Is support for VR dwindling?

[BigDuke6ixx]

Sounds like you've got some awesome toys where you work.. I'm not jealous at all !:thumbup:

 

Have a look at FS2 on youtube.. loads of vids on there.. Just one example of how VR can be implemented with out the massive overhead. Not much game play though, but just nice for a relaxing flight with most emphasis over your side of the pond! :)

 

There are many games now with good native, and non-intrusive photo real VR support. Project cars 2 for instance, which looks equally awesome on the monitor or in VR. With this in mind..I'm not sure of the motive for ED going down the DS route, so any info would be useful?

 

Don't forget Minecraft and I also look forward to you comparing apple to oranges.

[Charlie-1]

Don't forget Minecraft and I also look forward to you comparing apple to oranges.

 

I'm sorry, would you like to elaborate???

[eaglecash867]

BAH! Don't feed the raccoons, NAKE350. If you do that, they just keep coming back and tipping over your trash cans.:beer:

[Charlie-1]

BAH! Don't feed the raccoons, NAKE350. If you do that, they just keep coming back and tipping over your trash cans.:beer:

 

Why ask for other examples of good quality & efficient rendering of a game/ sim whatever into VR then just say they're different!! :megalol::megalol:

[DayGlow]

Sounds like you've got some awesome toys where you work.. I'm not jealous at all !:thumbup:

 

Have a look at FS2 on youtube.. loads of vids on there.. Just one example of how VR can be implemented with out the massive overhead. Not much game play though, but just nice for a relaxing flight with most emphasis over your side of the pond! :)

 

There are many games now with good native, and non-intrusive photo real VR support. Project cars 2 for instance, which looks equally awesome on the monitor or in VR. With this in mind..I'm not sure of the motive for ED going down the DS route, so any info would be useful?

 

I believe the physics had rendering and lighting needs DS to work.

[BigDuke6ixx]

Why ask for other examples of good quality & efficient rendering of a game/ sim whatever into VR then just say they're different!! :megalol::megalol:

 

 

I got a refund on flysky fs2 because the physics were so bad. You might as well have offered Google Earth as an comparison ...or an orange. I haven’t tried IL-2.

 

I’m very happy with the A-10C in VR, although I’m continually told is unworkable, I don’t have any trouble with it on my 980Ti system.

[Charlie-1]

I got a refund on flysky fs2 because the physics were so bad. You might as well have offered Google Earth as an comparison ...or an orange. I haven’t tried IL-2.

 

I’m very happy with the A-10C in VR, although I’m continually told is unworkable, I don’t have any trouble with it on my 980Ti system.

 

I agree with you there the physics are nothing like as genuine as DCS make it feel to fly and there are no weapons. DCS does a fantastic job in those respects.

 

TBH, I did the same thing getting a refund before I found out about the high-res downloadable content like, airports and great chunks of the USA terrain so tried it again. Once those are included, I would say it's a good example of getting a 2D mouse clickable cockpit with navigation into VR efficiently.

 

Testing again today, some positive things DS has given in VR..

 

Nevada at dusk, smoke trails from missiles, scratches on the canopy! -- wow..very nice

Edited April 29, 2018 by NAKE350

[StrongHarm]

The fact is there are other games/ sims out there delivering much better graphics on lower spec machines than DCS is right now. This is not cutting edge stuff, its all been done already.

 

Brother, you have purchased some sweet software if they have the physics and accuracy of DCS, multiple full fidelity airframes, and full VR support with multiple geographies. I can fly through Vegas NOE and see Donnie in the suite of Trump Tower with no lag.. so I'm personally in awe of DCS. The only other game/sim I use in VR is Elite Dangerous from time to time, even though I own dozens of titles. All others got an "ok that's cool" and an uninstall. Seriously, can you please share your "better than DCS" software list with me please (toggles wallet)?

 

EDIT: I missed your post where you named IL2 and FS2. I'm not going to argue with your opinion. I would encourage you to look at the development lifecycle of DCS, what it actually is, and where it's headed. I believe it's a monumental achievement. DCS in its current state makes my heart flutter at least once per mission.. I can't wait to see what they achieve in the near future. Good luck to you on getting your system to run it well. Please check out the VR performance analysis I linked before and tell me if I can help.

Edited April 30, 2018 by StrongHarm

[eaglecash867]

Why ask for other examples of good quality & efficient rendering of a game/ sim whatever into VR then just say they're different!! :megalol::megalol:

 

Just downloaded Aerofly FS2 and I'm pretty pleased with it. Landing on 28 at KAPA looks and feels about right compared to real-life. The layout of the Denver area is pretty good. Too many trees though. The South end of 35 Right is as bald as I am IRL. LOL! But, I only know that because I fly around the Denver area pretty regularly. The Las Vegas map in DCS may or may not be a perfect replica, but I wouldn't know because I don't fly there.

 

The Beta is broken for me right now with the deferred shading being forced on, but as of today there aren't any updates for the release version, so I'm pretty sure they're still working out the kinks on the new stuff they introduced in the Beta.

 

I definitely recommend having both versions. They've made it really easy now to be able to keep on flying if something gets porked in the development process.

 

Cheers brother. :D

[Charlie-1]

Just downloaded Aerofly FS2 and I'm pretty pleased with it. Landing on 28 at KAPA looks and feels about right compared to real-life. The layout of the Denver area is pretty good. Too many trees though. The South end of 35 Right is as bald as I am IRL. LOL! But, I only know that because I fly around the Denver area pretty regularly. The Las Vegas map in DCS may or may not be a perfect replica, but I wouldn't know because I don't fly there.

 

The Beta is broken for me right now with the deferred shading being forced on, but as of today there aren't any updates for the release version, so I'm pretty sure they're still working out the kinks on the new stuff they introduced in the Beta.

 

I definitely recommend having both versions. They've made it really easy now to be able to keep on flying if something gets porked in the development process.

 

Cheers brother. :D

 

Glad to hear you're pleased with FS2.. It's a different purpose to DCS, but for the cost it's not bad at all considered. Gets a bit lonely though with nothing to shoot at or bomb! lol

More importantly, how does VR performance run for you? That was the reason I mentioned it, as an example of efficient VR rendering.

 

PS.. If you haven't already, there is the free hi res content you can download, like SW USA.

[eaglecash867]

Glad to hear you're pleased with FS2.. It's a different purpose to DCS, but for the cost it's not bad at all considered. Gets a bit lonely though with nothing to shoot at or bomb! lol

More importantly, how does VR performance run for you? That was the reason I mentioned it, as an example of efficient VR rendering.

 

PS.. If you haven't already, there is the free hi res content you can download, like SW USA.

 

The VR performance is absolutely smooth, even at the highest pixel density. I did notice some occasional, BAD stutters though, like it was loading more terrain or something. Does it do that for you as well? I downloaded the SW USA map, as well as the Colorado one. Now I just have to download the newest one I saw on Steam for KEGE. The screenshots of the airport look like somebody took a photo of the place...seems very accurate. That would be a cool one to fly in and out of and see if VR gives the same thrill of landing on top of Cooley Mesa. Its funny as hell watching from the ground east of the Mesa too...its like you're watching 757s land on an aircraft carrier. :pilotfly:

[TheDoctor46]

Some like the mother, some like the daughter. And by that I mean that some are accepting poor graphics just to get some degree of performance to enjoy DCS in VR, and some are investing heavily in their hardware (computer hardware, pheriperals), just to get the best experience in DCS with the current available high end hardware available can give.

And as it turns out that after getting the best hardware available on the market that is not possible it is allowed to be a bit disappointed. I am one of those putting alot of money on my hardware to get this "component" out of the equation when it comes to pursue a great performance/experience. And I must say that the last patch slammed me down to ground zero and it was really hard to convince my self of why I am doing this. Especially after waiting like a child every day, refreshing the Official Update part in the forum every 5 minutes, on a new patch with news regarding performance fixes. Yes, ofcourse it is BETA. There will be steps forward and steps backward. Instead we got a big hit in performance in VR with the latest patch, cant tell for not VR. Never tried, never will.

 

One thing that would help this situation (and if I am not mistaken the point of this thread) is if ED could just write a few lines with something like; yes we are working on optimizing performance in VR, or we are aware of issues with DS and VR and it is being worked on.

Just a little bit of info would ease a lot of DCS customers with VR.

 

And to you that are in attack position as soon as someone is trying to ask a eligible question, we are adult people respecting others frustration, even if you dont have the same problem?

 

I know there is a lot of emotion in both camps, if I can call it that, because I think we all are in the same camp wanting to enjoy DCS as much as possible.

The best customer tip I can give is to give some information instead of nothing, that lowers the customers expectation and we know that something is worked on. And even if it is beta, we are still customers? (buying modules, terrain, campaigns)

[Charlie-1]

Eaglecash867: I have seen slight stutters in the game, but that was in the early days when I was running with an old AMD 4300 processor I think it was and GTX1060 from a HDD. I don't remember seeing them these days but put most improvement down to moving to the SSD. I presume you'll have yours loaded on there? I've got all AF's except Eagle County, so let me know how it looks if you go for it.

 

Have you tried the Biplanes yet? very feisty indeed, but a joy to fly for a different experience! :)

[Charlie-1]

Brother, you have purchased some sweet software if they have the physics and accuracy of DCS, multiple full fidelity airframes, and full VR support with multiple geographies. I can fly through Vegas NOE and see Donnie in the suite of Trump Tower with no lag.. so I'm personally in awe of DCS. The only other game/sim I use in VR is Elite Dangerous from time to time, even though I own dozens of titles. All others got an "ok that's cool" and an uninstall. Seriously, can you please share your "better than DCS" software list with me please (toggles wallet)?

 

EDIT: I missed your post where you named IL2 and FS2. I'm not going to argue with your opinion. I would encourage you to look at the development lifecycle of DCS, what it actually is, and where it's headed. I believe it's a monumental achievement. DCS in its current state makes my heart flutter at least once per mission.. I can't wait to see what they achieve in the near future. Good luck to you on getting your system to run it well. Please check out the VR performance analysis I linked before and tell me if I can help.

 

Thanks StrongHarm..I will check out your link and let you know..I was trying out different settings yesterday eve in Nevada and I have to say some of the visuals at dusk are are just stunning as a result of DS turned on, so can see its potential.

 

I did a bit of reading up on DS today and realised there are pros and cons, with extra delay adding a second process to render shadows on each frame, but then only rendering shadows for objects and faces that can be seen. I'm guessing ED are aiming for the time saved to be more than the extra time added. If they can do that and adjust some of the wacky colours/ effects I am seeing in cockpits we could be onto a winner! :thumbup:

[A Hamburgler]

One thing that would help this situation (and if I am not mistaken the point of this thread) is if ED could just write a few lines with something like; yes we are working on optimizing performance in VR, or we are aware of issues with DS and VR and it is being worked on.

Just a little bit of info would ease a lot of DCS customers with VR.

Exactly I just want someone to knowledge that VR performance is an issue it would definitely easy my mind.

[eaglecash867]

Eaglecash867: I have seen slight stutters in the game, but that was in the early days when I was running with an old AMD 4300 processor I think it was and GTX1060 from a HDD. I don't remember seeing them these days but put most improvement down to moving to the SSD. I presume you'll have yours loaded on there? I've got all AF's except Eagle County, so let me know how it looks if you go for it.

 

Have you tried the Biplanes yet? very feisty indeed, but a joy to fly for a different experience! :)

 

Yup...I have one small SSD for the OS, and a big SSD for all of the programs. Could have been just one of those random things that happens with Windows that goes away after a restart. I might have something running in the background too that's causing that. DCS started doing it too, right around the same time. I went from happily killing tanks and threading my way back to Nellis through the mountains...to a sudden slide show when I came out the other side and started slowing down for approach. Aside from that occasional stutter in Aerofly though, its pretty fluid.

[Charlie-1]

So more experimenting with settings in 2.51 this evening and its now looking sharp with stable 45 to 60 FPS and smooth flight, roll and view out the side down to the ground. I have ground shadows on, hi res terrain.

 

As others have suggested keep in game and AA off. I have PD set to 1.0 but use Steam VR to super sample at x2.5 and Nvidia to do AA at x4. I found pre-rendered frames option too, but not confirmed if it had helped yet.

 

(See image settings attached if they help any)

[StrongHarm]

NAKE350, did you take the time to read my post? NVidia settings don't affect VR. Try turning your PD in game up to 1.2 and MSAA up to 2x, you might be impressed with the balance of performance and quality.

 

The table below shows how I quantify the different settings in my analysis. I loaded a mission I created for graphics testing with each setting combination. After collecting data and analyzing I found that 1.2 PD and 2xMSAA were the best balance for me. The mission starts as a blank map then slowly adds 38 aircraft attacking an invincible target. Values are taken at 8 different points in the mission then calculated to average. The ratio of performance to quality may be different for you. Your video card is not optimal for VR. I used to run DCS in VR on a 980ti, which is only slightly better than the 1070, and I had to make some compromises. The 1080ti runs smooth as butter.

 

Excerpt. See full analysis for more.

 

[TABLE]

__PD__

|

_MSAA_

|

_Quality_

|Performance

1|

0

|

0

|

10

1.2

|

0

|

2

|

10

1.4

|

0

|

4

|

10

1.6

|

0

|

4

|

10

1.8

|

0

|

4

|

8

2.0

|

0

|

6

|

6

1

|

2

|

6

|

10

1.2

|

2

|

8

|

8

1.4

|

2

|

8

|

6

1.6

|

2

|

10

|

4

1.8

|

2

|

10

|

2

2.0

|

2

|

10

|

2

1

|

4

|

8

|

4

1.2

|

4

|

8

|

4

1.4

|

4

|

8

|

2

1.6

|

4

|

10

|

0

1.8

|

4

|

10

|

0

2.0

|

4

|

10

|

0

1

|

8

|

8

|

2

1.2+

|

8

|

10

|

0

[/TABLE]

 

[hannibal]

NAKE350, did you take the time to read my post? NVidia settings don't affect VR. Try turning your PD in game up to 1.2 and MSAA up to 2x, you might be impressed with the balance of performance and quality.

 

The table below shows how I quantify the different settings in my analysis. I loaded a mission I created for graphics testing with each setting combination. After collecting data and analyzing I found that 1.2 PD and 2xMSAA were the best balance for me. The mission starts as a blank map then slowly adds 38 aircraft attacking an invincible target. Values are taken at 8 different points in the mission then calculated to average. The ratio of performance to quality may be different for you. Your video card is not optimal for VR. I used to run DCS in VR on a 980ti, which is only slightly better than the 1070, and I had to make some compromises. The 1080ti runs smooth as butter.

 

your table was pre 2.5.1.. when deferred shading was an option..

 

anyway you can run the test with current version of DCS?

[StrongHarm]

Tests were done in Nellis with DS on. The only significant change to my test results since 2.5 launched was AF. I now run at 16x. I no longer see evidence of edge bleed due to high AF when performing my "stevie wonder" test.

Edited May 1, 2018 by StrongHarm

[Charlie-1]

NAKE350, did you take the time to read my post? NVidia settings don't affect VR. Try turning your PD in game up to 1.2 and MSAA up to 2x, you might be impressed with the balance of performance and quality.

 

The table below shows how I quantify the different settings in my analysis. I loaded a mission I created for graphics testing with each setting combination. After collecting data and analyzing I found that 1.2 PD and 2xMSAA were the best balance for me. The mission starts as a blank map then slowly adds 38 aircraft attacking an invincible target. Values are taken at 8 different points in the mission then calculated to average. The ratio of performance to quality may be different for you. Your video card is not optimal for VR. I used to run DCS in VR on a 980ti, which is only slightly better than the 1070, and I had to make some compromises. The 1080ti runs smooth as butter.

 

I have read your post, but for me the best performance and image quality is to let Supersampling in Steam VR do the work,besides 2.5 is the value I use for all other VR games and don't really want to keep changing for DCS. I think you're right about the AA settings in the control panel, but they haven't done any harm either. I noticed I've got to set optimise for performance not power as well.

 

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it that my kit is not optimised for VR when it works perfectly with every other Sim without problem. Steam VR test would suggest it's not bad either (See attached). I would suggest as DCS is the only thing that's changed recently, it's their code that seriously needs optimising rather than defending them and suggesting I need to spend another £500 upgrading my graphics card. You will see there are other guys on here with 1080ti's who have also been hit hard.

[StrongHarm]

I feel your pain buddy, but most of the games out there which have VR support were made specifically for VR. They don't have the intense physics math going on in the background, or the huge amounts of terrain and objects that DCS has. Do you know of any other 100gb apps that have VR support?

 

I've often wondered why more dev shops aren't porting existing games to VR. As a developer myself I've come to a simple conclusion; they're not capable. I'm glad you found a decent compromise with your settings.

[Charlie-1]

I get you StrongHarm about building from the ground up. .. Tbh, I don't know much about the history of VR support in DCS as it had it when I discovered it at version 1.57 I think it was.

 

The nearest/ best example of a Sim with better VR performance would be DCS V2.5, and even 1.57/8. Sorry to have gone round in a full circle, but VR performance was better and view clearer in those and the only reason for the downgrade is the method of rendering has changed in 2.51. I'm still not sure of the motive for the change in rendering, because it hasn't improved the bottom end of the FPS scale around previously known trouble spots such as buildings, which have always been a subject for complaint. It's why I always fly Nevada or out at sea. Best way to ensure high FPS lol

All I can hope is there is method in the madness and the new DS rendering is to be optimised and will be even more effective than before.. Otherwise there would be no point in the negative performance change, which must also deter entry level players who's kit that would have been just fine before no longer will, or be good enough to enjoy the game anyway. We'll see how it goes.

[Whisper]

. I haven’t tried IL-2.

 

I’m very happy with the A-10C in VR, although I’m continually told is unworkable, I don’t have any trouble with it on my 980Ti system.

 

Personally ,I'd say DCS did a very good job on VR implementation, but their engine is doing so much that it takes a big toll FPS-wise. Doesn't mean VR is non-functional. At least, it's not going always downhill. I had worst FPS some patches ago than now.

Edited May 2, 2018 by BIGNEWY
1.15 Discussions of other game companies products