Wanting to get into VR but have questions

[Harlikwin]

What is your system spec? 44 in VR isnt too bad.

 

2 instances sounds weird, but for the rift you basically get a mirror on screen and your VR. Is that another instance of dcs running on the screen behind the VR reprojection in the center?

[Gun Jam]

i7 8080k at 5ghz strix 2080ti and 32gb of 3200 ram.

 

 

I dont know what the heck that is? I have the display on the Vr headset that matches the foreground display in the screen shot in terms of FPS and then a mirrored display behind that which appears to run at a speed equal to what DCS would normally run on my 2k screen.

 

 

 

So technically im seeing the same image 3 times one in the headset and 2 on the screen. Not sure if thats normal or what

 

 

maybe not clear but the screen shot is my desktop

[Harlikwin]

So, I don't have an O+ and guys with one should chime in. With a rift its 100% normal to see the skinny screen you see on your monitor, but not the one behind it.

 

With a system like that I'd hope you'd see better frames though.

 

The biggest frame rate killers in my experience are PD, MSAA, Shadows, Mirrors. I'd start with PD 1.2, msaa 2x, and shadows on/off and see how that looks and performs. With an O+ you are pulling about 50% more pixels than a rift, but a 2080ti is way more card than my 980m.

 

The other thing to check are the steam settings, I don't use them for DCS, but if those are set too high it could explain your problems check steamVR settings, and set them to 100% if they are higher.

 

I've got a low end system settings thread here in the first few pages, maybe that might help, but I noticed that fragbum and you high speed guys aren't doing much better than me in terms of frame rates, which frankly is odd and troubling.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Harlikwin

[Gun Jam]

I had a friend over today to try it out I was able to watch the FPS counter on the monitor screens and it actually does hit 90fps more often than I expected. Getting an average is tough still I need to turn that setting on and see what avg is over a known location.

 

 

 

I tried to enable to the MS counter thats show MS per frame it works but it was causing the mouse to not work??? Ill have to try again so I can see in real time as I fly what FPS im getting.. Ill try to get more accurate results and post them here

[Harlikwin]

Are you using the built in DCS counter? It will give you frames and frame times.

[Gun Jam]

I have never seen this where is that option hidden?

[Svsmokey]

Rctrl+Pause/Break - Once for fps only , again for more info , again to kill .

[Harlikwin]

Yeah you want the detailed info... (second time press).

[Gun Jam]

sweet ill check this out asap!

[Guppy]

Let me be completely honest. I just went through buying the vive, then the vive pro, upgrading for a 1080Ti to a 2080Ti on a fully custom liquid loop.

 

If you plan on playing multiplayer with lots of clients and assets on the map you have to completely sacrifice visual quality for the sense that you're immersed in a cockpit.

 

After almost a month playing around with the Vive Pro, it's getting returned back to Amazon. DCS does NOT do well in VR with lots of things going on, end of story.

 

This morning I cranked up DCS will full, max grapgics on my 34" 1440p monitor, buttery smooth 100 fps and I realized then and there - that VR has about 5-10 more years before the HMDs themselves evolve and the hardware in computers (and code) is better suited to support it.

[BigDuke6ixx]

Let me be completely honest. I just went through buying the vive, then the vive pro, upgrading for a 1080Ti to a 2080Ti on a fully custom liquid loop.

 

If you plan on playing multiplayer with lots of clients and assets on the map you have to completely sacrifice visual quality for the sense that you're immersed in a cockpit.

 

After almost a month playing around with the Vive Pro, it's getting returned back to Amazon. DCS does NOT do well in VR with lots of things going on, end of story.

 

This morning I cranked up DCS will full, max grapgics on my 34" 1440p monitor, buttery smooth 100 fps and I realized then and there - that VR has about 5-10 more years before the HMDs themselves evolve and the hardware in computers (and code) is better suited to support it.

 

To me, that's a dull experience. Looking at a flat, miniature world through a window is just laughable after VR.

 

I've never had much of a problem with DCS performance in VR and find the graphics perfectly acceptable.

 

People should probably go back over your past contributions to VR threads rather than take this one in isolation. Where others have looked for and found workable solutions you have just given up.

Edited March 14, 2019 by BigDuke6ixx

[HunchyTheHuncher]

To me, that's a dull experience. Looking at a flat, miniature world through a window is just laughable after VR.

 

i agree with this 100%, but I can understand why others do not think it is worth the drop in performance. After trying VR, the only reason I go back to 2D is when I am familiarising myself with a new module (remapping controls, learning navigation / weapons systems, etc) as I find this somewhat easier outside VR. Whenever I switch back from 2D into VR it's like lifting a veil and seeing things as they are meant to be seen. For me no 2D screen, regardless of the resolution or frame rate, can compare with that.

 

I guess it depends on why you play DCS in the first place. To some, the technological aspects of flying a particular plane or participating in complex multiplayer scenarios with loads of assets is more important than the immersion factor and I can respect that. Current VR makes everything a little harder i.e. harder to run the game smoothly, focus on cockpit instruments and spot other units. For me though, I get a real buzz out of flying in VR. The sensorial and emotional experience it gives me outweighs any of the downsides.

[Guppy]

To me, that's a dull experience. Looking at a flat, miniature world through a window is just laughable after VR.

 

I've never had much of a problem with DCS performance in VR and find the graphics perfectly acceptable.

 

People should probably go back over your past contributions to VR threads rather than take this one in isolation. Where others have looked for and found workable solutions you have just given up.

 

I’m paying $800 on a Vive Pro, $1200 on a 2080Ti, $200 on a water block and an additional $300 for accessories (light house, Wands, tripods, etc.). If I have to do more than spend $2500 to get top tier performance and cannot then the product is broken.

 

My past threads have highlighted the pros and cons of a VR/non-VR setup. The OP is asking specifically about performance. You’re not going to get performance with VR.

 

You might be able to put aside the crappy graphical reductions you have to make and the lower crispness, but others cannot and it would not be fair for someone inquiring about performance, among otherthings, to not be keenly aware of what sacrifices would need to be made to move over to VR. Most folks want a good looking game. VR does not enable that; period.

 

Yes you get immersed in a 3D cockpit, but you do not get superb clarity and that’s just, again a limitation of VR in DCS.

[Gun Jam]

These are good points. However the more I use VR the more I seem to like it.

 

 

I had good improvements in smoothness by using motion reprojection. As shown here. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=228378

 

 

That's pretty much a 100% win with little to no real tradeoffs.

 

 

I still want to call Samsung and ask about edge clarity Im on the fence about if what im seeing is in spec.

 

 

 

I

[Guppy]

Once VR can enable me to run over 4K in each eye, at max graphics and DCS finally figures out hand controls... I'll be in. Don't get me wrong VR was a fun experience and played MANY hours in it. I mean how cool is it to turn your head and literally see a sidewinder on a wing and your vertical stabs? But at the end of the day, it just is not there for me yet.

 

It is sort of like when 2 and 4k monitors came out and no PC could handle it without compromise... now they can. VR just needs time.

 

The other slight worry for me, at least when it comes to the future of DCS, is that most of the manufactures of HMDs are investing in cheaper standalone models. Most are not trying to attack pixel density and viewing degrees. More of the market for VR is in the gimmicky google earth apps, games, etc. not flight sims. Pimax is really the only company looking to address stuff like that - but as Wags said... it's not there yet in his own interview. Both DCS and the hardware to support it.

[dburne]

Once VR can enable me to run over 4K in each eye, at max graphics and DCS finally figures out hand controls... I'll be in. Don't get me wrong VR was a fun experience and played MANY hours in it. I mean how cool is it to turn your head and literally see a sidewinder on a wing and your vertical stabs? But at the end of the day, it just is not there for me yet.

 

It is sort of like when 2 and 4k monitors came out and no PC could handle it without compromise... now they can. VR just needs time.

 

The other slight worry for me, at least when it comes to the future of DCS, is that most of the manufactures of HMDs are investing in cheaper standalone models. Most are not trying to attack pixel density and viewing degrees. More of the market for VR is in the gimmicky google earth apps, games, etc. not flight sims. Pimax is really the only company looking to address stuff like that - but as Wags said... it's not there yet in his own interview. Both DCS and the hardware to support it.

 

That is true but to survive these VR companies have to go after a much larger market share than what flight sim and racing sim gamers will bring them.

 

Time will tell , I believe Oculus is positioning themselves about the best with their market strategy with the Go, Quest, and Rift. Will see if that pays off for them.

 

Pimax being a smaller company does seem to have chosen the flight and racing gamers market primarily for their device, long as they can keep cost down and maintain profitability I would think they should be ok. I just think they chose to try and take too big a bite out of the apple at once in the feature department.

[SharpeXB]

Once VR can enable me to run over 4K in each eye, at max graphics

VR will never be able to run max graphics like a 2D monitor. 3D will always be more demanding.

Games are always going to be designed to push the limits of hardware and that limit is as capable on a 2D monitor.

 

The only way that would happen is if someday game graphics become so good, like Hollywood movie CGI, that there just isn’t any more room for improvement. You can’t improve on them if they just look fully real. Only then might VR catch up with 2D because graphics will stop evolving. But that’s not likey

[cercata]

Once VR can enable me to run over 4K in each eye, at max graphics and DCS finally figures out hand controls... I'll be in.

With FOVeated rendering and Captogloves, it can be sooner than you expect, maybe in 2 years ...

 

In Simracing I have seen several people make the same thing than you, trying VR and then going back to 3 screens, but having VR in mind for the future, it's a cuestion of "taste"

 

The important thing is that you understand now the potential VR, and you know it's not a gimmick like some haters say. First generation is not for every body, but ... this is the future of simulators/gamming

 

 

is that most of the manufactures of HMDs are investing in cheaper standalone models.

 

They are not forgeting High End HMDs, Oculus is doing a lot of R&D about it, but it's too early to release, some technologies are on the way, like foveated rendering, waveguides, etc. Not releasing a new HMD every year doesn't mean there are not HUGE advancements.

 

Oculus Showed a year ago their Half Dome prototype, now they must have something much better.

Edited March 15, 2019 by cercata

[dburne]

With FOVeated rendering and Captogloves, it can be sooner than you expect, maybe in 2 years ...

 

In Simracing I have seen several people make the same thing than you, trying VR and then going back to 3 screens, but having VR in mind for the future, it's a cuestion of "taste"

 

The important thing is that you understand now the potential VR, and you know it's not a gimmick like some haters say. First generation is not for every body.

 

Yeah once the get foveated rendering and eye tracking figured out it will go a long way in increasing performance in VR.

[cercata]

Yeah once the get foveated rendering and eye tracking figured out it will go a long way in increasing performance in VR.

I think even without eye tracking it can be a huge advance ... and with eye tacking then, OMG !!!!! :pilotfly:

[Guppy]

cercata - I only meant that most of the investment is in the standalone more easily accessible (and for me gimmicky) headsets. That's where the money is at right now - not PC gaming. (over summarizing)

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but all of those technologies are yes, 2+ years out. Then, developers (like ED) need to adjust their own code to migrate the new technology. ED moves slow and us seeing that would be far longer.

[cercata]

cercata - I only meant that most of the investment is in the standalone more easily accessible (and for me gimmicky) headsets. That's where the money is at right now - not PC gaming. (over summarizing)

I don't Agree on that.

Vive is releasing the Cosmos.

And Oculus their next HMD will be the Quest, but they are making a lot of R&D for PC HMD's, just they don't advertise that because that would be bad for Rift, they are not making much noise, but they are working on it, on Oculus Connect 5 Michael Abrash did a very good talk about it

https://uploadvr.com/abrash-2018-predictions-oc5/

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but all of those technologies are yes, 2+ years out. Then, developers (like ED) need to adjust their own code to migrate the new technology. ED moves slow and us seeing that would be far longer.

Yeah, sometimes things are very easy to implement, marking a checkbox on a tool, and sometimes it's writing thousands of lines of code.

 

I want to be optimistic about FOVeated rendering, we will see if I was right in a couple of years.

 

BTW, thanks to Oculus GO and it's limited power, they are putting a lot of effort in FOVeated rendering, standalone HMD's have some synergys with high end HMDs, so it's R&D will be good for us too ;)

 

And ED is not so slow, compared to EA & Activision, they are very very fast on VR adoption :lol:

Edited March 15, 2019 by cercata

[Guppy]

Both Cosmos and Quest are a step backwards (in terms of clarity) than the Pro, from what I've read. Yeah, its more accessible but does not seem to provide advancements to what VR really needs and that is the performance and clarity (everything I mentioned in previous posts).

[cercata]

Both Cosmos and Quest are a step backwards (in terms of clarity) than the Pro, from what I've read.

I have read the contrary about Cosmos:

“Introducing our sharpest screens yet. The all-new pixel-packed displays with minimal screen door effect delivers crystal clear graphics bringing every detail in VR alive.”

https://uploadvr.com/ces-2019-vive-cosmos-display-is-htcs-sharpest-yet-dev-kits-in-early-2019/

 

And Quest, forget about it, it's a complete different thing.

Apple makes Macs, MacBook, and iPhones. When they started making iPhones, didn't mean they stoped making computers.

 

And cosmos is wired, not standalone.

[dburne]

Both Cosmos and Quest are a step backwards (in terms of clarity) than the Pro, from what I've read. Yeah, its more accessible but does not seem to provide advancements to what VR really needs and that is the performance and clarity (everything I mentioned in previous posts).

 

Really not fair to compare the Quest to what we do, totally different device for different types of games. Not for what we do here.

I myself am going to pick one up when released though, exited about playing some games in my recliner in the den.