The VR Paradox

[eaglecash867]

14 minutes ago, 5ephir0th said:

 

And about "15 years ago" you misunderstood me again, i am telling you that DCS engine use hardware technologies like the time stopped 15 years ago, for example, the first multi core CPU for mass market was release 15 years ago and DCS engine still relying on one single core, we need that the engine adapts to actual hardware, that way we can have a better performance, 2D and 3D

 

Very true.  The core game engine of DCS is ancient.  The whole reason CPU manufacturers started with multiple cores/threads back in the day was because they had gotten as far as physics would allow them to get with clock speed.  DCS is still capped by that limitation and always will be unless they adapt like you said.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, 5ephir0th said:

it´s impossible cause on VR you are rendering double or triple the pixels.

You’re not just rendering more pixels, you’re drawing two separate images. And needing to do that at a faster consistent frame rate. 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, 5ephir0th said:

DCS engine still relying on one single core, we need that the engine adapts to actual hardware, that way we can have a better performance, 2D and 3D

But even after adopting multi-core, the game is going to continue to evolve and grow to be ever more demanding. And it’s always going to be easier to generate one image than two. Since the majority of players are running 2D then that’s what will set the performance.

Imagining that multi core will triple the games performance and yet the game development remains frozen in version 2.8 or whatever while hardware continues to get stronger isn’t realistic. If the game engine becomes capable of more then the game will keep using it to do more. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by SharpeXB

[5ephir0th]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

You’re not just rendering more pixels, you’re drawing two separate images. And needing to do that at a faster consistent frame rate. 

Pixel count is just a way to compared it, of course a VR image isn’t just that.

 

With better base performance the game can evolve and be more demanding, that’s the idea, DCS optimize the resources usage, we can get better performance, physics, AI, etc.

 

On main forum pool people are asking for dynamic campaign or better AI before enhance the performance, yes, i want to, but make focus on that right now and game performance will get worse, it’s like shooting yourself on your foot

Edited August 8, 2021 by 5ephir0th

[Lt_Jaeger]

You just need just one well paying customer to mention that he's not happy with the performance his / her military real pilots receive by the under performing base software, and willing to pay the price of it, problem solved for us 

[eaglecash867]

49 minutes ago, Lt_Jaeger said:

You just need just one well paying customer to mention that he's not happy with the performance his / her military real pilots receive by the under performing base software, and willing to pay the price of it, problem solved for us 

Heh...that's not how the government works though.  When they have a problem, they just throw more money at it (with things like Quadro processors) instead of actually addressing the real issue.  

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, 5ephir0th said:

On main forum pool people are asking for dynamic campaign or better AI before enhance the performance, yes, i want to, but make focus on that right now and game performance will get worse, it’s like shooting yourself on your foot

That’s just the circle of life for long lived games like this: game becomes better —> game becomes more demanding —>game becomes better —> game becomes more demanding etc etc. Incorporating improvements like Vulkan won’t change this reality. If anything Vulkan will just permit the game to become better and thus more demanding and the cycle continues. 

[Digitalvole]

I’d argue World of Warcraft had 11 million subscribers because Blizzard made sure it could run on relatively modest hardware.

 

AAA titles will get bad reviews if frame rates suck. I think the cycle is true but in the rest of gaming the current hardware is taken into account.

 

Do you guys recommend DCS to friends with VR headsets? I personally don’t because I know they aren’t going to buy a very expensive gfx card to play one game. That’s a real shame. 

edit.
I just want to add to this, I think msfs2020 is going to continue to have a positive impact on DCS, it’s started with the clouds and I’m sure there we’ll be other things that we see improve as a result of there there being, I don’t think competitor is the right word, a peer (?) 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Digitalvole

[5ephir0th]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s just the circle of life for long lived games like this: game becomes better —> game becomes more demanding —>game becomes better —> game becomes more demanding etc etc. Incorporating improvements like Vulkan won’t change this reality. If anything Vulkan will just permit the game to become better and thus more demanding and the cycle continues. 

 

You must be the only one who don´t see the performance problems that DCS has, the ones relative to graphics API (probably due to DX11 overhead problems, which Vulkan can fix it) and CPU related (using one core from 8/16 CPU cores). Game will be more demanding over time but the more efficient use of the hardware, the better, simply as that.

I had enough of this.

[SharpeXB]

31 minutes ago, 5ephir0th said:

You must be the only one who don´t see the performance problems that DCS has, the ones relative to graphics API (probably due to DX11 overhead problems

I’m all aware of what single thread means to DCS. But games are always going to have performance “problems” or limits no matter what their features are. There are other flight sims using Vulkan and multi core and they’re just as demanding to run as DCS. 

[Notso]

On 8/6/2021 at 6:53 AM, The LT said:

Yes, I'm kinda in the same boat. I've started out with the Vive Pro, dismissing the original Rifts and Vives, then sold it shortly after, because I wasn't happy with the state DCS VR was in. Late last year I transitioned to the G2 and a 3090, hoping things would improve (was running a 2080ti before the 3090). Seldom have I been able to achieve a consistent and trouble-free VR performance in DCS. I've since sold the G2 and bought the Pimax 8KX just for the FOV and while I do have some fun offline with it, I mostly fly online on a flat display. I've specifically upgraded my 49' Sony TV with a generic 120hz board so I would take advantage of the 3090 delivering 100+ FPS in flat mode. The same system struggles with VR, delivering roughly 60-68 FPS tops. I learned that you absolutely must have 75/90 FPS for smoothness and Pimax smoothing is pretty crap, tbh.

 

Anyways, I am finding myself leaning towards the flatscreen more, unfortunately. As much as I want VR to succeed, it just isn't there yet. I also find it ridiculous that modders constantly have to maintain shader mods and ED basically doesn't care to implement them in VR despite all the improvements they make. The shared parser seems to be abandoned too. I kinda lost hope about it. They probably gave up on it until they get Vulkan in, which will probably take ages. 

 

Not in the same boat at all.  For me it's VR or nothing.  I gave up flight simming back in the early 2000's (MSFS whatever and Falcon 3.0/4.0, etc) specifically because flat screen flight simming to me was nothing more than playing a game.  There was no immersion whatsoever.  Of course I'm jaded because I flew real jets for a living for 20+ years.  So I'm not your typical case study.  In any event, I gave it up until VR became mature despite VR just being a gleam in some computer engineers eyes that far back.  Anyway, I digress.......

 

I am running a G2 with a 2080Ti and am loving it.  Is it as crisp as a 4K or 8K flat screen?  Ofc not.  I have most of my settings pretty high and it still runs a good solid 45fps.  Could it be better?  Sure.  But I'd always take a slightly less crisp picture and have the full 3D immersive value i get with VR than EVER go back to flat world.  

 

[Notso]

On 8/7/2021 at 1:51 AM, Digitalvole said:

I’m going to try hard not to repeat what others have said, but I’ve just woken up so this may become a rambling mess.

 

So many points here that echo my own thoughts on VR and DCS, pretty much since I started playing in 2016 with the CV1. But what is and isn’t acceptable is  such a subjective/personal thing when it comes to VR it makes it a tricky subject of conversation.

For reference, I play SP in Liberation campaigns with a G2, I have a 3090 and a 5900x and 32gb of RAM.

It can certainly feel like the hardware is always one generation behind the headsets, and I don’t know about you guys but for me it can be hard to know that the game could look so much better with what one has, but one has to dial it back in order to get decent performance. Take the brilliant mods that most of us use and the great guides that are made (thanks Speed of Heat and others ). Without those things would be considerably worse but they still in one way or another make things look a little bit not as good. (Sorry still trying to wake my brain up) And as one needs to use quite a few of them now the effects are cumulative.

 

I think another factor that I for one find myself battling against is that of; I’ve spent thousands of pounds on hardware, surely it should look better than this! If the top end hardware can’t do it then what can!? This is know ones fault but my own of course but it can feel like you’ve bought a Ferrari that’s had the engine limited to 50mph.

 

Has anyone tried msfs since there performance improvements? Has it got better? can we even say that here?

My worry (for a long time now) is that DCS is heading in the opposite direction. It’s just getting more and more demanding on hardware. I haven’t even tried the Marianas map as I think I’ll find it pretty much unplayable, which is a shame. On the one hand the dynamic campaign is likely to be incredible but on the other I doubt I’ll be able to play it.

I feel more communication from ED on VR in particular would be so very much appreciated. As at the very least it may help us manage our expectations or, if the planets aligned and the right sacrifices were made to the correct gods, offer us hope for the future. A little bit of hope goes a long way! For example, what percentage of the player base are us VR users, and therefore how high a priority is VR in DCS? Are there things that can be done? etc.

 

Just from a VR players perspective I for one feel like ED are building a magnificent palace but sadly on swampy ground. That being said, I find it hard to believe that such clever people would be doing this if they didn’t know that they had ways to make it work. Here’s looking at you Vulkan! 

 

It would be fantastic to hear from ED more often on VR matters, please?
 

Ramble end.

 

 

Nice rant, agree with most.  In a nutshell it boils down to this for me......  If ED moves in the opposite direction and makes it MORE demanding on VR to the point where the hardware cannot keep up - I will abandon DCS in a blink and never look back.  I'm never going back to flat earth flying.  The fact that soooo many other titles out there are embracing VR while Ed seems to consider it a sideshow or an afterthought. 

 

I'm sure they don't actually consider VR an afterthought.  But I suspect that they are so far down the road with their legacy engine, that they are finding it hard to keep up and make improvements in VR with an engine that is not really set up for it.  Always the conumdrum.  

On 8/7/2021 at 2:42 AM, Lace said:

I just find it staggering to believe you guys with the 30x0 cards are struggling - I am running a 1070 Mobile in my laptop and it is perfectly playable on a Rift S.  Are you running thousand bomber raids?  Running all settings at MAX and expecting 360fps?  One of us is doing this wrong, I'm just not sure which of us.

 

 

Perhaps it's because I grew up on this, I am more willing to sacrifice visual quality for performance.  Maybe those more used to fancy graphics are expecting too much from VR?

 

You have immersion, quality and performance.  Pick any two.

 

Immersion & Performance.  of course.

[The LT]

 
Immersion & Performance.  of course.

Unfortunately, there aren't any combat sims which are on DCS level... Not sure what titles you're referring to.

I'll be happy with DCS VR performance once it hits solid 75 fps without reprojection. Too bad it is a moving target and we get more overhead with each major DCS update.

I would love to transition to pure VR. But it still needs a lot of quality-of-life improvements.

[The LT]

That’s basically impossible. 3D is roughy 3x as demanding as 2D. So you’d be short changing 2D by 3x or overloading VR by 3x
Any performance benefit gained byVulkan etc will just go towards making the 2D game better but still more demanding. There’s no way for 3D to catch up to 2D unless the game just halted it’s development but that won’t happen. Games only ever evolve to be more and more demanding and that limit is defined as what will run at 2D since that’s the majority of users. I don’t know what “15 years ago…” means but I don’t think we want 15 year old graphics. 

Exactly... And that's what is pretty depressing...

[Dunx]

 

On 8/8/2021 at 1:20 AM, SharpeXB said:

That’s basically impossible. 3D is roughy 3x as demanding as 2D.

 

Of course I could be wrong, but I thought the 3D scene (ground, sky, objects, actors, lights) was only processed once and then rendered once for Screen or twice for VR. I don't think that is 3x.

 

13 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

Do you guys recommend DCS to friends with VR headsets?

 

I do, there is no other experience like it. The system requirements for DCS High (outdated now) and/or DCS VR are not much different to the specs required for other demanding AAA games/sims.

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Dunx said:

Of course I could be wrong, but I thought the 3D scene (ground, sky, objects, actors, lights) was only processed once and then rendered once for Screen or twice for VR. I don't think that is 3x.

The entire scene is drawn twice, once for each eye, including the background etc otherwise you wouldn’t see it as 3D. The “3x” factor is a rough order of magnitude considering the stereo rendering and higher frame rate. 

[Notso]

On 8/7/2021 at 2:03 PM, SharpeXB said:

The best solution for DCS would be to have a VR-specific version of the sim. There is no good way to make a game perform equally in 2D and 3D. You’d be hampering one version or overwhelming the other. And it doesn’t seem feasible to have such a wide range of graphics options to accommodate both. 

Agree with this!

[witwas]

Nice to see the discussion going, I think we can all agree on one thing: we want VR to succeed for DCS in particular and flightsimming in general.

 

The thing is to get it mainstream. I saw an online survey somewhere that +- 15% of the player base has a VR headset, that’s not enough to get the dev’s attention.  

More people need to play in VR, but to do so it needs to be more affordable, VR headset (especially the quest 2) are affordable, software is affordable but the monster of a pc you need to assure people get the wow effect (and stay with VR) is not affordable for the mainstream gamer/simmer/fight enthusiast.

 

We don’t want to be the 1% of the 1% playerbase, but to change that the software needs to be more performant, but why should a developer put effort and money in it if is a niche. Maybe an other paradox?

 

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by witwas

[Digitalvole]

It’s almost painful, because when it’s working well it’s just so damn good! Nothing beats it imho. I used to be a pretty big gamer with all the consoles and a gaming PC but since discovering DCS + VR I don’t play anything else (except maybe a bit of Combat Mission, oh and I’ll buy anything with Warhammer in the title cause I’m a Warhammer junkie but I don’t play them for very long haha) and have sold everything except the Switch (my little herberts love the switch).

 

Its just the best thing since peanut butter and jam on toasted sliced bread. All other games seem pointless in comparison. 
 

The other sim with the incredible world map and incredibly boring planes () seems to be making some good progress with VR performance using culling apparently, I’m sure ED are watching and paying attention.

But like you say, we are a niche within a niche. If we were a political party we would probably have one seat, right at the back.  

Edited August 12, 2021 by Digitalvole

[Philippcl04]

my config if someone is interisted

Index/3900X/3080Ti/64GB

works fine

 

 

[C3PO]

Reading this, just makes me want to read/hear a dev update soon on Vulkan / multi-core implementation. I wonder where they are at?

 

I’m pretty happy with my VR experience, though taking off from Beirut it is very stuttery low-level over the city.

Edited August 18, 2021 by C3PO

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Seriously man, I don't understand why people are "complaining" when they get constantly 60+ fps in VR flyin G2 et al. I barely get close to 45 fps in my 2060-based "VR-ready" laptop with Quest 2 (low res and narrow FoV)....

 

I am also VR-or-nothing person and dropped flying at around the turn of this Century. Not to show off age but getting back in VR was due to a very different game (guess?) until I convinced myself trying DCS and bought the F/A-18C module during a sale. The rest is history.

 

I tend to skip the technical discussions and as a consumer, when there is another similar product out there which is built with VR gameplay in mind, supports OpenXR, and gets better and better VR experience after every gorram update. Now looking back at our beloved game, which depends on so many labor-of-love mods out there to keep it "afloat", I am not honest to say this does not leave with a poor taste in mouth.

 

Not that I am not thankful to all the hard work many out there, including ED, in keeping us VR-only flyers as happy as possible, it could have been better. I see no roadmap we are getting a more VR-native DCS at any date. If ED wakes up one day deciding to give us a VR-specific enhancement "module" at a specific date, my credit card will be ready.

Edited August 18, 2021 by VFGiPJP

[The LT]

Why would you want 4k on your monitor while in VR?

Doesn't make much difference in fps, really.

[Philippcl04]

Am 18.8.2021 um 19:47 schrieb mitchelrobertson:

Why would you want 4k on your monitor while in VR?

 

The screen resolution is not relevant when VR is aktiv...  I dont have a difference between 4k and 1024*768 when playing in VR... so is set to 4k for working with the map editor...

[Lurker]

Phillipccl04 what is your SteamVR resolution per eye? Also what modules do you run? I do all my testing in the Hind, which is significantly more demanding than pretty much every other module.