CV1 pixel density 1.5 vs 2.0

[fulcrum_64th]

Hello,

 

until now I mostly used pixel density = 2.0 (rift CV1). But (as someone pointed out) I tried 1.5 and didn't see a material difference in terms of image quality. Performance is of course much better.

 

Is that my eyes or do you guys see a difference ?

 

 

Best

 

Fulcrum

 

PS: I have a 20/20 vision :megalol:

Edited March 1, 2017 by fulcrum_64th

[simo1000rr]

Hello,

 

until now I mostly used pixel density = 2.0 (rift CV1). But (as someone pointed out) I tried 1.5 and didn't see a difference in terms of image quality. Performance is of course much better.

 

Is that my eyes or do you guys see a difference ?

 

 

Best

 

Fulcrum

 

PS: I have a 20/20 vision :megalol:

 

i used to run 2.0 , i tried 1.9, 1.8 1.7 i didn't see a difference at all . i now run at 1.5 and with the gain in performance i could crank up some of the graphics setting such as texture and MSAA . my eyes cant notice any difference between 1.5 and 2.0 . and even if there is a slight difference it doesn't justify it with the performance hit that i encountered .

[Haukka81]

There is diffrence , just look A-10C engine gauges , 1.5 vs 2.0 , very small text is better

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[simo1000rr]

There is diffrence , just look A-10C engine gauges , 1.5 vs 2.0 , very small text is better

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

i still can read it well with 1.5 PD . as i said that slight difference dont justify the drop in performance you get with PD set to 2.0 well that is my opinion anyway . as long as you can run 2 pd with no problem its okay . i play only MP and with pd set to 2.0 on MP its unplayable what so ever

[dburne]

i still can read it well with 1.5 PD . as i said that slight difference dont justify the drop in performance you get with PD set to 2.0 well that is my opinion anyway . as long as you can run 2 pd with no problem its okay . i play only MP and with pd set to 2.0 on MP its unplayable what so ever

 

I just can't tell the difference myself between 1.5 and 2.0, so I settled on PD 1.5 for both DCS 1.5 and 2.0.

[Haukka81]

I play with 1.3 and sometimes 1.4 , more pixel density = spotting is hard :/

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jabbers_]

I play with 1.3 and sometimes 1.4 , more pixel density = spotting is hard :/

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This.

 

Depending on the server I'm going to play (essentially BVR, WVR) i change this. I generally tend to stick around 1.5 on average, but 1.3-4 for WW2 stuff if I remember.

 

I refer back to this as an example https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3012411&postcount=15

[epolta]

Guys I did some preliminary testing with my rig tonight (i7 4.2 and 1080 64 gig ram) and I don't see any noticeable improvement in frame rates down from 2.0 to 1.5. I noticed slightly degraded visuals on 1.5, but without any major frame rate improvements I'm having a hard time justifying staying at 1.5.

 

In the Mig-21 cold start i'm steady around 40-50 fps on the ramp, and on the Mirage

cold start I'm seeing around 50-90 depending on where I'm looking - and that's both on 1.5 and 2.0. In the A-10C instant action (first one) I generally get around 90 - down to 50 depending on where I'm flying, but it's the same at 2.0 and 1.5.

 

I only play SP, so that may be the difference, but I don't see any increased fps at 1.5. How do you guys recommend testing this?

[Rocky49]

I see no framerate increase between 1.5 to 2.0 which is odd?

[hansangb]

I see no framerate increase between 1.5 to 2.0 which is odd?

 

Maybe not. Your Titan may have enough VRAM and horsepower for it not to be a bottleneck.