The VR Paradox

[Harlikwin]

Yeah thats the crux of DCS VR. 

 

Its not really the hardware, hardware works fine in a great many other games at max settings with good performance. DCS itself is the problem, and for all the reasons mentioned I don't think its gonna get better near term.

 

Though we were supposed to get Vulkan API Q3 this year, but again nothing heard, so I assume its not going well on ED's end. 

 

As for me I've used Speed of Heat's guide along with other folks input to be happy with what performance/quality balance I can. I'd love to turn various DCS settings to "max" to make it look better, but well then its a slide show. So I live with aliasing and other problems. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Harlikwin

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

I would say DCS could have been better. On one side, HL:A runs great with my hardware, but SW:S is still a nightmare. DCS is somewhere in the middle. I have no MSFS:2K so I cannot comment.

[dburne]

1 hour ago, VFGiPJP said:

I would say DCS could have been better. On one side, HL:A runs great with my hardware, but SW:S is still a nightmare. DCS is somewhere in the middle. I have no MSFS:2K so I cannot comment.

 

If one wants to appreciate the VR performance in DCS all one has to do is have a go with MSFS 2020.

VR performance definitely better in DCS - IMHO.

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, VFGiPJP said:

I would say DCS could have been better. On one side, HL:A runs great with my hardware, but SW:S is still a nightmare. DCS is somewhere in the middle. I have no MSFS:2K so I cannot comment.

 

MSFS is hard on VR, but when it looks good it looks good and works well. Id say overall its way better in VR than DCS.

[WelshZeCorgi]

On 8/6/2021 at 8:43 AM, witwas said:

I’ve been in VR since the rift CV1, the vive pro was its successor and then the reverb G1 together with the pimax 5k super (which i both still have now). I have a 9900k with a 3080 card and I struggle to get decent framerates with my Reverb G1, it goes super with the pimax but it feels like i had a drink too much because it’s blurry. I feel like I fell into the ‘FPS chase strap’ and I cant get out.

 

If you fly high in the sky its al fun and games but if you do helo flying low level it’s a stutter fest. Of course these are well known problems and are for now not solvable, i know they talk about vr optimization  in the future but the maps that are coming out are getting heavier and heavier, it seems like vr headsets and developers are doing a fabulous job, gorgeously looking maps and planes even a 1/1 world representation in FS2020 and my god those dcs clouds are gorgeous. On the other hand it seems impossible to buy decent hardware to run al that eye candy on.

 

Now here’s the paradox, I can’t get back to pancake mode but I can’t get VR to work properly.

 

Am I the only one?  

 

 

 

I feel you, I have a love/hate relationship with VR. Unfortunately, it seems like the only way to lessen these issues is to simply wait for very expensive new tech to make their way into the market, then shell out a tonne of money. My main issue is the unnaturally narrow FOV + the unnatural neck craning required to push a button or flip a switch that's right next to my hip. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by WelshZeCorgi

[Harlikwin]

At this point for me what needs to happen with VR.

 

Clarity: G2 is pretty decent in its center FOV

FOV: I'd like to see something like the center clarity of the G2 expanded to like 140 or 160 if possible with current hardware, ideally something like pimax FOV with G2 center clarity. But I'm a realist on the hardware overhead required. 

Audio: G2 is great IMO with the standoff headphones. 

 

DCS things

Performance, this is the #1 problem

Aliasing: the #2 problem

 

[witwas]

As i remain a vr ‘nerd’ and i do not have to money to buy a Varjo XR3 (well I do but It is just to expensive for home use) and I tested almost every other headset I settled with the valve index,

It seems to be the headset with a decent FOV, great colors and sound and not that much blurrier then a G2 which isn’t always a stutter fest.

Maybe in a couple of years we will have true mixed reality headset with great resolutions and FOV which run on ‘affordable’ systems.   

Edited October 15, 2021 by witwas

[dburne]

2 hours ago, witwas said:

As i remain a vr ‘nerd’ and i do not have to money to buy a Varjo XR3 (well I do but It is just to expensive for home use) and I tested almost every other headset I settled with the vive index,

 

It seems to be the headset with a decent FOV, great colors and sound and not that much blurrier then a G2 which isn’t always a stutter fest.

 

Maybe in a couple of years we will have true mixed reality headset with great resolutions and FOV which run on ‘affordable’ systems.   

 

 

Slight correction - it's a Valve Index.

Vive does the Vive Pro and Vive Cosmos.

[WipeUout]

I used to sim with a 60' Sony tv before getting into VR.  My experience was very good playing 1440p with rock solid 60 FPS.  I could spot easily stuff on the ground or in the air.

VR can be a huge disappointment.  The hardware is simply not powerful enough, it needs to be at least six times faster than what we have now to match the clarity of 2D monitor.  Consider that you are using a 16:9 monitor, you have about 60^o  horizontal viewing angle from where you are sitting and 1440p resolution.  To match this resolution with a 180^o  field of view, you would need three time the amount of pixels to match the resolution with the same vertical field of view.  If you double your vertical filed of view as well for VR, then you need 6 time the amount of pixels.  if we consider 16:9 1440p as 2.5k, then you need a VR headset that would have 6 x 2.5k, in other words a 15k display.   When can we expect GPU to be able to pump 100 FPS at 15k?  

VR offers greater immersion, a better feeling that you are in a cockpit.  There is still a huge tradeoff for resolution and smoothness, the hardware is not there yet.  We need to manage our expectations.

Nevertheless, I am not going back to 2D.  It's blurry but I am flying!!

Edited October 21, 2021 by WipeUout
update

[Lurker]

Yes the hardware is to blame, but it's not the hardware you think. For example even though the G2 for example can output (and does output) a great and really high resolution image, the lenses it uses allow us only to see a fraction of that image clearly, the so called "sweet spot". We already have graphics cards that can push the pixels, DCS implementation is pretty great, and is only going to get better and more efficient. The headsets though, yeah well those can and will need a lot of improvement, most importantly in the lens and display department. 

Let me reiterate, I get monitor like clarity (at least on par with a 1080p maybe even better monitor) in the G2 in the Sweet Spot. Unfortunately that sweet spot is tiny, and I wish I could change that with better lenses or something. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Lurker

[KLUTCH]

VR as it's the future of flight sims. I love VR, I gave up on 2d a while back due to the clunkness of feeling like cyborg when I just want to be flying. ED should take note of what people are saying here and invest more in the performance, if they don't have the people to do it, they need to hire them.

The vr quality is pretty poor (low res/40fps) but it wasn't possible a few years ago! It's come a long way.

30-45 fps is playable, however I can only use A-G with TGP, when I do a gun run I can't see anything.

@Lurker point is very valid, the lens and displays will see some technical advancements in the coming years. I see eye tracking for example being an undeveloped tool for imersion.

[oz555]

I used to obsess over the limitations in VR until I joined a squadron. Training and missions are strict on RAF tactics, comms and procedures which are reviewed as a group via Tacview in the de-brief, so mistakes can be discussed and performance improved upon. 

Consequently you're usually using every brain cell you possess on a sortie, from check in to landing. You just don't have the capacity to notice the little VR niggles.