Note from Wags regarding VR in 2.1

[Frusheen]

5. If you are using VR, please do not run DCS World using Windows Creator, Game mode.

 

Does anyone know the reason for this?

 

Full post is here:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3150975#post3150975

[cichlidfan]

I would imagine it is because Game Mode will restrict resources from the Oculus/Vive software. Unless the game you are running is completely standalone and does not depend on other applications (Oculus, TIR, Target, Saitek SST, Teamspeak, etc.) then Game Mode is not a good thing.

[Frusheen]

That makes sense. Thanks

[SkateZilla]

Game Mode has Issues w/ Multi-API Applications.

[Verde]

I tried turning off game mode! Still no changes in 2.1 performance for me:(

[Cibit]

I tried recording with game mode before the announcement. It gave an error that my hardware was not powerful enough or something along those lines. Worked before the update so I assume this is part of the problem

[SpeedStick]

Yeah all think most of us has tried all of those things. Still same performance unfortunately.

[dburne]

I have tweaked and tuned my settings for running in VR in my Rift until I am about blue in my face, I just can not achieve the ideal rate of 90 fps no matter what I do. I can get it to run solid at the ASW rate of 45 fps with no dips below, mainly by turning MSAA and AA off, but getting it to maintain a solid 45 fps is about all I can do. I never see 90 fps unless I am only over water.

 

Not sure how it will handle a heavy action combat scenario. All of my testing has been done in the Spitfire Instant Action takeoff mission.

 

I am hoping for some optimizations to come down the pike...

[Jabbers_]

The creators update reverted my nvidia 3d settings. This caused the setting "Power management mode" to be set back to "Optimal" rather than "Prefer maximum performance".

Game Mode, I had to turn this off. Start -> Settings -> Gaming -> Game Mode -> "Use Game Mode" to Off

Fullscreen Optimization. Windows has this new feature where they thought they could help you squeeze out extra performance by optimziating your full screen experience. General concensus is that this thing is crap. So, lets get rid of it. Right click your DCS shortcut and goto Propertys -> Compatibility Tab -> Check "Disable fullscreen optimizations"

[CoolSpy]

Oh, you mean it can run even worse in VR than it does right now ???

 

I am so frustrated and disappointed to see how bad Normandy looks and run, I can't even maintain constant 45fps.... so my dreams of running 90 fps in DCS are far far away.

 

I can't understand how poorly optimized the sim is right now. Even Nevada is worse than a month ago.

Edited May 28, 2017 by CoolSpy

[Bearfoot]

Oh, you mean it can run even worse in VR than it does right now ???

 

I am so frustrated and disappointed to see how bad Normandy looks and run, I can't even maintain constant 45fps.... so my dreams of running 90 fps in DCS are far far away.

 

I can't understand how poorly optimized the sim is right now. Even Nevada is worse than a month ago.

 

We have identical rigs, except you have twice my memory.

 

My performance in 2.1 is significantly better than 2.0 in Nevada, and my Normandy is better than Nevada ever was.

 

I'm getting 90 FPS when over the countryside, and no worse than 45 FPS when low over Cannes.

 

I agree that much optimization is possible, and am looking forward to it as much as you are.

 

BUT at the same time, it seems that 45/90 FPS (== enjoyable/playable FPS) is absolutely possible with your rig NOW, as evidenced with my machine pulling it off.

 

Here are things you could try if you don't want to wait for the devs to roll out the optimizations:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3151946&postcount=8

 

And my graphics settings are here:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3151237&postcount=1

[Torso]

Oh, you mean it can run even worse in VR than it does right now ???

 

I am so frustrated and disappointed to see how bad Normandy looks and run, I can't even maintain constant 45fps.... so my dreams of running 90 fps in DCS are far far away.

 

I can't understand how poorly optimized the sim is right now. Even Nevada is worse than a month ago.

 

NOTE:I have updated my thoughts at bottom but decided to leave my initial impression post intact because I stand by my initial impression. But it has evolved since I posted it as noted at end.

 

 

I agree sadly. I was very much looking forward to this map and the update but both have fallen well well short of even my modest expectations. Especially regarding VR use. I am sorry to say but it seems a logical conclusion that little to no testing is done using VR prior to release. I am sure I will be told different but sorry, if it was, a note on release saying, sorry VR users, not this one yet would have been put out prior to release when TESTING showed it was terrible.

 

NTTR finally get the much long awaited clipmap fix and it just reveals how bad some of the texturing is done in NTTR.

 

Shadows are painted on the mountains/terrain still. Shadows are PERMANENT. Think about that. I guess it was a false hope to dream this would change. But now at least you can see how bad the texturing is on them a bit clearer. This also means there is no change in them regardless of time of day. There is no real time shadowing by the terrain OF the terrain in the game.

 

In VR, the mountain textures actually shimmer and have shine on them. Sparkling. If you are flying a Huey low over them, and in VR just nod your head up and down, and these weird blackish 'patches' appear and disappear. ( I am using a 1080GTX with the latest drivers).

 

Clouds. I wondered why we never saw a screenshot or pre-release vid that had clouds in them. So with clouds in the sky and setting the time of day to the one everyone loves to do with the pretty dusk and dawn sun, yeah with that lighting you literally can get strobe like flashes taking place that are flashing the mountain ranges around you an in the distance and it is pretty annoying.

 

Textures, yes a TON need to be redone now because there is now a cartoonish quality to many of them now. I know photo realism is not possible(other than externals views, because I have seen some amazing shots by users) nor I guess the intent of DCS, but this new lighting just does number on the textures and create this odd cartoon quality to them. I know these will be addressed but it would seem all the 3rd parties need to do their own and I am curious how much of a priority is that to them and ED? Will we be seeing texture updates immediately? Or will we be in this state for months? Was ED coordinating with them prior to release and letting them get a head start on updates to correct this? Not a word said if so. I know, as a person in software and who has worked with 3rd parties. I damn well would have been pre-staging these needed updates.

 

There is more of course but much has already been reported by others, the white wash issues, huds, black tracers, muzzle flashes, opaque cockpit glass, lockups, crashes, editors not working..yadda yadda yadda. Most are being reported by others so not needed by me to redo/

 

I guess my real question was, why were we not given a heads up that this was not really gonna be like what was pushed out for weeks in the Backers version? I mean I didn't hear most of this stuff, of course NTTR's specific issues only ED knew of, if they noticed them I mean.

 

But, why were we all kind of mislead(I am sure that will get me in trouble of course)? I am sorry, but I am not alone in feeling we were misled as to the quality of this update. It looks like almost no testing was done on this. How can this be? How can the ED testers not experience what most all of us have? How could the results of that testing not incline ED to post some info on release saying, hey we got some real serious new issues since the Backers got their special copy using this new tech?

 

I could list more issues in NTTR, shadows that are just flashing in an out, blue issue of course but others are so won't. But, what happened is all I want to know. How could it be dumped on us in this state with no warning? I actually would not have installed if I had known. Same with Normandy. It seems like issues were hid from us. Or were feature added that the backers did not get.

 

Oh one last question. Why does the B17 not have any crew in it? It is an AI model, why did the dev team stop at adding a crew to it? Sorry, just an off question as I close this out. Too long I know, I was waiting for something.

 

Edit: I know it is Alpha, wip, etc. I know ED will update and try to fix as much as they can. I know I will get over 1st impressions and learn to deal with it as it evolves. I know others think everything is just great and are happy campers. I hope to be one as well soon. Just a bit let down is all but it is just a game after all.

 

If you made it this far..wow. Sorry..lol

 

2nd Edit: Well I spent a fair amount of time with more testing and tweaking and can say I did have some success improving my experience in VR with this release. I actually was blown away by what I was seeing several times, I am talking NTTR here as I think Normandy is a separate deal. I know I had a lot to say above and while I do think it is valid and will let it remain but I did consider editing it, but eh. I know ED needs this feedback to improve and they will knock out a lot of these issues given some time. I do have faith even though shaky at times. I still dig their product want to support them, especially growth cycles like this when support is probably needed most.

 

I really look forward to the next cycle of updates as they tackle the reported issues as they can and I am sure us VR users will be even more amazed than we have been previously.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Torso

[Verde]

+10000000000000000

Performance in VR even in 1.5 wasn`t good and in 2.0 it wasn`t super as well! Making it worse is utterly BAD! It should be a priority! Please give us sliders to turn off options as far as one green poligon on the ground and one blue in the sky. WE NEED 90fps no less that 45 asw that is not a life saver in any way! I really want to see real world scenario with COMBAT where we can see 90fps.

DCS - digital COMBAT simulation.

20 units on the ground, 10 in the sky with radars some hellis and smokes and no way you see 90fps with any super PC. I am no tourist to fly alone.

Sry for being so emocional, simply gertting VR all high end gear and still with every update seeing no BIG steps in performance but one step back, then in next update things back to normal, one step then back to normal! WE NEEED ONE step forward in performance department!!!! Even if it costs us visual fidelity!

Is it hard to make shadow option for cockpit shadows only? (as an example)

Frustration.

[awjudge]

The levels of entitlement from some people here is nothing short of astonishing.

 

DCS 2.0/2.1 is ALPHA code.

 

Any thoughts you might have that this needs to be 'better' or 'faster' is simply misplaced. Getting your hopes up for an alpha release is a bad idea.

 

With respect, you need to adjust your expectations. Wags' post makes it pretty clear. The early release is as much about giving ED more information about how it performs on a wide variety of platforms as anything else.

 

Until 2.x is gets out of alpha/beta, all bets are off. You're going to have to deal with it in the meantime.

[Verde]

Guys take a look at my post https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3153576&postcount=51

[Milopapa]

The levels of entitlement from some people here is nothing short of astonishing.

 

DCS 2.0/2.1 is ALPHA code.

 

Any thoughts you might have that this needs to be 'better' or 'faster' is simply misplaced. Getting your hopes up for an alpha release is a bad idea.

 

With respect, you need to adjust your expectations. Wags' post makes it pretty clear. The early release is as much about giving ED more information about how it performs on a wide variety of platforms as anything else.

 

Until 2.x is gets out of alpha/beta, all bets are off. You're going to have to deal with it in the meantime.

 

Well, I've personally been waiting for almost 2 years now for NTTR to get out of alpha, and VR performance getting optimized. (Btw, 1.5 isn't any better - and that should be production code.)

 

I just fired it up (after giving it a few months time) to fly around in a Huey, and I couldn't even achieve a stable 45fps with a 1080Ti! Mostly low settings, before you ask. Tried 1.0 supersampling, no use. My GPU is twirling its thumbs. My CPU is an i7@4.6GHz with 16GB RAM, so nothing short of a powerhouse there. DCS us using 11% of my CPU.

 

Let's face it - the DCS engine and its maps are very poorly optimized, but ED has been getting away with it because the majority of its fanbase willl let them do pretty much anything. Also, lack of competition.

 

Although, when it comes to a WWII setting: look at the IL-2 BoS VR implementation, which is only a few months olds and nailed it perfectly on the first try. Rock solid 90fps at 1.5 supersampling, with beautiful graphics.

[awjudge]

We can argue the relative merits of different game engines from different developers. You won't get any argument from me about how long DCS has been in ALPHA. But alpha is alpha. ED have been pretty open about what to expect.

 

As for performance in 1.5 it sounds to me like you have a problem somewhere. I get 70+ fps with a similar setup, in VR.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Milopapa]

I simply don't buy the alpha argument anymore. I've paid more than $200 in this game - I feel that 'entitles' me to expect a playable game. And they don't make any progress, they just announce new projects every couple of months and they never actually launch any (apart from early access/alpha, which is supposed to release them from any claims).

 

I've pretty much given up on DCS, just checking back from time to time - only to find the same sad state of affairs.

 

Btw, i've been talking about 2.0 performance, but 1.5 was pretty similar. I don't want to install yet another 25-40 gigs just to test that - which is another joke and should be one of their top priorities to finally merge versions.

[Verde]

I dont want to say it. But if someone asks i can only agree with stated above. Did we wait a lot yes... did we pay alot... yes. Every update smth little bit worse than back to what was before... thats in performance department. Old version is bad as stated.... alpha is alpha. So long story short... no performance upgrades on horizon. Mind you thats already in 2 year period. Make me sad. Why should one turn everythin to low and be granted non 90fps in 2017?

[BIGNEWY]

DCS was not built for VR, it is an after thought that requires a lot of work, so expecting high performance straight away is going to leave you disappointed.

 

As we get closer to 2.5 new features will be added and performance will go up and down, expect a bumpy ride, that is what alphas are like.

 

I am sure once things start to settle ED will have tweaked enough to make it a more enjoyable experience for most users.

[awjudge]

As I said before, with those specs you should be getting better performance with 1.5. My specs are identical except I run a 1080. I'm getting 75FPS average. Something isn't right with your setup somewhere.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hansangb]

I simply don't buy the alpha argument anymore. I've paid more than $200 in this game - I feel that 'entitles' me to expect a playable game. And they don't make any progress, they just announce new projects every couple of months and they never actually launch any (apart from early access/alpha, which is supposed to release them from any claims).

 

I've pretty much given up on DCS, just checking back from time to time - only to find the same sad state of affairs.

 

Btw, i've been talking about 2.0 performance, but 1.5 was pretty similar. I don't want to install yet another 25-40 gigs just to test that - which is another joke and should be one of their top priorities to finally merge versions.

 

 

If you paid for alpha, you get alpha quality. You can complain about how long it's staying in alpha, but remember they had Normandy thrust on them by the original KS people abandoning it. Not like they have been twiddling their thumbs. And if they did wait for a more stable version to release, EVERYONE would be complaining about "where's my update???"

[Milopapa]

If you paid for alpha, you get alpha quality. You can complain about how long it's staying in alpha, but remember they had Normandy thrust on them by the original KS people abandoning it. Not like they have been twiddling their thumbs. And if they did wait for a more stable version to release, EVERYONE would be complaining about "where's my update???"

 

This is exactly why I didn't buy Normandy. Burned me once with NTTR, never again.

ED simply cannot be trusted with any promises or expectations.

 

They'll need to win me back by delivering at least 2 products on schedule (alpha doesn't count!) and in decent quality (performance included). Until then, I'll stay away and save myself the frustration.

[BIGNEWY]

This is exactly why I didn't buy Normandy. Burned me once with NTTR, never again.

ED simply cannot be trusted with any promises or expectations.

 

They'll need to win me back by delivering at least 2 products on schedule (alpha doesn't count!) and in decent quality (performance included). Until then, I'll stay away and save myself the frustration.

 

ED have not broken any promises, no schedules have been set other than to say when content is made available to alpha or beta states and they have been on time or within days of any such announcement.

 

If your expectations are broken you need to lower them to save disappointment.

 

It is good you have decided to stay away, your advice is good if you are easily frustrated.

[Coxy_99]

Thats easy dont buy alpha products..............................