representation, as gloves for example. We'll find out soon enough!