Is ED letting down their VR customers?? Yes I'm venting!

[RackMonkey]

I don't know who is letting us down. Is it ED? Is it the GPU manufactures with a lack of proper drivers. Could it be the VR hardware manufactures. I don't know because I don't understand the way VR is processed through the system before it gets to my eyes.

 

You can see by my sig that I have new and top notch hardware. I run an FRS mod, a shader mod and Process Lasso. My CPU is OC'd to 5.0 and the GPU has been up'd to 2580 and yet I still have to balance between having stutters and a resolution that is usable. And there doesn't seem to be a happy medium. 

 

If I want to get enough FPS to get rid of the stutters, I have drop all the setting so low that I can't recognize the instruments that are right in front of my face. If I want to see the instruments, MFD's, or ground targets I have to up the resolution to a point where the FPS is in the teens. And I still can't see anything because of the aliasing. 

 

Does anybody really understand VR? I sure don't. You would think that if you had all default setting that you would, at the very least, have a useable sim if not a picture perfect one. Right now we have some very talented individuals coming up with a patch work of mods to try and fix what ED should be doing. These talented people should be working on making DCS better, not trying to fix it so that it just barely works at the most basic level. 

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

VR happiness is about making compromises.

By the way I have played games which manage VR way worse than DCS. SW Squadrons or Asetto Corsa Competizione, for instance.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

3 minutes ago, Ala12Rv-Tundra said:

VR happiness is about making compromises.

By the way I have played games which manage VR way worse than DCS. SW Squadrons or Asetto Corsa Competizione, for instance.

SW:S is nightmare in VR.

[largecod]

I wish I could answer this question and problem.
Firstly dcs engine is fairly old.
Definitely spending thousands on a gpu will not help.
It will help a little.
I'm still running a 1080ti with G2 Reverb.
I have since last year doubled my fps by just simply upgrading my cpu and motherboard.
Wow what an improvement.
10900k is awesome.
My settings are basically all maxed out even msaa is set to 4x.
Most importantly everyone will have a different experience due unique rigs.
I have discovered lately by disabling motion smoothing has given me a much better experience and stutter free.
Even higher fps and smooth.
With motion smoothing force enabled it was erratic.
Jumping from 30 fps to mid 50,s.
This was also causing steam vr to crash.
I think my 1080ti was probably struggling to cope with the extra task.
Hopefully ED will have a solution for VR users soon.
Shimmering has been massively reduced by upping msaa to 4x but is a little fps hungry.
I'm happy with 30fps on the supercarrier maxed out settings in multiplayer.
Once airborne I'm up in the 40,s.
Let's hope vulkan will help us vr users.
In the mean time my cpu upgrade was the massive improvement for me.
Not sure if you posted some specs of your rig.
If possible post them.
I maybe able to help

Sent from my SNE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[longuich]

It might not be dcs. Maybe it’s you? Vr is working fine for me at high settings with a g2 ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DavePastry]

have you been reinstalling your shaders after each dcs update? 

[Dodge]

I've assisted the OP with some setting changes which on first impression seems to have improved the situation. The OP will test it later when time allows and on the MP server he regularly connects to.

[speed-of-heat]

2 hours ago, RackMonkey said:

I don't know who is letting us down. Is it ED? Is it the GPU manufactures with a lack of proper drivers. Could it be the VR hardware manufactures. I don't know because I don't understand the way VR is processed through the system before it gets to my eyes.

 

You can see by my sig that I have new and top notch hardware. I run an FRS mod, a shader mod and Process Lasso. My CPU is OC'd to 5.0 and the GPU has been up'd to 2580 and yet I still have to balance between having stutters and a resolution that is usable. And there doesn't seem to be a happy medium. 

 

If I want to get enough FPS to get rid of the stutters, I have drop all the setting so low that I can't recognize the instruments that are right in front of my face. If I want to see the instruments, MFD's, or ground targets I have to up the resolution to a point where the FPS is in the teens. And I still can't see anything because of the aliasing. 

 

Does anybody really understand VR? I sure don't. You would think that if you had all default setting that you would, at the very least, have a useable sim if not a picture perfect one. Right now we have some very talented individuals coming up with a patch work of mods to try and fix what ED should be doing. These talented people should be working on making DCS better, not trying to fix it so that it just barely works at the most basic level. 

 

i think we need to understand what isn't acceptable, in more detail than "you are unhappy and venting"... i dont have much experience of the AMD GPU side of the house but there are plenty out there that do...

[RackMonkey]

1 hour ago, longuich said:

It might not be dcs. Maybe it’s you? Vr is working fine for me at high settings with a g2 ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And there in lies the problem. There is no consistency. How do you track down problems when the target is always moving. One person may have great VR and another bad but there are so many cooks in the kitchen you don't know where to start looking. 

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

4 minutes ago, RackMonkey said:

And there in lies the problem. There is no consistency. How do you track down problems when the target is always moving. One person may have great VR and another bad but there are so many cooks in the kitchen you don't know where to start looking. 

yeah, details, we need details!! my 3 year old rig sure thing better handles small MP missions than entering massive, high scripted PVP arenas.
anyway I think VR adds SO much to the flight simulation, it´s worth the hassle of finetuning settings and stuff.

[Talisman_VR]

3 minutes ago, RackMonkey said:

And there in lies the problem. There is no consistency. How do you track down problems when the target is always moving. One person may have great VR and another bad but there are so many cooks in the kitchen you don't know where to start looking. 

 

It is a hell of a learning curve RackMonkey and I know sod all about computers.  I have spent many hours reading and researching and testing and then tweaking with each update for this and that.  All I can say is that I now have what I consider to be a very good VR experience and I am very happy, but I am not qualified to give advice or help as I am no expert and things are constantly changing.  I felt I was taking a risk with VR but it worked out for me in the end.  I find that there are no easy answers I am afraid.  Good luck.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[longuich]

I wasn’t trying to be offensive or anything. Just saying, it seems you seem to have many many many more issues than most… i personally have no effing clue about all the settings and it [dcs + vr] seems to work reasonably for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[streakeagle]

When I upgraded from the Rift S to the Reverb G2 before building a new PC, I expected to have performance issues. Instead, I was able to keep the same or better quality settings and still maintain 45 fps in most situations. Then I built a new PC. I chose the AMD 5800X on an X570 motherboard. I didn't really gain any fps, but what I did gain was stability. My old PC with 4-cores was pegged out trying to keep up with SimShaker, VR, DCS, SRS, and VoiceAttack/Vaicom Pro. With the new PC, my cpu was handling the load really well, practically idling since it appears to be gpu bound (particuarly by the 8 GB of VRAM). Then ED released a patch (not long after switching to 2.7/new clouds). Now, the only way I can get the performance I was getting is to fly in environments with little no clouds like Nevada missions. If I fly my usual MP servers with clouds, I have to downgrade the G2 to 60 fps base and force 30 fps motion smoothing to get stable frame rates, and even then under some conditions it drops into the 20s and gets difficult to fly.

 

For the record, I am stuck on a regular 1080. I am sure I would be doing a little bit better on a 1080 Ti.  I am not going to buy the current overpriced gpus I need. If my performance gets any worse, I will simply stop playing DCS. I have better things to do with my time and money than to spend 2 or 3K on a new top of the line gpu, install it in a nearly top of the line pc and struggle to maintain playable frame rates and image quality. ED's answer is buy better hardware. When I am already just a gpu purchase away from top notch hardware, my answer is go back to my other hobbies that cost less and make me happier. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by streakeagle

[RackMonkey]

I guess all we can do is help each other and keep pressing the industry to up their game. I'm pretty sure that with the price of VR coming down, that play time on the computer will be the predominant method and games will be written for VR first.  

[Lange_666]

11 hours ago, streakeagle said:

a nearly top of the line pc and struggle to maintain playable frame rates and image quality. ED's answer is buy better hardware.

I play flightsims since the beginning of dawn and since then and with my hardware i'm almost always racing behind the software development and certainly so in flightsims. Instead of going for max settings and get teased on how good it can look, i now start the other other way, i put everything on low and then up it step by step until it reaches a breaking point (for me, dips below 60FPS in 2D, 40 FPS in VR) and then i take a step back to smooth it out.

But I just keep wondering how software developers run/test their games if top notch hardware is not able to run it at max setting?

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

1 hour ago, Lange_666 said:

I play flightsims since the beginning of dawn and since then and with my hardware i'm almost always racing behind the software development and certainly so in flightsims. Instead of going for max settings and get teased on how good it can look, i now start the other other way, i put everything on low and then up it step by step until it reaches a breaking point (for me, dips below 60FPS in 2D, 40 FPS in VR) and then i take a step back to smooth it out.

But I just keep wondering how software developers run/test their games if top notch hardware is not able to run it at max setting?

Is simple, they are able to develop a software that puts a powerful system down on its knees. They test it with, like I said, compromises. I'm sure a big % of users have better equipment than coders and developers. Not to mention mp arenas and scripting tax the performance a lot. 

Imagine if they provide a software which runs a 140fps with a certain visual quality, the forums would be lit by users asking for more features "because there is so much headroom..." 

But I think it's the way it is with legacy 2d complex sims with VR versions. 

Xplane and dcs  come to my mind, you can't really compare with vtol vr performance. 

[schmiefel]

As I experienced similar 'issues' on my way to VR in DCS I can understand what OP stated very well. During my vast researching through different attempts to get the best out of DCS in VR, I came to the conclusion that mostly users on AMD GPUs struggle a lot in getting decent graphics quality with playable FPS.

Not getting hands on modern NV graphics cards for a reasonable price since the last year, I did get a highly clocked 5700XT AMD GPU altogether with a new Intel based PC. While the new Intel CPU was a big improvement running DCS stable the 'new' GPU did rather deliver no performance improvement over the prior used GTX 1060 NV GPU. So I think it's a double problem AMD GPU users run into with DCS in VR: AMD drivers are not very well optimized for VR usage (compared to NV ones) and DCS preferred NV cards since ever and performes over all better with them.

So I have put DCS mostly aside until I maybe can get a modern NV card (at least 3070 performance class) for a reasonable price (that I won't expect before end of next year if they come down sometimes again at all - then I have to decide if continuing PC gaming is worth the price) and/or ED can improve its graphics/game engine far more (what I don't expect at all).

[Burt]

My VR experience is as good as it gets right now. I don’t worry about fps and fpsvr monitoring. Way better than my last rig which was a -i7-9700K and a 2080Super its like night and day difference.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Burt

[LithiumR]

I have tried to remain fairly positive about DCS and ED concerning VR (and in general)... but am also arriving in the same place. This actually may be the first criticism I've posted in the forums and I've been a customer since 2011. I also think ED is in an impossible situation with this. I think there is no way to optimize much more for VR without comprimising for 2D players which is the majority. BUT 2D will always be the majority if ED doesn't optimize for VR... which most likely is the future. Not that DCS can't be optimized for VR, but more that it's not financially viable to spend resources there instead of creating new money makers (I think maybe financially they may have no choice in order to just stay afloat). What will happen (is happening) is that VR customers will just go elsewhere or stop flying completely. I still check the DCS forums every few days but I've been flying other VR sims for now even though I DON'T think they are better... but at least they run half decent and my eyes don't hurt from exposure to so much aliasing and double images. I'm extremely tempted to get the mosquito (I own nearly every module and I own every map) but idk what for if I'm not going to fly it due to performance? I'm not sure the lack of performance is worth the trouble anymore. And I'd love to upgrade my rig BUT I constantly see posts of people with top of the line rigs still dealing w/ exactly the same problems. I just don't want to dump 4k or 5k onto a rig for a 5% or 10% improvement. It's just not worth it... and only to end up behind the curve again shortly anyway (if being ahead of the curve can even exist in DCS haha). In short.... I think DCS is almost amazing in VR only if you are able/ willing to dump thousands into a new rig every year and put in the time tweaking to eek out the peformance. And even then you are only ALMOST there. It's subjective.

 

All that said... I do think DCS is awesome. I'm a huge fan, but I don't know if I want to keep "keeping up". And I'd honestly rather fly in what I really consider to be an inferior sim in VR than go back to 2D in DCS. It is what it is though. Could DCS be more optimized for VR? I'm sure it could. Will ED spend resources on that? I doubt it. They've already said it'll just have to be Vulcan (at least that's my impression). But at ED's development pace that might be 10 years from now (or more). That's a long time to wait to get to fly modules I buy now smoothly. And I'm not trying to hate on ED or DCS... it's just the reality of where my mind is with it. I'll probably still upgrade my rig in a year or two but until then I feel like DCS is off the table for me unless some serious optimizations happen for VR. And I hate that but it's just the way it is I guess. And we all make our choices. I chose to compromise the past few years to fly in VR with bad performance with the hopes that it would improve. And at times it has improved!! only for those gains to slowly be taken back. For sure DCS is my favorite thing as far as simming goes... so the situation really sucks. Meh. 

[longuich]

What’s interesting to me in this discussion is that if you recommend users looking into VR to buy the best system they can afford, one gets bashed for suggesting bleeding edge hardware. I’ve had people telling me off because according to them “a 1080 i5 16gb system is by far sufficient to run VR”. On the other hand there are people - like the OP - questioning whether ED lacks support and commitment due to their low fps - which is so subjective due to all the different eyes and brains of users. I’m lucky and blessed with a 2021 i7 64gb 3090 m2 g2 setup. It runs beautifully. But hell, even with this rig a simple change in settings can bring it to its knees. Change it back, and we’re golden again. Maybe it’s just that VR is fairly new in terms of the functionality we expect. It’ll get better, even with DCS. just give it some time and let the uservase as well as the tech mature some.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LithiumR]

3 minutes ago, longuich said:

What’s interesting to me in this discussion is that if you recommend users looking into VR to buy the best system they can afford, one gets bashed for suggesting bleeding edge hardware. I’ve had people telling me off because according to them “a 1080 i5 16gb system is by far sufficient to run VR”. On the other hand there are people - like the OP - questioning whether ED lacks support and commitment due to their low fps - which is so subjective due to all the different eyes and brains of users. I’m lucky and blessed with a 2021 i7 64gb 3090 m2 g2 setup. It runs beautifully. But hell, even with this rig a simple change in settings can bring it to its knees. Change it back, and we’re golden again. Maybe it’s just that VR is fairly new in terms of the functionality we expect. It’ll get better, even with DCS. just give it some time and let the uservase as well as the tech mature some.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I somehow end up with vastly different performance with the same settings in the same mission . If I go playing with settings my performance doesn’t always come back when I revert the settings... and that’s made me wonder if there are settings that are changed that aren’t available in the GUI that don’t always get reverted. And consequently I wonder if some people are somehow stuck with these settings and therefor never get the performance others get with even less cutting edge hardware. 
 

That’s where I am now... I messed with my settings trying to optimize after update and now I can’t get my old performance back... but honestly I probably could. I’m sure the answer is here in the forums but I’m played out on hours and hours of tweaking. It’s been years now of hours and hours of tweaking and I just don’t want to do it. Is that ED’s fault? No... but maybe.
 

I too am venting a little... which in nearly 10 years of being a customer I have never done in the forums. And I really don’t feel negative towards ED. It’s just frustrating. 

[longuich]

I know what you mean. I could probably get much more bang out of my system. I just can’t be bothered to tweak, tweak and then tweak some. And I’m lucky ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rick50]

On 8/27/2021 at 12:24 PM, RackMonkey said:

And there in lies the problem. There is no consistency. How do you track down problems when the target is always moving. One person may have great VR and another bad but there are so many cooks in the kitchen you don't know where to start looking. 

 

 

Database.

 

This is too much data, too many options and settings, for our normal brains to figure out.  This requires the scientific method, and data collection into a proper database/spreadsheet, with a few experts in the subject to analyse and interpret the collected data into conclusions that can be implemented by both ED and the end users (us). Without a spreadsheet to look at, to compare and contrast... we are in the dark really.

 

I do not know really how to implement this, but I'd start with colaborating on how to measure consistently, so that end users can enter in baseline FPS averages to compare, along with every setting they have turned on or off. It won't be simple, it won't be easy, but there's too many variables to isolate without doing something along these lines.

 

I'd start with making some fairly basic missions, or picking existing SP missions that everyone can easily fly, in the most commonly available aircraft. From that, enter in EVERY single in-game setting for graphics, all hardware specs and drivers. Then replay the same mission, but with a specificly created set of "lower ingame settings", and report your results. Then replay the mission once again, but with a specific created "higher ingame settings" that at least a few users have had fantastic results with, and report the results. 

 

From that data, if analysed well, one ought to see that a few settings might have unusually compromised the experience, resulting in a few recommendations for settings changes. Re-run the results in a new round, call it test V2, and see if it results in better results without hardware changes. Or start anew with your new hardware change, say maybe 4x more main board RAM, or a GPU card upgrade, or CPU card upgrade. But the focus ought to be more about software settings, trying to measure stutters and hickups, game/server crashing, framerates and so on.

 

Sorry, I've no real idea how to fully implement. But I'd expect it will involve several high knowledge users on this board and in this thread, colaborating to figure out the baseline tests. These people would figure out all the questions for users to answer, and how to express that data in a form easily entered into a database.

 

Then the database: other (or same) people to help set up a fairly complex online spreadsheet to handle the results, and then for highly knowlegeable about game engines and all the various settings and how they impact the experience, to interpret which settings and changes provide the best improvements, and then share those conclusions in a form easy for the average user to understand and implement. Maybe a PDF with a step by step group of recommendations to optimise.

 

This ought to be a working group primarily made up of DCS users, but open to ED employees and 3rd party dev members to help contribute if they choose to offer their time. I don't think it would be easy or quick, but this would benefit the entire community, and help improve the future of DCS, ED and it's 3rd party devs, because it would make it easier for customers to quickly acheive a positive experience with a minimum of effort on settings, resulting in keeping a new customer, than risking losing that customer after just a few months of frustrations. They say in business that it's FAR cheaper to KEEP an existing customer, than to gain new customers to replace lost customers. If the community can help keep n00bs happy and engaged, then it brightens the future for these niche complex simulations. 

 

Maybe with the changes that are ongoing, such as a new major engine upgrade (say when we get DCS V3.0 or implmentation of Vulkan, or maybe a GPU driver upgrade), if the results suggest a significant change in what is recommended, a new pdf version with new recommendations gets published by the group.... this might happen once a year, more likely as needed, after significant changes result in a change to recommended settings, which might be regular or even rarely needed changes. 

Without such a database, it's just random shots in the dark, an occasional lucky result. And many who don't get a lucky result, and no idea what to try.

 

Then again, I've no clue really, it's just the thought I had when reading this thread a half hour ago.

 

[Steel Jaw]

At this point does the shader really do anything?

[VpR81]

On 8/28/2021 at 9:16 AM, Lange_666 said:

play flightsims since the beginning of dawn and since then and with my hardware i'm almost always racing behind the software development and certainly so in flightsims. Instead of going for max settings and get teased on how good it can look, i now start the other other way, i put everything on low and then up it step by step until it reaches a breaking point (for me, dips below 60FPS in 2D, 40 FPS in VR) and then i take a step back to smooth it out.

Exactly this. Actually this is what i do with all demanding games. No need to always have everything maxed out...