VR FPS (2.5.1.16543.355)

[Flighter]

I will come back to DCS once a 1180ti or new gtx titan is released and or vulcan.

 

Try the above link. You will see that if you have a GTX1080 (not even Ti) you can have very good quality now !

 

On the other hand, I happen to have Aerofly FS2. They have implemented a renderer with vulcan and they just included it in their main release.

The news with Oculus are bad. It's way slower from their OpenGL renderer. It may be a bug of course (they have also released an update I haven't tried yet).

But Vulcan is certainly not a silver bullet. And I do not know if it's the best choice for smaller companies with not many man-hours to spare.

 

Cheers

Edited July 16, 2018 by Flighter

[imacken]

I will come back to DCS once a 1180ti or new gtx titan is released and or vulcan.

Your decision, obviously, but atm you can get very good results with even a 1070.

[pagadi-zaiet]

Your decision, obviously, but atm you can get very good results with even a 1070.

 

 

 

 

 

yes...how?

[gorzasty]

yes...how?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=215373

 

Wysłane z mojego SM-G935F przy użyciu Tapatalka

[StefVR]

I just hate the flimmering textures below 4x AA. 4x AA plus deferred shading is just a problem with my Titan Xp at 1980 mhz with pixel density at 1.4 to 1.5. 25%plus or better Performance with new GPUs should handle this.

[Hippo]

OK, just saw this thread :

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=215373

 

 

Of course I had to try it.. and the results are amazing.

I hope ED has seen this.

What a great job Kegetys !

 

 

 

 

 

Any chance you could run your benchmark again on the latest update (2.5.3.21107)? Some are reporting a performance improvement (although I'm rather skeptical).

 

How did you measure frame rates > 90 fps? Previously I used to do it by not putting on the Rift and running DCS on the monitor, but with the latest update this is no longer possible.

 

Thanks.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Hippo

[Dangermouseb51]

Evening All,

 

Totally agree with the first post ... having been with DCS since the beginning A10C release back in 2010/2011.. migrating to VR and pumped enough money into the majority of modules. I’m losing the will to support this system where modules are left incomplete 4 years on (Hawk) and illogical diversions to the game development from trains cows, the yak and the other waste of time module ... The logic in development seems disjointed.....

Having spent a ton of cash on a top of the range system ... i7 8700K Oc 5Ghz,32GB Mem, 1080ti 11gb nvme drives, Oculus, Thrustmaster Warthog etc... the works, running any other game or app my specs bearly break into a sweat in VR yet somehow this game is struggling to organise its core usage, memory leakage and utilisation correctly. Then your worried about the next patch taking 1 step forward and god knows how many steps back .... current release included...

 

It’s a shame as I’m waiting for F14 from heatblur but since the bad taste in my mouth from purchasing modules that months down the line are still in “alpha/beta” I won’t be buying anything else until such a time as the core game is nicely stable let alone module integration...

Exceptions to poor modules are Razbam with Mirage and Harrier as well as the Gazelle from Polychop ... and with what seems a repackage coming this autumn another branch that will no doubt draw resources away from core components ....

 

This is getting as bad as EA’s crate scam,

 

That’s my two pennies worth .... biatch over...

 

Jim

Edited September 1, 2018 by Dangermouseb51

[Wolf8312]

Evening All,

 

Totally agree with the first post ... having been with DCS since the beginning A10C release back in 2010/2011.. migrating to VR and pumped enough money into the majority of modules. I’m losing the will to support this system where modules are left incomplete 4 years on (Hawk) and illogical diversions to the game development from trains cows, the yak and the other waste of time module ... The logic in development seems disjointed.....

Having spent a ton of cash on a top of the range system ... i7 8700K Oc 5Ghz,32GB Mem, 1080ti 11gb nvme drives, Oculus, Thrustmaster Warthog etc... the works, running any other game or app my specs bearly break into a sweat in VR yet somehow this game is struggling to organise its core usage, memory leakage and utilisation correctly. Then your worried about the next patch taking 1 step forward and god knows how many steps back .... current release included...

 

It’s a shame as I’m waiting for F14 from heatblur but since the bad taste in my mouth from purchasing modules that months down the line are still in “alpha/beta” I won’t be buying anything else until such a time as the core game is nicely stable let alone module integration...

Exceptions to poor modules are Razbam with Mirage and Harrier as well as the Gazelle from Polychop ... and with what seems a repackage coming this autumn another branch that will no doubt draw resources away from core components ....

 

This is getting as bad as EA’s crate scam,

 

That’s my two pennies worth .... biatch over...

 

Jim

 

 

Is your performance really that bad? I'm guessing its an MP thing for you?

 

To be honest I have problems with DCS like the rest of us, but I actually have a very smooth experience on the whole, although I mainly stick to WW2 and helicopter modules, avoid MP and try to design my own missions.

 

I mean for me the positives FAR outweigh the negatives and I am very optimistic about where they are heading, as over this last year, especially after such a HUGE update (I mean how was that it itself not a sign of massive progress for the sim) there have been huge improvements made across the board (including WW2). Just a few months ago it was totally unplayable for me and my god did it look awful in VR too!

 

The update was a massive undertaking, and its kinda as if people forget or take it for granted now, but at least IMO it does look so much better than it used to, and the fact they took that leap was for our benefit!

 

But I do agree with alot of what you say. Every update and I still get stutters/flashes in VR, when pilots first eject grrrr! Large FPS drops the first time a pilot of each variation of WW2 plane ejects, and the same thing with clouds turned on (etc), or when using bombs in the viggen or mig 21, but my FPS and performance in general is not a problem for me. I get good performance, and never even check my FPS counters!

 

I think theres defo some weird problem whereby (as an example) bombs and pilot ejections (clouds etc) seem to have to actually strenuously load up in game which causes some kind of momentary slow down, which then tanks FPS, and kills VR performance.

 

For me this problem -and its been a problem for a long time that they dont seem able to fix- is the only thing they need to solve in order to attain VR perfection, as like I say I have no problem with FPS, or performance per say in general even with alot of assets around.

 

So I also feel the devs do need to sit down and dedicate themselves to fixing these sudden perfromance drops, age old bugs (clouds), and graphical glitches.

 

You can't really knock them for bringing out new modules (yak is a really nice flight model) as that is how they make their dough and although I totally understand the frustration, I'd say avoid buying alpha/beta products in future as that's just how they are. More people buy them the less incentive devs have to finish them!

[dburne]

Took an early morning ride in the Spit over Normandy a few minutes ago to test Hotfix2, watching the sun rise and the great lighting along the terrain and water with the shadows.

 

It truly was breathtaking to me - flew down low about 50ft off the water along the coast for a while , great fun.

[Wolf8312]

Took an early morning ride in the Spit over Normandy a few minutes ago to test Hotfix2, watching the sun rise and the great lighting along the terrain and water with the shadows.

 

It truly was breathtaking to me - flew down low about 50ft off the water along the coast for a while , great fun.

 

 

Concur! I just flew over the Persian gulf Dubai at night, in a Mi-8 with the cold wind (air con) blowing onto my face. Man night lighting, has improved so much compared to just a few weeks previous. With all it's faults god I love this sim! And yeah Dburne, the spit is just incredible!

[joca133]

Jim, I play dcs casually since its early days, and I agree with you on everything. Having invested all my money on a computer, warthog, wheelstand pros, oculus, headphones, and 1080 ti... playing still leaves a sour taste. Why? Because I have seen good graphics and fps, but only when stars align. A new patch, usb or nvidia driver, mission scripts, multiplayer effects, etc, usually pops up and destroys performance. To put it plainly, the game seems very poorly optimized and unstable. It is my view, and I am not an expert. With recent patches it seems this game will only run the way it should when quantum processors are a thing. Then you look at custom mods like the shadder, and it helps tremendously. An official optimization should be a priority, hopefully that will happen with Vulcan. Then again, maybe not, and we keep buying more and more $$$ hardware to inch our way through this CF.

[SonofEil]

...and never even check my FPS counters!

 

This, my friends, is the key to happiness. If you're getting unsatisfactory performance, tweak until it's livable. Chasing a number will make you crazy! I honestly haven't checked my FPS in years.

 

You can't really knock them for bringing out new modules (yak is a really nice flight model) as that is how they make their dough...

 

Exactly. Yak specifically I think was a commercial or military contract, like the A-10C. We just have consumer access to work they were doing privately anyway.

And things like cows are necessary items to fill out the world. If people are going to complain about cows then they should also have a problem with tractors in Normandy, fast food signs in Nevada, etc. I think ED just wanted to have some light hearted fun showing us the cows, a small part of many static upgrades they're working on, and the whole community sadly shit all over them for 'losing focus' or whatever.

I will say that there've been more times than I can count that I've felt the frustration that dangermouseb51 is feeling and there's a lot of truth to his post. I guess he's just at that point where he has to decide whether it's personally worth it to stick around or not. ED has always been this way and, right now at least, I'm choosing to live with it. Hell, I sat on the sidelines for almost five years before deciding to come back in 2017. A lot of the old problems and bugs (tracks!!!) are still here, but I'm having a blast in the new toys and maps.

Edited September 3, 2018 by SonofEil

[Hippo]

FPS is very useful in that it is an objective measurement of perfomance. Furthermore, in VR FPS is much more important than usual. > 90 FPS is VR as it should be, anything less is a sub-optimal experience; this is not just an academic point - > 90 FPS VR is flawless and it's instantly discernible.

 

The gripe I had with the cows wasn't the cows per se. I got an e-mail from ED with screenshots and fanfare as if it was a really big deal. Compare this to when deferred shading was forced on us - my VR peformance was CUT IN HALF (I can say this with some precision because I can MEASURE FPS, btw). So what did we get then? Two lines buried in a readme. No explanation, nothing; a situation which remains unchanged to this day.

[imacken]

FPS is very useful in that it is an objective measurement of perfomance. Furthermore, in VR FPS is much more important than usual. > 90 FPS is VR as it should be, anything less is a sub-optimal experience; this is not just an academic point - > 90 FPS VR is flawless and it's instantly discernible.

 

Didn’t think it was possible to get >90fps on the Rift!

What kind of kit can achieve a steady 90fps in VR at the moment?

[Hippo]

Didn’t think it was possible to get >90fps on the Rift!

What kind of kit can achieve a steady 90fps in VR at the moment?

 

It is (sort of). But anything over 90 fps is synched to 90 for the HMD. Until this latest update, if you ran DCS without triggering the HMD sensor (by wearing the HMD) you would see an actual frame rate (on the monitor) which could be well over 90 fps. This would cut to 90 the moment you started wearing the headset.

 

After this update, the monitor display doesn't even update anymore* if you're not wearing the HMD. This alone makes me think that ED have made substantial changes with this update.

 

I can just about maintain 90 fps most of time on my system, if there's not much going on. But I have to bring my settings right down (and with thanks to Kegetys). I certainly can if I turn off MSAA - but I will not play DCS without it, so it's a moot point for me.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3590191&postcount=43

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3590195&postcount=44

 

 

*edit: in the cockpit. If you load DCS without wearing the HMD you should see frame rates > 90 fps in the loading / menu screens.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Hippo

[imacken]

It is (sort of). But anything over 90 fps is synched to 90 for the HMD. Until this latest update, if you ran DCS without triggering the HMD sensor (by wearing the HMD) you would see an actual frame rate (on the monitor) which could be well over 90 fps. This would cut to 90 the moment you started wearing the headset.

 

After this update, the monitor display doesn't even update anymore* if you're not wearing the HMD. This alone makes me think that ED have made substantial changes with this update.

 

I can just about maintain 90 fps most of time on my system, if there's not much going on. But I have to bring my settings right down (and with thanks to Kegetys). I certainly can if I turn off MSAA - but I will not play DCS without it, so it's a moot point for me.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3590191&postcount=43

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3590195&postcount=44

 

 

*edit: in the cockpit. If you load DCS without wearing the HMD you should see frame rates > 90 fps in the loading / menu screens.

Yes, I forgot we already had this discussion in the thread you linked to!

[Wolf8312]

FPS is very useful in that it is an objective measurement of perfomance. Furthermore, in VR FPS is much more important than usual. > 90 FPS is VR as it should be, anything less is a sub-optimal experience; this is not just an academic point - > 90 FPS VR is flawless and it's instantly discernible.

 

The gripe I had with the cows wasn't the cows per se. I got an e-mail from ED with screenshots and fanfare as if it was a really big deal. Compare this to when deferred shading was forced on us - my VR peformance was CUT IN HALF (I can say this with some precision because I can MEASURE FPS, btw). So what did we get then? Two lines buried in a readme. No explanation, nothing; a situation which remains unchanged to this day.

 

 

My performance feels about as good as it did in the days when there was no defered shading, although I dont use any pixel density. The test for myself is to turn my head to the side when in flight, and watch the buildings go by. Even without DS in the old days this used to cause stuttery ghosting, but now it seems smoother and with better performance than I have ever had, whatever the FPS counters say.

 

 

 

And although its a personal thing I much prefer how the game looks with DS than without it. You gotta get over it, and accept defered shading is never coming back. The game is heading in a much better place with it than without it IMO, and its obvious they don't have the resources to maintain both.

 

 

 

If it's 90 FPS or GTFO and you can't stomach reprojection, you might as well wait till the technology improves, and find somthing else to do, as even in the other sim, its just a fact of life. As Vulkan is coming as well, there may be cause to be optimistic and patient performance wise. As they are apparently working on it...

 

 

 

Just gotta enjoy it for what it is at the moment and accept its limitations. The kind of people who obsess over 60 FPS in 2D (not saying thats you!) will drive themselves insane with VR, and might as well forget DCS VR for the time being and save themselves the frustration.

[Hippo]

My performance feels about as good as it did in the days when there was no defered shading, although I dont use any pixel density. The test for myself is to turn my head to the side when in flight, and watch the buildings go by. Even without DS in the old days this used to cause stuttery ghosting, but now it seems smoother and with better performance than I have ever had, whatever the FPS counters say.

 

With DS off, I used to get 120 fps (in a particular situation). For the same situation, with DS on 54 fps. I use 4xMSAA (I suppose you do not). DCS without MSAA, for me, is a complete no-no. Previously I could aim to get >90 fps most of time, and going down to ASW when things got busy; now I have to live with ASW all the time.

 

And although its a personal thing I much prefer how the game looks with DS than without it. You gotta get over it, and accept defered shading is never coming back. The game is heading in a much better place with it than without it IMO, and its obvious they don't have the resources to maintain both.

 

If it's 90 FPS or GTFO and you can't stomach reprojection, you might as well wait till the technology improves, and find somthing else to do, as even in the other sim, its just a fact of life. As Vulkan is coming as well, there may be cause to be optimistic and patient performance wise. As they are apparently working on it...

 

Scenery looks better, cockpits not so much imho, and there continue to be all manner of annoying glitches. As to get over it, well clearly I have no choice. I'm greatly annoyed though, as there was an option in place that was working very well (unlike the other sim), and it was taken away without warning, explanation or apology. I will, however, find something else to do with regards as to where I spend my money, as ED will not be getting a penny from me in the future. There's not much I can do about what I've spent up to now, unfortunately. Vulkan? I won't hold my breath.

 

Just gotta enjoy it for what it is at the moment and accept its limitations. The kind of people who obsess over 60 FPS in 2D (not saying thats you!) will drive themselves insane with VR, and might as well forget DCS VR for the time being and save themselves the frustration.

That's what I'm (grudginly) doing. 90 fps is the minimum for the optimal VR experience; this is not obsessing, < 90 fps is not VR as it should be. I get that you value the visuals in terms of shadows, scenery, etc, which is fine. I value MSAA and 90 fps over all of that and am prepared to forgo it. One thing seems certain though - a PC that can give you both does not exist.
Edited September 4, 2018 by Hippo

[Quadg]

90 FPS is the statistical magic number to prevent puking in the weak :)

why its higher than 60fps for 2d.

 

as I'm immune to motion sickness, I'm also immune to requiring 90fps.

I'm really happy at 45.

because you can make the game look so much better.

 

staying above 45 at all times is the real VR magic number. because below that is when the world goes double. so all my tuning is to achieve this. with ASW off.

 

 

anyway, if ASW is not working then ATW is probably not working either.

and its ATW that changes images as you move your head.

 

it timewarps a rendered image if you move your head while it is rendering.

 

 

ASW is just about keeping at 90 for the motion challenged.

[dvndmmy]

I believe it comes down to 11ms, which is the time per frame at 90fps.

 

Bigger delay is noticeable and breaks immersion. Just like you'd hear a delay speaking into a microphone through a lagging audio interface, for example. You obviously can get used to it, but not hearing the delay at all is also obviously better.

 

Anything less than 90fps is quite noticeable in Vive, for example. You can live with it, sure. Especially if you don't have anything better for immediate comparison.

 

Haven't tried the Rift and its ASW though: it wasn't officially selling in my country when I got the Vive.

 

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

[Hippo]

90 FPS is the statistical magic number to prevent puking in the weak :)

why its higher than 60fps for 2d.

 

as I'm immune to motion sickness, I'm also immune to requiring 90fps.

I'm really happy at 45.

because you can make the game look so much better.

 

staying above 45 at all times is the real VR magic number. because below that is when the world goes double. so all my tuning is to achieve this. with ASW off.

 

anyway, if ASW is not working then ATW is probably not working either.

and its ATW that changes images as you move your head.

 

it timewarps a rendered image if you move your head while it is rendering.

 

ASW is just about keeping at 90 for the motion challenged.

 

Thank you for your informative post. I was being lazy and using ASW as a catch-all to include ATW also. However, Oculus's view:

 

As a Developer, What Can I Do to Make ASW Work Best?

ASW enables a class of computers that were previously unable to drive VR. This means on recommended specification systems ASW should rarely be seen, if at all. Developers should maintain 90 fps rendering on recommended spec systems. Without any additional effort from the developer, the experience generally will scale to minimum spec machines and use ASW as needed. This is because apps that run at 90 fps on recommended spec systems can typically run at 45 fps on min spec systems. ASW and VR in general will benefit from the following suggestions

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

 

I do appreciate that it's a very personal thing (there are even posts on here saying 35 fps is fine). For me there is a very noticeable difference between (optimal) 90 fps, ASW on, or fluctuating frame rates 45 - 90 if ASW is turned off; < 45 fps is beyond the pale. If that me makes me less of man, then so be it!

[imacken]

90 FPS is the statistical magic number to prevent puking in the weak :)

why its higher than 60fps for 2d.

 

as I'm immune to motion sickness, I'm also immune to requiring 90fps.

I'm really happy at 45.

because you can make the game look so much better.

 

staying above 45 at all times is the real VR magic number. because below that is when the world goes double. so all my tuning is to achieve this. with ASW off.

 

 

anyway, if ASW is not working then ATW is probably not working either.

and its ATW that changes images as you move your head.

 

it timewarps a rendered image if you move your head while it is rendering.

 

 

ASW is just about keeping at 90 for the motion challenged.

I am in complete agreement with you on this. Personally, I can see no benefit of running at or near 90fps with all sorts of eye candy switched off.

I also can't tell much difference between a solid ASW 45fps and 90fps.

I have experimented this morning running with every setting turned to low or off, and I reckon it is impossible to get a constant 90fps anyway.

The ultimate test, is the 'Ready on the Ramp' IA mission for the Hornet on Persian Gulf.

With my normal (high) settings, I get 35-37fps when mission first loads. Move on to runway, and it's 45. However, when sitting on runway, look to the left at the other Hornets sitting on the ramp, and see the fps drop to 22! Them fly around the densely populated areas straight ahead at 800-100 feet, rolling left and right. 90fps? I don't think so.

If I repeat the same thing with very low settings, I get 45fps on the ramp, still 22 when looking at the other Hornet from on the runway, and 45fps flying over the dense building areas at low altitude.

The other thing I don't get, is how ASW seems to divide opinion. For me, it really is a no-brainer. Everything looks smooth with it switched on. Switching it off, even at high fps, always gives jerky terrain when rolling left and right, with blurred cockpit dials when moving (not turning) head from left to right.

But, everyone has their own opinion on these things, and I guess we will never all agree!

[Hippo]

However, when sitting on runway, look to the left at the other Hornets sitting on the ramp, and see the fps drop to 22!

 

When the Hornet was released I recall there being some posts stating that there was a bug with the Hornet external model that caused severe frame rate drops. Anyone know if there was ever a resolution to this?

 

I don't own the PG theatre. Is this 22 fps with all on minimum including MSAA off? (if so, jeez...).

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

When the Hornet was released I recall there being some posts stating that there was a bug with the Hornet external model that caused severe frame rate drops. Anyone know if there was ever a resolution to this?

 

You can easily test that yourself: load up any "Ready on the ramp" Instant Action mission, and taxi past the parked Hornets, looking at them.

Short answer: "No".

[Hippo]

You can easily test that yourself: load up any "Ready on the ramp" Instant Action mission, and taxi past the parked Hornets, looking at them.

Short answer: "No".

 

 

OK, I'll rephrase: "was there ever a further official response from ED providing an update on the matter?" (last I remember reading was that it had been fixed in an internal build).