How much better is Rift than Vive for DCS World?

[BigDuke6ixx]

Nobody is "crying" about anything, please try and have a civil conversation. I find the resolution to be detrimental to my ability to quickly read what I need to read in the HUD while in VR, so that is why I, and in fact my wingman as well, usually don't do "serious" missions in VR.

 

I am certainly not "anti-VR" I have said multiple times it WILL eventually be a game changer, but it isn't there yet, at least not for a sim like DCS, this is all my opinion. I am glad you are able to adapt to it so well and not be impacted by the resolution and SDE, but I am.

 

Yeah, your advice remains general, while mine is more nuanced.

[dburne]

The discussion involved a comparison between an Oculus Rift and an HTC Vive, which was certainly an interesting discussion comparing the two devices.

[BigDuke6ixx]

The discussion involved a comparison between an Oculus Rift and an HTC Vive, which was certainly an interesting discussion comparing the two devices.

 

Neither are ready, so end of discussion, apparently.

[RoyMi6]

Are you able to translate that into something or did you just puke up a Scrabble set?

 

All the systems are really interesting. Suggest you read this:

https://developer3.oculus.com/blog/asynchronous-timewarp-on-oculus-rift/

and watch this:

and read this:

https://developer.oculus.com/blog/asynchronous-spacewarp/

 

 

I've often considered writing a primer on it as it's not the easiest thing to digest.

 

If we focus on the Oculus systems for the moment - essentially they have tried to create software enhancements that handle two situations.

 

The first problem they're trying to solve is dropped frames (when you accidentally drop a single frame below 90fps due to a background process like your Anti Virus spinning up)

 

The second problem is when you continuously can't reach 90fps.

 

Asynchronous Timewarp

 

Their first attempt at solving these problems was released not long after launch and called Asynchronous Timewarp (ATW).

 

Without going into the details of how it works what it does is generate new synthetic frames when you ROTATE your head. The problem with these generated frames is that they don't take your head position into account. So if you're dropping frames while you move your head side to side it will break. As a side note, because the Vive has something similar to ATW, when you rotate your head you'll notice everything can look OK - but if you MOVE your head you can start noticing stuttering (if you're not hitting 90fps)

 

This specific point in the video linked above (

) shows you what happens if you were "dropping frames" when he presses the "C" key. You can see it copes really well with generating new rotation based views.

 

However, its biggest flaw is that these newly generated "rotation based" synthetic frames don't take into account any movement of anything in the world. If a plane was flying across outside the window and you generated a new frame then the plane would be stuck in the same place. Its movement would appear jumpy - and, in essence, this is the basis for most of the stuttering problems we used to have with the Oculus Rift.

 

Asynchronous Spacewarp (ASW)

 

Oculus' next attempt at trying to solve this again is a software solution that doesn't just take rotation or the players head movement into account but takes into account the entire motion of the rendered scene.

 

Again, if you want more details about how it works read the articles I linked, but in essence, this solution is able to generate new frames much more accurately and it takes into account head movement and positional movement of game elements.

 

Like how the movement of this gun is able to be correctly "generated":

 

There are limitations however. It's not perfect. It's a software solution that works on top of any game engine and as such it doesn't have direct access to exactly what's going on. It's trying to interoperate the movement of elements on the screen. It generally works very well for movement of large elements in a smooth motion (like city scapes and the ground). But as any Oculus Rift owner with DCS will know, it can easily get it very wrong - the gyro gunsights are a perfect example!

 

ASW automatically kicks in on the Rift when you drop below 90fps. Once you go below 90fps, it will lock you to 45fps - giving it the information and time to generate the ASW synthetic frames. The added advantage of this is that Oculus actually lowered the recommended spec for their hardware AFTER launch because of this newly added software feature. Even with its limitations it's really quite cool :)

 

HTC Vive

Simply, at the moment the HTC Vive has a similar solution to Asynchronous Timewarp (which they call Asynchronous Reprojection) but they don't have something similar to Asynchronous Spacewarp.

 

That's partly why, in my opinion (and at this time of writing), the Oculus Rift is the better headset for DCS.

[dburne]

I actually have gotten to where I prefer to fly with ASW disabled for my Rift.

[Lensman]

I actually have gotten to where I prefer to fly with ASW disabled for my Rift.

 

I tend to agree. I'm still on Windows 7, so I understand ASW won't activate for me anyway?

I know I'm way below 90fps, particularly in Normandy, but apart from the occasional little stutter I find the experience smooth and comfortable. I try to not switch on the FPS meter but just enjoy the flying:thumbup:

[dburne]

I tend to agree. I'm still on Windows 7, so I understand ASW won't activate for me anyway?

I know I'm way below 90fps, particularly in Normandy, but apart from the occasional little stutter I find the experience smooth and comfortable. I try to not switch on the FPS meter but just enjoy the flying:thumbup:

 

Yeah same here, even with ASW disabled I really do not have what I would call noticeable stutter until frames drop much below 45 fps. I am sure I have it, but it still appears to be a pretty smooth experience.

[BigDuke6ixx]

I tend to agree. I'm still on Windows 7, so I understand ASW won't activate for me anyway?

I know I'm way below 90fps, particularly in Normandy, but apart from the occasional little stutter I find the experience smooth and comfortable. I try to not switch on the FPS meter but just enjoy the flying:thumbup:

 

Great tip re the frame counter.

Edited July 6, 2017 by BigDuke6ixx

[WindyTX]

+1 on the disabling ASW the jelly effect is too annoying for me so I disable it every time. Which should even out the 2 headsets but the Rift still seems clearer to me even with ASW off.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Chivas]

+1 on the disabling ASW the jelly effect is too annoying for me so I disable it every time. Which should even out the 2 headsets but the Rift still seems clearer to me even with ASW off.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

Both the Rift and Vive use the same resolution displays, but your right, the Rift is clearer because it uses slightly smaller displays with more pixels per inch, but at the cost of a slight loss of FOV. Clarity is far more important attribute than FOV with these early relatively low resolution headsets, especially in regards to flight sims. I would imagine that the Rift displays could also have more attributes than just pixels per inch, considering Oculus partnership with Samsung.

[TripRodriguez]

Good info guys. I got DCS working ok through ReVive now on the Rift. The Vive is still on the way and I'm looking forward to testing and comparing the two in various regards.

 

For me the biggest factor is going to be how well the tracking works with my motion sim, but future addons and plugins available for Vive will weigh in somewhat.

 

I'm still hoping that the Foveated Rendering addon will include a universal driver when it goes from DK to retail but that might be asking far too much!

[misoswan]

Good info guys. I got DCS working ok through ReVive now on the Rift. The Vive is still on the way and I'm looking forward to testing and comparing the two in various regards.

 

For me the biggest factor is going to be how well the tracking works with my motion sim, but future addons and plugins available for Vive will weigh in somewhat.

 

I'm still hoping that the Foveated Rendering addon will include a universal driver when it goes from DK to retail but that might be asking far too much!

 

 

will be waiting for your rating....:thumbup:

[Fri13]

Come on, it's a massive game changer even today. Monitors are just laughable even compared to the VR development kits. I think VR gets a bad rep from all those people suffering from buyer's remorse over the expensive hardware it makes redundant. You don't see many people bragging about their triple G-sync blah blah blah any more.

 

I say don't wait. Why waste a day with the underwhelming experience of projectors let alone monitors. Why waste time building a cockpit that looks nothing like the real thing and is utter unimmersive?

 

The VR will be there but not the current 6th gen versions and but not so much for FPS as these "room VR" are more like the previous five generations! Instead where the VR works is the games where you are sitting, like driving and flying games.

 

But the current VR tech ain't there. Instead putting a 1000€ + GPU like 1060-1080Ti and good CPU + lots of RAM as upgrade to computer that can already run DCS in 4K, it is far better to invest 999€ to a 65" HDR UHD TV, put a 200-300€ more to get a curved one.

 

And now you have far more useful setup for other things than just a DCS or some driving games.

 

The projectors were great solution up to few years as you could get as big screen as you wanted, but required a large room and dim lighting.

The cockpit building is a hobby, it is not the idea of the "immersion" but the experience to have the actual controls in your hands, something no VR can still imitate what so ever (getting there but... Not really for long time).

 

For a average flight simulation fan, a big TV or a larger computer display is still the best option with the TrackIR system.

 

Once the 3 axis 360 degree motion platforms prices drop to 1000-3000€ range, then a VR headset will triumph itself after it has evolved to maybe 7th or at least 8th generation.

And that demands that people would go and buy a lot of those devices so they would not become as niche product as 3D was on the TV. So go and buy those VR devices, suffer from the problems with it and just pay to get the next two generations developed!

[WindyTX]

On the original question fwiw I used my Vive in DCS for the first time in some months it ran really well I was surprised there was a little bit of side look stuttering compared to my Rift setup but the vive system has a 1060 6gb vs 1080 on the Rift. Sorry not gonna switch graphics cards, but there was a significant improvement since I last used it. I found it quite acceptable and would happily use it if the rift broke.

 

On the last VR vs a screen the major advantage of vr is that it is way closer to Flying. With a screen you are playing a game yep you can get higher resolution and spotting targets is easier. With VR you have a massive advantage when it comes to actually flying military style. Instructing someone on formation flying and combat spread is way easier if the guy has VR. He can pick it it up way quicker because it is closer to the real thing. At the end of the day (my opinion only) if you want to get the feel of what its like to fly a military fighter without signing up then VR is the only way to go. If you want to play a game with the best looking visuals then stick with a screen and save some money.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[BigDuke6ixx]

 

For a average flight simulation fan, a big TV or a larger computer display is still the best option with the TrackIR system.

 

But for your average real flying fan, VR is the only option.

[TripRodriguez]

But for your average real flying fan, VR is the only option.

 

I couldn't agree more.

[Fri13]

But for your average real flying fan, VR is the only option.

It will be once the quality can be improved.

But not yet for military flying.

 

For a acrobatics and casual flying it is there bit not for eye candy experience.

 

The military flying really requires to spot the targets and identify them at glance and as far as possible. That is a important thing.

 

Like with a 4K display you can spot a Mig-23/F-15 size target from a 15-18km distance and C-130 size from 30km (little before Mig-21Bis radar can see anything) and that allows to get edge in aerial combat and surviving as others can't so easily sneak on you or you can fly silently around them (and this all without enlargement).

 

I take VR once they solve the resolution problem but before that we need few generations of 3D cards to come with jumps like GTX660 > 1080Ti.

 

But for a most the problem of motion sickness doesn't go away as every VR headset is having the same problems as military VR headsets and tests has been conducted, we are still staring two separated 2D displays instead 3D.

 

But just getting "second best thing to real thing" it is all we can get.

 

IMHO the VR is still too early phase at its current gen and "let downer" but we do get there at some point. But there might before that even come other problems like the vision problems people has started to get that VR leads near slightness.

 

So going for the experience the VR is a thing.

 

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

[hansangb]

It will be once the quality can be improved.

But not yet for military flying.

 

For a acrobatics and casual flying it is there bit not for eye candy experience.

 

The military flying really requires to spot the targets and identify them at glance and as far as possible. That is a important thing.

 

Like with a 4K display you can spot a Mig-23/F-15 size target from a 15-18km distance and C-130 size from 30km (little before Mig-21Bis radar can see anything) and that allows to get edge in aerial combat and surviving as others can't so easily sneak on you or you can fly silently around them (and this all without enlargement).

 

I take VR once they solve the resolution problem but before that we need few generations of 3D cards to come with jumps like GTX660 > 1080Ti.

 

But for a most the problem of motion sickness doesn't go away as every VR headset is having the same problems as military VR headsets and tests has been conducted, we are still staring two separated 2D displays instead 3D.

 

But just getting "second best thing to real thing" it is all we can get.

 

IMHO the VR is still too early phase at its current gen and "let downer" but we do get there at some point. But there might before that even come other problems like the vision problems people has started to get that VR leads near slightness.

 

So going for the experience the VR is a thing.

 

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

 

 

IRL, do you think you can spot a C130 from 30KM out? Next time I have a windows seat, I'll have to try and keep an eye out. I know the distances for JFK/EWR/LGA so I'll see how far you can spot things. That's what people are saying about gaming vs flying. 4K and all its glory is great if you care about getting the jump on others (visually). Or just enjoying the beautiful artwork that went into DCS.

 

But if you care about flying, VR is the way to go.

Edited July 10, 2017 by hansangb

[WindyTX]

C130 you may see at 30km but seeing a mig23 at 15km especially if he is nose pointing you is very unlikely without a radar and a TD circle. Yes you may be able to in DCS with your 4k screen and them putting a black pixel for you to find, but without a radar fighter size targets are almost impossible to spot out at 15-18km IRL. Rift is a bit harder than RL but if you think you can routinely spot and F15 head on at 18km IRL without a radar I am sorry but that would be a no.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[BigDuke6ixx]

C130 you may see at 30km but seeing a mig23 at 15km especially if he is nose pointing you is very unlikely without a radar and a TD circle. Yes you may be able to in DCS with your 4k screen and them putting a black pixel for you to find, but without a radar fighter size targets are almost impossible to spot out at 15-18km IRL. Rift is a bit harder than RL but if you think you can routinely spot and F15 head on at 18km IRL without a radar I am sorry but that would be a no.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

Exactly. I think what we have here is someone who has optimised everything and ended up with super senses. This is the mentality of your super serious sim fan where performance trumps any attempt to simulate reality. But ultimately all he is doing is simulating drone flying. Yeah, so if you're a frustrated drone pilot than get a 4K monitor. But if you're interested in actually sitting in the hot seat, get VR yesterday.

[some1]

Actually, in VR you can spot airborne targets from further afar than in high res 2D screen due to how DCS engine works. Lower res is better in this case, to the point of being unrealistically silly.

 

It's the identification and distance estimation that causes problems in current gen VR. From a couple hundred feet, an aircraft is still barely recognizable blob of pixels, while in real life at the same distance you can easily tell the shape and read the markings.

 

Motion sickness is not an issue for most people, especially after first few days of using VR as you get used to the tech.

 

As for Rift causing near sightedness, I think that's another urban legend. The focal point is not closer than your typical 2D monitor, probably a bit further. As with everything, prolonged use may cause health issues, but that also applies to sitting at your desk staring at monitor.

[BigDuke6ixx]

Actually, in VR you can spot airborne targets from further afar than in high res 2D screen due to how DCS engine works. Lower res is better in this case, to the point of being unrealistically silly.

 

It's the identification and distance estimation that causes problems in current gen VR. From a couple hundred feet, an aircraft is still barely recognizable blob of pixels, while in real life at the same distance you can easily tell the shape and read the markings.

 

Motion sickness is not an issue for most people, especially after first few days of using VR as you get used to the tech.

 

As for Rift causing near sightedness, I think that's another urban legend. The focal point is not closer than your typical 2D monitor, probably a bit further. As with everything, prolonged use may cause health issues, but that also applies to sitting at your desk staring at monitor.

 

Yep the near sighted thing is total and utter rubbish, probably invented by people with 4K monitor buyers' remorse.

[TripRodriguez]

Heh, yeah there will always be naysayers. When it comes down to it I think if your thing is competitive play and trying to be the absolute best than VR isn't for you (yet). On the other hand if you fly DCS for the joy of flying, most people who go VR will never go back.

 

I know there is no way I'd ever go back.

[Fri13]

C130 you may see at 30km but seeing a mig23 at 15km especially if he is nose pointing you is very unlikely without a radar and a TD circle. Yes you may be able to in DCS with your 4k screen and them putting a black pixel for you to find, but without a radar fighter size targets are almost impossible to spot out at 15-18km IRL. Rift is a bit harder than RL but if you think you can routinely spot and F15 head on at 18km IRL without a radar I am sorry but that would be a no.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

15km Mig-23 coming toward (0-20° angle) without any assistance or trickery (not even zooming in).

 

It is a slight grey pixel that can be spotted.

 

The 4K was biggest improvement I have experienced even compared to VR.

It radically changes how you can see and find enemy and keep them in sight while dogfighting as you can spot them so quickly. See their position, angle etc. With VR it is like going back to 1024x768 era hunting pixels compared to 4K.

 

The VR huge benefit is that as you turn your head 1:1 ratio, you will have far better situation awareness how you are positioned to enemy when there ain't anything in your aircraft visible than just the cockpit glass. But when you can lose the target or not spot early enough, it is own problem.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

[Fri13]

Exactly. I think what we have here is someone who has optimised everything and ended up with super senses. This is the mentality of your super serious sim fan where performance trumps any attempt to simulate reality. But ultimately all he is doing is simulating drone flying. Yeah, so if you're a frustrated drone pilot than get a 4K monitor. But if you're interested in actually sitting in the hot seat, get VR yesterday.

I dont tweak anything in DCS. All set max except heat blur, lens effects and model enlargement disabled.

 

I don't even use any zooming but just default FOV that is combined with trackIR.

 

The VR is huge step back in comparison to reality what you can spot. It does give immersion but in combat the immersion ain't so important than is to see the enemy and track them visually.

 

And that is hateful in DCS when it comes to ground units as you can spot them from 10-20km distance as dots depending terrain and it makes them way too easy to destroy, while you should be able spot them only at 50-1500m at most cases in Caucasus depending terrain (not roads) and do they have a camouflage (oh if they just would have).

 

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....