Hippo

Thanks. I had misunderstood - I see now that the change is only going to be noticeable for very close up objects. I've tried the setting now. On first impressions, I do think a setting around 55 - 60 seems better for the F-16. There's another "issue" with the F-16, in that if you're sitting in a normal chair (as I am) as soon as you catch sight of the seat it feels wrong (as it should). Looks like I need to get a recliner.

Thanks for posting that. I haven't gone over all the replies, but my question would be: fine, you rescale the cockpit, but aren't you rescaling everything in the world also? Does this mean that (say) buildings, trees and cars will be a different size? So you'll have differently sized world objects for each aircraft if you adjust IPD per aircraft - that can't be right. I've also always felt, that after ejecting, my virtual me's legs and feet are way too small, and I'm hardly a giant. From the post: This is what is commonly referred to as a cop out. Although I am sympathetic.

Not just me, it seems... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=270430

PLS ignore: somehow managed to wander into and search in wrong sub-forum. Realised later already reported. And not a bug anyway.

Well, according to the latest DCS manual, p51: Has there ever been a detailed explanation from ED on what this setting actually does, and how it interacts with, e.g., the Oculus IPD setting? (And why "IPD distance", when the D already stands for distance? Doesn't inspire much confidence). And I get that everyone's eyes are different, but they don't change when moving from cockpit to cockpit. This topic is the sort of thing that would make for a really interesting technical article: explaining the maths, how it's all been implemented in DCS, and how to ensure everything is set up properly for a particular HMD. It's this sort of communication that I would really like to see from ED.

A lot of what you say seems right, and yet... ...everything does "feel" teeny-tiny: switches, the buttons on the ICP. And you have to ask, if the stick seems too small, why should it? I own a Cougar, and it seems much smaller than that. The ka-50 and a-10 feel enormous in comparison. The f-18 feels just right.

Thanks, great post. I've avoided playing around with the IPD setting: For one thing, I'm perfectly happy with the F-18 and haven't had to change anything for that. If a setting is correct for one aircraft, shouldn't it be the same for all of them? I'm using a Rift-S, the Oculus software knows my IPD, so I don't see why I should have to dial in an IPD in game. Even if I do, shouldn't it be possible for ED to say exactly what the setting should be for a specific HMD? I've not found (doesn't mean one isn't out there) a satisfactory explanation for what the IPD setting in ED actually does - I seem to remember reading somewhere that it has nothing to do with IPD and does something entirely different. I shall be going through the forums again I think.

I don't know if it's just because I spend almost of all of my time in the F-18, but with the F-16 cockpit in VR, it seems like the scale's off. E.g. the flight stick looks tiny; but everything seems smaller than it should be. Just me I suppose?

Unfortunately - no. If only... From the OP:

I don't think so. The only thing I've ever changed is the masksize, and that did not require it.

I don't think so. If what you're after is 8x, you need to use the value 4 - #define ENABLE_DIFFUSE_SS 4 // Albedo texture supersampling. 0=off, 1=2x, 2=4x, 3=6x, 4=8x

Thank you, as always, for all your efforts. However, for the first time, with 2.5.6.47224, I am not seeing the improvements in performance I have come to expect. There is an improvement, but it is maybe 1/3 of what I've been used to from your mod. This is probably down to something I'm doing, or to my limited testing, and please don't think I'm complaining, but I just thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else agrees.

Thank you ED. Extremely generous, and much appreciated.

Same thing happening in mission "Gauntlet", "Altitude"

OK. I've just reverted to 2.5.6.45915, and the Ka-50 Instant Action Insurgents mission does not show the severe fps issue now present in 2.5.6.47224. TBH, I was not aware that this issue had only just been introduced and had assumed it was present from the first 2.5.6. Also, it appears all (or many) of the F-18 missions have been changed for 47224. Why? Who knows? What is going on? It appears that missions are having to be changed for each update. No wonder multiplayer missions which have always worked are now going wonky.

It's not just you. The landing lights now do not come on. They did for the same mission for me, flown exactly the same way, before the update. I have definitely called "inbound". Oh, bother.

Is it being acknowledged, though? I can't help but get the feeling that we're all shouting "the BIG problem is in missions with AI objects!", and that ED are testing with missions without AI objects and trying to fix the smaller problem. It just seems odd that none of the comments from ED mods / spokespersons ever mention AI objects. Lost in translation? Or maybe it's just me?

For the slowdown that seems to happen with AI objects present, it does seem unlikely. Perhaps someone could ask Kate Perederko to comment on this specifically? It's precisely what I'm talking about, when I refer to my "empty world" f-18 mission. I disagree that it's inevitable - the possible leveraging of new hardware features can often allow better graphics at similar or better performance. I reckon there's been a decrease in performance of approx 10% - 20% because of these improvements. It's been "hidden" because of the disastrous AI object frame rate drops. But, in VR, where every bit of performance counts, it is not insignificant. From the quote above, it seems that we're going to have to live with it. Quite clearly, I disagree with this statement, and I back it up with the screenshots I have posted. I'll wait for you to do the same, before I take your statement seriously.

Performance notes 2.5.6.47224 Please see for reference: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4221938&postcount=73 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4270912&postcount=324 As others have observed, I also see serious issues in the ka-50 insurgents mission. I just flew on initial heading until I got shot at by ground forces. I was getting around 5 fps. Something is very wrong. Curiously, it was ok for the first few seconds in the mission, but after that the performance tanked. For my usual empty world f-18 mission, performance is worse than 2.5.5 but shows a sliver of an improvement over the previous 2.5.6. This can be seen in that ASW doesn't kick in until later. I'll just add the following: Finally! How refreshingly honest. So that's that. Fair enough. It's exasperating that this wasn't just stated in the first place from day 1. From my personal view, the water improvements I could live without if it meant a few more frames in VR. Could this not be offered as an option?

I was trying to help you, as it appears your system is not being used to best effect. Ideally, you want to have CPU AND GPU running close to but never quite reaching 100%. Whether you tweak your settings so that his happens at 40 / 80 fps is down to your personal preference of graphic quality vs frame rate. For 80 fps very low settings are necessary, unfortunately, and even then it's almost impossible. With DCS it appears that just one of the cores does almost all of the work. This core can be the limiting factor (if the GPU isn't). In practice, what the other cores are doing doesn't really matter. I would not recommend turning off ASW (unless you're testing). Constantly fluctuating frame rates are very uncomfortable. What sort of frame rate were you getting along with what you describe? I wouldn't know what helps the developers, but I would suggest that stating what sort of mission you were running, your DCS settings, screenshot(s) of your results, and your system specs could be useful. BTW, it's just occurred to me that with 2.5.6 and a mission with lots of other (AI? static?) objects, you will get issues with DCS performing very poorly - if this is what you're experiencing, then, yes, there does seem to be a major issue with 2.5.6. I've stopped bothering with those sorts of missions on 2.5.6, as something is clearly broken. What I stated above appears to be valid as long as you are running a mission with very little going on. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4237111&postcount=2

ASW? CPU - what are the individual cores doing? Sorry if I'm telling you what you already know, but it's impossible to ascertain someone's level of knowledge. Check the screenshot on my post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4270912&postcount=324 With VR, and my Rift-S, I'm only going to run at 80 fps OR 40 fps (ASW). This means that I will get the corresponding % util according to those frame rates. See how my GPU util is initially just below 100% when I run at 80fps, and dips to around 60% intermittently, then stays there as I get closer to the aerodrome and the GPU needs to work harder (ASW kicks in and 40fps)? Also, see how it's CPU core 12 that I've selected to monitor? It's that core that does most of the work. You need to look at individiual cores and not overall CPU util, which will be an average. It could be that one of your cores is running high and that's the bottleneck. What's probably happening in your case, is that ASW is limiting your fps to 40, where your system would be capable of managing more. Your system doesn't require very high CPU/GPU util to maintain 40 fps, but cannot manage the performance to maintain 80 fps, so is capped by ASW to 40. Upshot: if EITHER the CPU (a specific core) or GPU approach 100% util (at 80 fps), ASW kicks in and util will drop by around 50%. (I use fps/ ASW as examples for my HMD - Rift S, they'll most likely be different if you're using another).

I personally can't believe that people say that for them DCS requires 12GB, but that 16GB isn't enough and they need 32GB instead. I've been running VR with 16GB for ages and have had no issues whatsoever (wrt memory).

I'll look into it next time. I'm not using DCS under Steam. EDIT - it seems to only work with SteamVR, is that right? You are taking this discussion way off the point, btw. Are you saying that you see no difference when you use the mod? Perhaps you could point me to the results you have posted which demonstrate this?

Fine. There is only so much effort each of us is willing to put in as unpaid beta testers for ED. You can see from my screenshot that the GPU util is indisputably, measurably lower with the mod (around 20% -i.e. from around 90% to 72% at the start of the mission). Not perfect, but surely of more use than all the "it looks smoother to me" posts. P.S. If when I was able get an fps difference measurement in the recent past it equated to a certain GPU util difference, it is not unreasonable to assume a similar relationship today.