System VR ready?

[speed-of-heat]

Almost pressed the "Buy" button on that but watched some reviews and looked to me like a FPS in space. Does it have any physics to talk about?

 

And you can get away with a lot in fictional stuff because people will assume that's just the way it is.

 

I would steer clear for another month or so, sws is a bug riddled mess at preset, and it has many lovely ctd mechanics present, as well as numerous 2d and 3d challenges.. It has promise.., but if you want something turnkey it's not it.

[stormrider]

Then you took it out of context. Full statement was

 

 

And all the examples you guys gave came with

 

"It's far from perfect"

"Its not VR completely implemeted"

"good"

"fine"

 

Again, the point is that you can't make a game that's optimized for both. Not with today's game engines.

 

 

I don't think that's correct either. Think Unreal engine, there are complex simulators like assetto corsa competizione or simple VR specific games like robot recall that run perfectly well both in VR and 2d. If you think that most games today don't make use of more than 30% of cpu full capacity you start to realize that it's not the game engines themselves to blame, but the developers who fail in their task of optimizing their systems for modern hardware and software and scale that to different output methods.

 

 

I'm not a developer so my knowledge is limited. But what makes a complex simulator out of simple one is the amount of data being processed and/or per cycle. A simulation is just a model of a real phenomena and a game simulation is that model ran either in real time or in rounds. With that in mind, IMO, any game can be as good optimized for VR and/or 2D if it makes use of the full hardware capacity available and the optimization is a matter of selecting, scaling and timing the amount data to be processed. Now, as an example, take a look at your textures folders and you'll quickly realize how bad it is optimized for VR. Do we need 4k textures for VR?! At the same time, do we really need 10+ million pixels vr headsets? What if DCS made full use of our cpu capacity to process optimally all aspects of the simulation and textures, geometry and effects, except those of the cockpit scene, were all scaled back and selectively rendered accordingly, wouldn't that be a game changer? Vulkan, DX12 or even any API for that matter, some do better than others of course, but are just tools to achieve that.

Edited October 11, 2020 by stormridersp

[Taz1004]

Now, as an example, take a look at your textures folders and you'll quickly realize how bad it is optimized for VR. Do we need 4k textures for VR?!

 

You start out by disagreeing with me but say things that I already said so I'm gonna assume you didn't understand me.

 

VR doesn't need 4K texture. But 2D does. That's why it's difficult to make games that optimizes to both VR AND 2D. If you optimize for one, you're sacrificing for the other.

If you optimize game for VR then 2D people will be missing out on something because that resource redirected to VR could be used for something else.

 

And you're asking for that on the most complex title in the market. I can't think of anything else out there as complex as DCS.

 

Assetto Corsa's AI for example, is running pre-programmed racing line. With collision radius set to avoid collision based on aggression level. Set to pit after X number of laps. Repeat that for 25 times. Not very complex.

 

Compare that to DCS AI. AI wingman once given order, has to determine the type of target. Choose the weapon. Check for line of sight. Determine range which is constantly changing. Choose either Laser, GPS, or unguided. Choose approach with least threat. Choose delivery type whether it's high or low altitude or level or dive. And then all these changes depending on the airplane. And Unlike racing sims which is basically same AI for all cars, DCS has to have different AI for different planes in the mission. This is just on weapon delivery. And all the ground units have their own behavior. M1 behaves differently than BMP. It's crazy if you think about it.

[Gunnars Driver]

There are games doing both 2D and VR good.

 

Asetto corsa for example. Its not VR completely implemeted( some menues have to be done outside VR) but the game works very well in VR.

I have all settings on max, good picture and always 90fps.

 

Of course theres more games also that works fine in VR

 

Then you took it out of context. Full statement was

 

 

And all the examples you guys gave came with

 

"It's far from perfect"

"Its not VR completely implemeted"

"good"

"fine"

 

Again, the point is that you can't make a game that's optimized for both. Not with today's game engines.

 

Assetto Corsa's AI for example, is running pre-programmed racing line. With collision radius set to avoid collision based on aggression level. Set to pit after X number of laps. Repeat that for 25 times. Not very complex.

 

Compare that to DCS AI. AI wingman once given order, has to determine the type of target. Choose the weapon. Check for line of sight. Determine range which is constantly changing. Choose either Laser, GPS, or unguided. Choose approach with least threat. Choose delivery type whether it's high or low altitude or level or dive. And then all these changes depending on the airplane. And Unlike racing sims which is basically same AI for all cars, DCS has to have different AI for different planes in the mission. This is just on weapon delivery. And all the ground units have their own behavior. M1 behaves differently than BMP. It's crazy if you think about it.

 

I didnt think this discussion was about AI. I thought it was about the gaming motor and graphics. Initial statement was that it wasnt possible to make games run well on both 2d and VR.

 

I dont think anything of AI relates to the differences between 2d and VR.

I also dont do racing games with other AI cars, I race with live gamers.

[stormrider]

VR doesn't need 4K texture. But 2D does. That's why it's difficult to make games that optimizes to both VR AND 2D. If you optimize for one, you're sacrificing for the other.

If you optimize game for VR then 2D people will be missing out on something because that resource redirected to VR could be used for something else.

 

 

This is exactly what I disagree. Any game can and already have multiple texture sizing and lods. Not all games do that for geometry. DCS and VR desperately need map data scaling. Grab a program called L3DT and try the 3d viewer. There is a mesh bubble detail which makes it possible to work with very big terrain data.

 

 

And you're asking for that on the most complex title in the market. I can't think of anything else out there as complex as DCS.

 

Assetto Corsa's AI for example, is running pre-programmed racing line. With collision radius set to avoid collision based on aggression level. Set to pit after X number of laps. Repeat that for 25 times. Not very complex.

 

Compare that to DCS AI. AI wingman once given order, has to determine the type of target. Choose the weapon. Check for line of sight. Determine range which is constantly changing. Choose either Laser, GPS, or unguided. Choose approach with least threat. Choose delivery type whether it's high or low altitude or level or dive. And then all these changes depending on the airplane. And Unlike racing sims which is basically same AI for all cars, DCS has to have different AI for different planes in the mission. This is just on weapon delivery. And all the ground units have their own behavior. M1 behaves differently than BMP. It's crazy if you think about it.

There, I'm sorry to say, but you're wrong. I used to create assetto corsa car physics and help with map production. One of my main efforts was the Lancia S4 which we did by request from real Delta S4 hillclimb pilots.

 

 

Assetto Corsa AI is a real feat. Stefano is a genious man. It took a long time and effort to make it work. If you know anything about AC, you should know that there is absolutely no AI cheating what so ever. 25 AI pilots are 25 AI entities bound to the same physics as the human driver. The AI was basically taught how to drive and race a simulated car. AC physics at the same time is as demanding or more than anything DCS. Just have a look at the tyre physics for example. Make that work with the suspension geometry physics, the engine, the turbo, the aerodynamics and the electronics and multiply that by 25 AI entities plus rendering a laser scanned, centimeter resolution terrain mesh. Check Command Modern Ops, it has a far better radar AND sonar model than DCS and can handle hundred if not thousands of entities emitting at the same time.

 

 

DCS, of complexity, only has the avionics and perhaps some, but not all, flight models and it already struggles with less than a dozen cheating AI entities or a single moving ground unit.

[speed-of-heat]

I didnt think this discussion was about AI. I thought it was about the gaming motor and graphics. Initial statement was that it wasnt possible to make games run well on both 2d and VR.

 

I dont think anything of AI relates to the differences between 2d and VR.

I also dont do racing games with other AI cars, I race with live gamers.

 

I get that, but, AI does have an effect on CPU frametime , because its being eaten by the AI, its not available for the graphics processing .. which in turn does have an impact on VR more so than it does on 2D rendering world... so when you compare a game with human only drivers or very simplistic AI ... you need to factor it in

[Gunnars Driver]

I get that, but, AI does have an effect on CPU frametime , because its being eaten by the AI, its not available for the graphics processing .. which in turn does have an impact on VR more so than it does on 2D rendering world... so when you compare a game with human only drivers or very simplistic AI ... you need to factor it in

 

Yes, but the main reason shouldnt be seen as a AI problem I think. AI aircrafts doesnt need that much quick CPU in DCS mostly.

In racing games like AC/ACC it does, there a lot och calculations to act as there was a real driver driving the AI car. 20 years ago. they did act silly but in AC/ACC they actually is very fine and you can battle them like a real driver to overtake without it getting ridiculus.

 

For the AI sake we would need DCS to be able to use all present cores on you CPY (8 cores/16 threads in my case, or all 18cores/36 threads if you have a 18 core CPU).

 

I currently see a total usage of 10% or so on my 9900KS, thats not a good use of resources :cry:

 

Until the day this is fixed(vulkan or whatever) I will se to that I have a CPU thats fast in single core calculations to counter...

 

I am quite often the server when gaming with my friends. Most often in Caukasus (that isnt worst on CPU load) but with 25-30 or more AI( a few tankers, on or two supercarriers/carriers, some helos doing a CSAR mission and 10 or so enemy aricrafts + some 15 enemy ground threats. We are 3-7 players and this doesnt spike my CPU specially high. Still the GPU limiting at 45FPS and CPU times maybe 10-12 to 15-16ms.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Gunnars Driver

[speed-of-heat]

Yes, but the main reason shouldnt be seen as a AI problem I think. AI aircrafts doesnt need that much quick CPU in DCS mostly.

In racing games like AC/ACC it does, there a lot och calculations to act as there was a real driver driving the AI car. 20 years ago. they did act silly but in AC/ACC they actually is very fine and you can battle them like a real driver to overtake without it getting ridiculus.

 

For the AI sake we would need DCS to be able to use all present cores on you CPY (8 cores/16 threads in my case, or all 18cores/36 threads if you have a 18 core CPU).

 

I currently see a total usage of 10% or so on my 9900KS, thats not a good use of resources :cry:

 

Until the day this is fixed(vulkan or whatever) I will se to that I have a CPU thats fast in single core calculations to counter...

 

I am quite often the server when gaming with my friends. Most often in Caukasus (that isnt worst on CPU load) but with 25-30 or more AI( a few tankers, on or two supercarriers/carriers, some helos doing a CSAR mission and 10 or so enemy aricrafts + some 15 enemy ground threats. We are 3-7 players and this doesnt spike my CPU specially high. Still the GPU limiting at 45FPS and CPU times maybe 10-12 to 15-16ms.

 

 

maybe it would sure nice to have a fully use of all cores, but we don't... given that you have to accommodate it , and utilising all cores is not "free", get it wrong and it can hurt perf, getting it right is an exponential timing problem with dimensioning returns... it would be amazing to get each AI plane on a different core etc... and the same of ground units ... but the comms between them and the timing gets hellishly complex...

[Taz1004]

Assetto Corsa AI is a real feat. Stefano is a genious man. It took a long time and effort to make it work. If you know anything about AC, you should know that there is absolutely no AI cheating what so ever. 25 AI pilots are 25 AI entities bound to the same physics as the human driver. The AI was basically taught how to drive and race a simulated car. AC physics at the same time is as demanding or more than anything DCS. Just have a look at the tyre physics for example.

 

That is wrong. They'll tell you that's how it works but at the programming level, it's simple AI. Just google Assetto Corsa AI tire wear and you'll see tons of people saying AI tire last entire race.

 

"Basically Assetto offline has zero capability for pit strategy at all.

The devs literally didn’t make that a part of the game."

 

https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?threads/questions-about-ai-pit-strategy-and-ai-set-up.48821/

 

"I think Stefano said the AI has the same degration of tyres as the player. But Im not sure of that, as they seem perform the same lap times no matter how many laps they do without pitting."

 

I can go on forever but this is not about ACC.

 

This is exactly what I disagree. Any game can and already have multiple texture sizing and lods. Not all games do that for geometry. DCS and VR desperately need map data scaling. Grab a program called L3DT and try the 3d viewer. There is a mesh bubble detail which makes it possible to work with very big terrain data.

DCS uses clipmap for terrain. Texture sizing and LOD are done by the engine depending on resolution and zoom level. That's same with any other game out there. It does have low and high texture for Caucasus ground but that will increases install size.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Taz1004

[Taz1004]

Yes, but the main reason shouldnt be seen as a AI problem I think. AI aircrafts doesnt need that much quick CPU in DCS mostly.

In racing games like AC/ACC it does, there a lot och calculations to act as there was a real driver driving the AI car.

 

As Speed already said. AI was brought up to my original point "Not in complex simulation level."

 

How quick the AI has to make the calculations is irrelevant. It's all how much it has to calculate at any given moment. You might think that making quick movements is demanding for CPU but your reaction time is nothing to CPU.

 

Another reason Assetto Corsa and DCS is comparing apples to oranges is that DCS is continually in development adding new content. Multithread programming is not easy and doing it on such continuously evolving platform is especially difficult because upkeep on all the changes with multithread is multiplied.

 

Even if DCS uses Vulkan and multithreading, I suspect only Graphic will be multithreaded. AI and avionics will still be on one thread and will still be talking about CPU bottleneck.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Taz1004