understanding pixel density...

Hi, What does do the option of pixel density related to VR technically ? since the resulution cannot display more pixels, what does this feature actually do?

I'm trying to understand if I see a difference or not.

many thx :helpsmilie:

Is this in regards to the cockpit resolution in 1.5 that is 256 by default or is this an option in one of the betas?

I would assume that any option that talks about that would maybe be more related to texture resolution (measured in pixels) than anything else.

Maybe instead of for example, a cockpit texture being 256x256 it is 1024x1024 which results in a sharper texture (because the actual texture has more pixels) but doesnt really equal that you see more pixels.

This is all assumption though since I don't exactly know what you are referring to :)

Hi, What does do the option of pixel density related to VR technically ? since the resulution cannot display more pixels, what does this feature actually do?

I'm trying to understand if I see a difference or not.

 

many thx :helpsmilie:

Pixel Density:

Is The Resolution of the Rendered Image before it's scaled to the rift's displays.

1.0 = 2160x1200

1.5 = 3240x1800

etc Etc etc

It's Basically Super Resolution, The Effect it has is clearing up text and labels etc.

Pixel Density:

Is The Resolution of the Rendered Image before it's scaled to the rift's displays.

 

1.0 = 2160x1200

1.5 = 3240x1800

 

etc Etc etc

 

It's Basically Super Resolution, The Effect it has is clearing up text and labels etc.

Is this an option only available for the Rift? (I have a VIVE)

Sounds cool

Is this an option only available for the Rift? (I have a VIVE)

 

Sounds cool

Only Rift....

But on this forum there is a selution to do a simalur thing for the Vive

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=169141

The thing I think that is amazing about this Pixel Density Override is that we all were assuming that to get a much clearer image on our VR goggles, the focus would simply be more pixels (4K??) in the display hardware - and yet a major item has turned out to be oversampling!

For future systems, we need both. I just have a DK2 for a while longer and the visual improvement is wonderful.

I'm just wondering if there isn't more efficient (anti-aliasing?) algorithm to come up with similar results... I'm sure someone will come up with one at some point, as consumer VR is still very much in its infancy.

Now that VR has shown its commercial potentiality, I'm sure we'll see some improvements on both hardware as well as software front, and I will be definitely looking forward to them :)

The VR settings and pixel density in DCS are first steps to this direction, I believe.

But you pay for this over sampling. You need to render X times more pixels, if you have 1080SLI go for it, you might be able to boost up to 2.0 while maintaining high FPS. However, most systems will need to sacrifice to use it. But it's making the pit usable vs higher graphics. Some systems can't trade, a stock 970 will not be able to use MUltisample at all (at least not on the vive)

Wonder if they can make this work for us Nvidia 3D vision users?

Wonder if they can make this work for us Nvidia 3D vision users?

Just use nvidia DSR , its same thing.

This pixel density is just oldest antialising method ever, render image in high resolution (4k etc) and downscale (1080p or 1440p etc )= best quality but very high performance hit.

It's the super-sampling and it's not new.. and it's the most resource intensive antialising method available, and when we're struggling already with the performance to obtain some solid 90fps, decreasing it even more isn't that smart.

Increasing slightly the readability but doubling the ghosting is an advantage? Nope it's not.

It still have a limited usage in the single player mission with no much objects, where you can have high enough fps already to not pay the price of this "feature".

Well if you're lucky to own a GPU with computing power equivalent to the top 500 supercomputers in 1995 (combined), you won't have a problem running the only AA method that actually increases detail instead of interpolating it.

All the better that DCS is completely CPU bound with any decent GPU, and increasing pixel density is basically free.

But you pay for this over sampling. You need to render X times more pixels

I think it'd be the square of the density setting, since you're multiplying the setting for both width and height. :geek:

Using the following resolutions/Pixel densities:

1.0 = 2160 x 1200

1.5 = 3240 x 1800

2.0 = 4320 x 2400

You would be rendering:

2,592,000 pixels = 1.0

5,832,000 pixels = 1.5

10,368,000 pixels = 2.0

Even with three screens at 5760x1080 you're only rendering 6.22 million pixels. I'm finding that 1.5 gives me the best performance in SP with minimal ghosting.

To think... there has to be nearly a billion pixels per second rendered to run 2x density at 90fps. I thought my i486@66 MHz was killer at running Doom...I wonder what kind of power we'll have in another 20 years.

To think... there has to be nearly a billion pixels per second rendered to run 2x density at 90fps. I thought my i486@66 MHz was killer at running Doom...I wonder what kind of power we'll have in another 20 years.

A billion pixels a second really puts all this in perspective, huh?!

I'm not sure there are any PC's right now that can run DCS with a PD of 2.0 and achieve a solid 90fps at all times...if only there were!!!

The performance threads always end up blaming the DirectX overhead for DCS's CPU bottleneck. I guess it's a penalty for working from such an old base, even with the EDGE face-lift.

I've been able to run other very good looking games at 2x density and a solid 90fps, so I know the GPU power is there.

DirectX API didnt remove their software layer until DX12, which is less than a year old still (Retail).

and the only reason they did it was because they were under pressure by AMD to do so.

The Software Compatibility Layer of DirectX's API hasnt been needed in over a decade.

it Existed because in the 90s and early 2000's we had like 8 different GPU Vendors.. Each with their own proprietary API.

DX offered a API that ran on all of them.

It's no longer needed, both Companies (AMD and nVidia) have GPU's Capable of processing GPU Commands on their own, and the software layer to process GPU Commands is no longer needed.

Well if you're lucky to own a GPU with computing power equivalent to the top 500 supercomputers in 1995 (combined), you won't have a problem running the only AA method that actually increases detail instead of interpolating it.

 

All the better that DCS is completely CPU bound with any decent GPU, and increasing pixel density is basically free.

That's not exact, and you can do test it yourself. A 980Ti or a 1080 is barely used considering its fully potential (and it's not just because of the CPU bottleneck, but because of the bad engine optimization), when you pump the resolution or the AA up, you expect to have a better result at a zero-cost (to use your words), because you imagine that it will load only your GPU, but this isn't going to happen: despite the board having a lot of unused juice, the fps will tank... even by having a 4.6ghz 6core CPU (like me), and the GPU will remain unused by its 40%.

DCS need a heavy optimization, it's not up to the modern "standards"... I expected that with EDGE they would have changed everything, but it didn't happened, or it's just a matter of (very bad) optimization... let's hope for the future.

At 1.0 density I have a GPU utilization of <50%, and 45-90 FPS. Alternatively, I can have 80-90% GPU utilization with 2.0 pixel density set, and no discernable FPS loss. The only way I get 90 FPS solid in DCS is by turning off the shadows, none of the other settings have nearly the same impact.

It's no longer needed, both Companies (AMD and nVidia) have GPU's Capable of processing GPU Commands on their own, and the software layer to process GPU Commands is no longer needed.

That's very interesting. So losing that "middleman" software layer is part of DX12? What kind of performance gains do we expect to see when games can work with the GPU directly?

I've been trying to understand all the facets of computer graphics lately, like starting with the architecture and going up. It's a hugely complicated topic, but definitely interesting how it all works.

The only way I get 90 FPS solid in DCS is by turning off the shadows, none of the other settings have nearly the same impact.

For me, it's rendered mirror. Instant action cold start in the M2000, as soon as you close the canopy and get your mirror, my frames instantly go from 90 to 30. Click the mirror to stop it rendering, back to 90.

For me, it's rendered mirror. Instant action cold start in the M2000, as soon as you close the canopy and get your mirror, my frames instantly go from 90 to 30. Click the mirror to stop it rendering, back to 90.

I've had mirrors turned off this whole time. What VR headset are you using and what settings for graphics? No offense but I'm not sure how u can magically get a steady 90fps in VR when nobody else can. Regardless of system specs, I would like to know your secret.

Also what version of dcs?

I also have mirrors turned off, but I did turn them on a few times. I didn't notice the frame rate hit during those short tests, but I didn't like how the parallax and view angles were all wrong so I kept them off.

A steady 90 fps is possible with the HTC Vive (as should the Rift also).

 

I'm getting mostly 90fps also, but you'll need very latest hardware. I'm using Zotac 980ti extreme's, i7-6700, ASUS Maximus VIII Hero MB, 64 Gigs of G.Skill Ripjaws Ram, V=NAND SSD 950 PRO M.2 and much overclocking, water cooling, and system tuning. And forget about Shadows, sadly...:cry:

And there are certain areas of the Caucasus map which I've discovered will put me into the "reprojection" range, with the graphics option as I've got set, and just don't want to give up :cry:.

 

I'm about to set up and try playing with "pixel density" editing hopefully tonight after a little TV relax time (NCIS, hooked on that series :detective:).

It'll be interesting to see what performance hits I get...

I'll post result's and maybe get a video out hopefully...

:beer:

It would be nice to see if the pixel density hits your FPS cause as much as I want to try getting a clearer image.. I can't afford any hits to it I dont think. What you said is interesting about going into reprojection.. because for instance.. If I start out in the su25t free flight mode, that spot it puts you over with all the towns, that puts me in reprojection. I wonder if that is a spot you are having it also.

If I climb above the clouds I am at 90 for the most part... however when I come in for a landing my fps starts to suffer again.. the airport seems to just put me in reprojection. Is this the way yours is?

I am running 1.5.3 so haven't tried the possible better 1.5.4 or 2.0 versions.

I also am curious if you were to run something like msi afterburner to monitor your cpu/gpu usage in VR, if you are even using more than 70% of your GPU and if your main CPU core is at 95-99% like many of us.

With all due respect, most of the system stats you mentioned IMO doesn't matter much at all when it comes to this sim from what I have seen. All that ram is not even being touched unless you have something set differently than me. I have 24gb and am only seeing 4 I think being used during the sim (i am on 64 bit windows 10 also.)

Granted, your 6700k has better single core performance than my i7-950 overclocked to 4ghz but I feel like most of the problem with dropping into reprojection just comes from the sim forcing every cpu to bottleneck our highend GPUs.

I am going to upgrade to the 1070 as soon as available but I heard even people with 1080s aren't seeing much of an improvement simply cause the game is forcing the cpu to 99% too much.

I also have a test I want to run tomorrow, someone suggested messing with the Nvidia control panel to improve performance (setting it to performance instead of quality or something.)

We'll see. :)