Hippo
-
Posts
1061 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Hippo
-
-
On 1/24/2025 at 12:26 PM, nikoel said:
My true advice to you would be download the DLL package. Enable Profile J. Activate DLSS. See for yourself
Thank you for the suggestion and for the rest of your reply. I've tried it now and my first impressions are that yes it's better than dlss3, but that i'm not gaining enough performance over plain dlaa (anything below balanced still shows too much ghosting) to justify it - in particular i'm seeing some rather distracting artifacting with clouds, esp in the peripheral area even with balanced (probably also with quality - don't recall, but I suspect quality would invalidate any perf gains anyway). I will be sticking with my settings above (and the dlss 3 dlls) for now.
On 1/24/2025 at 12:26 PM, nikoel said:Also remember that some of us have gone to complete extremes of overclocking deactivating hundreds of background tasks and features to claw back every last FPS. Everything from automatic update checks, RGB, disk defragmentation schedule, one drive, copilot AI BS, every piece of background monitoring, XBOX and gaming services.
You have my admiration, but for me this stuff goes into the I'm too old for this sh1t category.
-
2
-
-
Sorry to log this here, pls ignore unless others report seeing it too as there are too many variables for me to test, but...
I've noticed (in VR haven't checked in 2D) that after I apply the brakes and stop, the a/c is flipped around and the parking menu appears that my frame rate is immediately adversely affected (due to CPU not GPU). If I select to takeoff again it returns to normal, if I select cancel it doesn't. It's as if something funky is going on in the background.
-
Bump. And now just noticed that when touching down on the carrier deck at night the flashing carrier deck lights cause the foveated region to light up so that I can see a highly immersion-breaking bright yellow square. Sorry can't provide screenshot as it's only visible briefly when the lights flash.
I know this only affects a relatively very small number of users but I really wish someone could look into it. Please. Thanks.
-
That's strange, I'm not seeing that at all (just tested with VR). I think the iflols is now working pretty well, and I still think the deck lights are too dim as I don't see them until way too late. Maybe it's something in my settings?
EDIT: Using the Stennis in that mission.
EDIT2 (12 hrs later): Now swapped with Truman. Seems the same. At around 1.6 DME iflols pops into view but it is all just a blur (though this could be due to headset resolution limits) . At around the ball call (0.8) I am able to discern the ball , I can also just about see the deck lights at this point although they are very very dim. I don't know why I'm not getting the super bright carrier reported above?!
Combining the ball with the ILS and trying really hard to see the deck lights in time I am able to make the trap; I was not able to do this before the latest patch.
-
On 1/13/2025 at 4:01 AM, nikoel said:
Okay, I’ll bite.
This is why it’s called CPU and GPU pairing
Within DCS, it’s not difficult to create scenarios where one is CPU-limited or GPU-limited, even with the same hardware. It depends on the scene being rendered. For instance, if we were to use a carrier deck population template, you would have seen a massive performance uplift by upgrading from the 8700K to your 13K. However, in scenarios where you are GPU-bottlenecked like a 1:1 knife fight, getting a faster processor only results in very minor gains. It all depends on what is causing the bottleneck
For people with identical hardware, the experience can vary greatly depending on what they are doing within DCS and this is why opinions vary so much
There are tools like QuadViews that can shift some of the load from the GPU to the CPU. This is one of the reasons why it’s incorrect to say it “gives you more performance.” It provides more performance in GPU-limited scenarios but reduces performance (or performance headroom) in CPU-limited scenarios. Or Increases CPU frametimes and decreases GPU frametimes
Now, regarding your question about where you’re going wrong: this brings me to the topic of resolution. Pimax’s new headsets are indeed high resolution, but it’s
unwisenuts not to run them with foveated rendering as it brings the GPU to it's kneesThis means the total number of pixels being rendered is far lower than you might think, and the uplift in resolution of the headset is much greater than the actual number of pixels the GPU has to render. This is solely because of QuadViews. It allows you to significantly reduce the number of peripheral pixels without noticing a difference. It's not small either, depending on the end user's taste, the difference is over 70% fewer pixels rendered for roughly the same picture quality.
No difference because our eyes perceive sharpness and focus within roughly a 3° cone, so the periphery pixels matter far less than the ones inside that 3 degree arc. You can test this for yourself with the Quest Pro in your signature. Eye tracking allows you to lower GPU overhead at the cost of slightly higher CPU frametimes. I run mine on a 4090 with all settings dialed to the moon with the use of QuadViews, something I could not do without it. It's comes at a cost when I am on a fully populated super carrier deck and this is where performance can suffer
So because of my CPU bias created by QuadViews, compared to someone who is running QP at 5.5kx2.8k, I am running a lower overall resolution, a sharper higher resolution image within the zone that I can see, at higher overall settings at a cost of some stuttering where I am severely cpu limited (usually in that said super carrier in campaigns)
Finally, youre right to doubt the precision of frametime tools offered. if you’re looking for a proper utility to measure frametimes, check out Fred’s OpenXRFrameTools here
https://github.com/fredemmott/XRFrameToolsSorry, but I'm back. Everything you say is perfectly reasoned and sensible, but in the nicest possible way I'm going to ask you (or anyone else who feels so inclined) to put your money where your mouth is and show me some numbers: system spec, DCS config, VR config. Then tell me if you can hold 72 fps without drops in the attached mission (F18 low over Dubai, the a/c will set itselt up to follow a path within the first 10 seconds of the mission, so you don't have to do anything but look straight forward), just let the a/c fly itself until the end of the first turn.
My hardware specs are in in my sig.
For QVFR I am using the following settings:
# Common settings for all headsets (unless overriden below). smoothen_focus_view_edges=0.2 sharpen_focus_view=0.7 turbo_mode=1 [Oculus] peripheral_multiplier=0.4 focus_multiplier=1.1 horizontal_focus_section=0.25 vertical_focus_section=0.25These are settings that in combination with DLAA give me visuals that I find acceptable (reduce shimmering in peripheral area, and don't introduce too much artifacting into the HMDs) and maximise performance.
My Quest Pro is set up like this:
My DCS settings are below. My current system cannot hold 72 fps, but my previous system (see sig) could, just about. It has to drop to ASW 36 fps at times as the GPU util hits 100% - I have tried to set things up so that with a graphically demanding mission such as this, my GPU utils stays just below 100%.
Even with QVFR, how are people holding high (no reprojection) frame rates with the much higher resolutions of newer headsets like the Crystal or (when it arrives) Crystal Super?
I realise that everything from my choice of test, to the way I'm setting things up, to my interpretation of the results could be all wrong and I'd be really grateful if anyone could suggest improvements.
Trying, and failing miserably, to get back on topic, I don't think the 4090 -> 5090 30% bump we'll be getting will be enough for the high resolutions of the latest headsets (come on DCS VR reviewers, where are you?), and anything without eye-tracking, well forget it, imho. Leaving as our only hope the improved DLSS?
Still, it's over 2x the perf of my 3080 Ti, so I might be tempted to do something very stupid on Jan 30th.
-
Sorry if there's some other way to achieve this that I've missed, but I've been finding that it would be very handy when I select to display only, e.g., blue ships on the unit list to have this choice be replicated to the units that are displayed on the map, as a very quick way to unclutter the map.
I realise that a similar result can be achieved by hiding units but that can be much more laborious when dealing with large numbers of groups.
Thanks.
-
1
-
-
Great to see that the IFLOLS has become visible again, so thank you very much for that. I still think the landing lights (on the deck) are too dim and should be visible from further away, hopefully this is still being worked on.
-
3
-
-
On 12/11/2024 at 10:10 AM, Hippo said:
the P/INS advisory bug has been introduced and it is necessary to turn the INS selector every time I start a mission
Whohoa, you fixed this, you absolute stars, thank you!
-
1
-
-
After reading about your work on landing gear modelling I found it rather difficult not to become aroused.
-
3
-
-
Because if after 30 mins in the ME you don't feel like you've been to a flak, aaa and sam-infested hell and back, then you're not getting your money's worth. This is Digital Combat Simulator, after all. If you want standard application convenience options, might I suggest Microsoft Powerpoint instead.
-
1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:
so I hadn’t really attempted to use the tab key within the Editor
What is this barbarism you speak of?! Having said that, I can see how too much time in the ME might make someone never want to use a keyboard ever again.
1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:one that I would love to have is a way to select a block of triggers and then be able to move them up or down within the trigger list, currently it only allows movement of single triggers.
I also would love if triggers (and trigger zones) could be added to Static Templates, allowing me to build trigger blocks like a library of common functions.
Finally, adding the ability to comment on triggers would do a lot for documenting the mission’s logic.
A suggestion so excellent that some might say it even deserves its own thread
. Since you mention triggers, I at times have needed to copy triggers between missions and would like that functionality also.
-
1
-
-
Since the ME is essential for the production of content for DCS, it is very frustrating that ED can allow it to continue to have such basic, shameful failings. As I mentioned in another post, I ocassionally dabble with the ME, but in the past have always given up with emotions ranging from frustration to rage as e.g. when I unintentionally move a meticulously placed object and... no undo!
I don't think, however, that it's due to a lack of talent, but more to a lack of resources and choice of priorities, and a community which is nowhere near loud (or large enough in the case of the ME) enough in its criticism.
I normally wouldn't post something as pedantic as the above, and I expect it will achieve nothing, but it does help to bring down the frustration levels.
-
This is sadly widespread within the ME, but for example in the dialog shown in the screenshot below:
- Click on group name text dialog -> text entry cursor appears
- Press TAB key -> cursor disappears, but nothing happens
- Press TAB key (again) -> nothing happens
- Press TAB -> cursor switches to CONDITION text box
- Press TAB -> cursor switches to % text box
- Press TAB -> cursor switches to UNIT text box, but COUNTRY drop down list is skipped
- Press TAB -> cursor switches to FREQENCY text box, skipping three drop down lists, a text box and six check boxes
- Press TAB -> cursor switches to OF (UNIT) text box, skipping a drop down list and two check boxes
- Press TAB -> cursor switches to UNIT NAME text box, skipping two drop down lists
- Press TAB -> cursor disappears, but nothing happens
- Press TAB seven times -> nothing happens
- Press TAB -> cursor switches to GROUP NAME text box
- Press TAB -> cycle repeats
In summary:
- Buttons, drop down lists and check boxes are ignored when using TAB (and shift-TAB)
- Pressing the TAB key sometimes seems to do nothing
- Elements are not progressed through in a logical order
Additionally there appears to be no way to switch to the options below (route, ammo, triggered actions, etc) using the keyboard
-
1
-
E.g. Please could you allow for when GROUP_NAME-01 is copy-pasted for GROUP_NAME-02 to be created.
Or for when GROUP_NAME-001 is copy-pasted for GROUP_NAME-002 to be created.
Etc.
The current system makes the correct alphanumerical sorting of groups in lists impossible.
Thank you.
-
1
-
-
Currently when selecting a number of groups the anchor appears to attach by default to the group with lowest unit id. If there is a good reason why it is this way then I'm afraid it escapes me.
I think it would be better if the player could select the unit. Perhaps by using the last unit that was selected by the player before clicking on the multi selection tool icon.
Thank you.
-
Also, when clicking on the scroll bar arrows please could you make it so that the lists scroll by one entry and not by one pixel (this is what I'm seeing with a long list of groups)?
Thanks.
-
Thanks for replies. I watched the video and see that the anchor is for rotations, which don't seem to work for me at all; I'm currently not on the latest version of DCS and believe that rotations now should work. Hopefully when I'm back on my regular PC tomorrow it'll all work out.
I'm only an irregular dabbler with the ME, but I agree that it has a very poor interface design and I've always given up on it in the past when I've tried to do anything complex with it. If the likes of Adobe or Microsoft released a product with such a poor design they would be laughed out of existence. How professional campaign designers manage to keep their sanity while working with this tool is beyond me.
Still, it is what is, and we appear to have little choice but to accept it and hope for improvement, which does happen, sadly at a glacial pace.
EDIT: All appears to work as expected with rotation in latest version of DCS. Apologies.
-
I must be missing something but it seems to have no function whatsoever.
-
Firstly, thank you so much for the multi selection tool which I'm finding incredibly useful.
However, I'm finding that when copying or moving groups that I would really like an option for advanced waypoints to be moved so that they keep their relative rather than absolute position.
Hopefully the images explain what I'm going on about. Copy highlighted in first image is what I'd like to be able to do, second image is what happens now. Third image is original group.
Thanks.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, nikoel said:
So because of my CPU bias created by QuadViews, compared to someone who is running QP at 5.5kx2.8k, I am running a lower overall resolution, a sharper higher resolution image within the zone that I can see, at higher overall settings at a cost of some stuttering where I am severely cpu limited (usually in that said super carrier in campaigns)
Thank you for your post, all very interesting and sensible. Wrt to the above, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're setting your QP / PCL at a lower res in its software, but then running at a higher resolution (at least as high as the headset's recommended for barrel distortion correction) in the foveated area? If so, I didn't think to try that, and didn't even know if it was possible. I'm currently running a lower spec PC and will give it a go - thanks.
If you can spare the time, it's always interesting to know hw spec + settings + fps obtained for the types of mission you normally run.
-
3 hours ago, Qcumber said:
Sorry. "Presumption is the mother of all F*** ups". Do you see any performance gain with your CPU/GPU combination?
No worries, only kidding.
1. I sold the PC in my sig. a few months ago. 2. My testing was limited to missions like that uploaded in the linked post. 3. I attempt to hold 72 fps (no ASW) and try to get just below 100% gpu util with a demanding mission such as (2), so that I can have plenty of headroom for more normal loads.
Bearing (1), (2), (3) in mind:
3080Ti, i7 8700k -> i9 13900k - no benefit whatsoever that I could discern.
13900k, 3080Ti -> 4090 - major benefit. There was no way I could hold 72 fps in the mission with those settings (see linked post) until I got the 4090, the gpu util would always hit 100% and ASW would kick in.
I found that if I wanted 72 fps on a mission like that in the link, with those settings, I needed a 4090. I don't know how people with, say, a Crystal Light (or eventually Super!) or similar higher res headsets can run without reprojection or lowering rendering resolution from optimal. I was running QP at 5408 x 2736, PCS is 12840 x 7412 at 100%.
If, as is very likely, I'm missing something, I'd be very grateful to be informed by the knowledgeable folks on here.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Qcumber said:
I presume you have not been using eye tracking with your QP? With QVFR enabled your CPU will be the bottleneck.
You presume incorrectly sir/ madam: I do use QVFR and will not consider a headset without eye-tracking; if you're interested to see how I tested and my settings, you might consider clicking on the link in my previous post.
-
1
-
-
-
11 hours ago, Aapje said:
Given that people's 4090 are already being held back by 'slower' CPU's like a 5800X3D.
I see that this appears to be the general consensus on here, but how are people coming to this conclusion? I would say the opposite: I find that it is the GPU that maxes out when I try (tried - I sold my PC a few months ago) to hold 72 fps with my Quest Pro / 4090 / 13900k, high VR rendering resolution and in-game graphical complexity. I would have chosen to upgrade the GPU rather than the CPU, and going 3080Ti -> 4090 was a substantial improvement. I do tend to run single player missions with not much going on, and test that way, so maybe that's it?
Unfortunately it doesn't seem that the 4090 -> 5090 uplift in rasterisation performance is going to be particularly substantial. I did manage to sell my 4090 for around 80% of what I paid for it. If a reasonable price can be obtained for the 4090 then the (supposed) improvements in upscaling quality and performance could make it worthwhile. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of real world DCS VR testing.
-
2
-
Kneeboard requests
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
Do my eyes deceive me? Has this actually been done? I notice that pages on my kneeboard now have the tabs already come up. Sorry if this was done some time ago and I missed it, but thank you thank you thank you!
Dare I to dream?