What next ?

[IanHx2]

Currently have a Reverb G1.

Is there anything available today / coming next year that has

* a significantly clearer picture ?  Today, if I need to read the map MFD, I find myself having to zoom in. On a monitor, I dont.

* manually adjustable IPD ?  and a bigger sweet spot ?  Today I find myself having to push the bottom of the headset slightly closer to my face to bring what I'm looking at into sharp focus.

 

Thought about a Reverb G2, but with those going at nearly £700 over here, and from what I've seen/read online -  didnt  think it offered enough of an improvement over a G1 to make it a noticeably better upgrade.

Edited November 27, 2022 by IanHx2

[speed-of-heat]

Reality 12K | Pimax Maybe?

or the Varjo Aero Varjo Aero - Varjo.com

 

 

[cordite]

Besides Varjo Aero? The Pimax 12k? Pico 4?

 

Maybe a Quest3 in the fall, with the more niche features of the Pro stripped. Valve Deckard, if that ever comes to fruition. And MeganeX is due in "2 weeks".

Edited November 27, 2022 by cordite
"of the Pro"

[IanHx2]

Varjo Aero specs sound good, but a bit too pricey to justify right now.

Especially after you factor in 2 lighthouses...

 

Pimax vs G2....   still reading up on them.

Neither of them sound like they offer a "just like being in front of a 4K monitor"

viewing experience just yet,  which is the next level of revolutionary jump I'm looking

for from a VR headset rather than modest incremental improvements.  For under a grand

 

[speed-of-heat]

You will also need a revolutionary jump in hardware to support it... A 4090 is just able to drive the g2 at its resolution and frame rate...

Edited November 27, 2022 by speed-of-heat

[nikoel]

XTAL.PRO is the straight answer to your questions

Tried it in a commercial Sim. It’s mind blowing there is no binocular vision just a clear image all around

Scroll down to the price tag friend. Makes us Varjo, G2, Quest Pro owners look like school boys on welfare

https://www.xtal.pro

Edited November 27, 2022 by nikoel

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, speed-of-heat said:

A 4090 is just able to drive the g2 at its resolution and frame rate...

Only because DCS graphics engine is based on a very outdated paradigm. I'm getting good results in other VR games with a 1080ti and a 4770K CPU, and that's on full res. DCS is playable with that hardware,  if you squeeze every bit of performance out of it, but it could be better. It currently isn't even using the full capabilities of those, due to how bottlenecked it is.

The solution isn't more GPU horsepower (most of which will go unused), the solution is multicore and Vulkan. 

 

[dburne]

3 hours ago, IanHx2 said:

Varjo Aero specs sound good, but a bit too pricey to justify right now.

Especially after you factor in 2 lighthouses...

 

Pimax vs G2....   still reading up on them.

Neither of them sound like they offer a "just like being in front of a 4K monitor"

viewing experience just yet,  which is the next level of revolutionary jump I'm looking

for from a VR headset rather than modest incremental improvements.  For under a grand

 

 

You won't find a VR headset that gives you everything you looking at like a 4k monitor. 4k monitor is 2d, flat screen, very small comparatively speaking. VR is a whole nother animal.  However one can have a very good experience with it even with the current shortcomings. It is the only way I fly now, and has been that way since Jan 2017.

I choose VR - where I am virtually in that cockpit flying that airplane looking at the world all around me. Love it.

 

[MADLOU1]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Only because DCS graphics engine is based on a very outdated paradigm. I'm getting good results in other VR games with a 1080ti and a 4770K CPU, and that's on full res. DCS is playable with that hardware,  if you squeeze every bit of performance out of it, but it could be better. It currently isn't even using the full capabilities of those, due to how bottlenecked it is.

The solution isn't more GPU horsepower (most of which will go unused), the solution is multicore and Vulkan. 

 

I have the exact same computer specs as you and have the same experience as you.

In that "other" flight sim, I can pretty much max out the graphic settings and get a very smooth, jitter free VR experience with good FPS, in both the tanks and planes, but not so with DCS. 

In DCS 2d, though, I can completely max out all the graphic settings  and get a great experience. But alas, I'm one of those people who went to VR and can not go back to 2d. LOL.  

So I will put DCS on the proverbial shelf for now. 

I agree that the solution would be multicore and Vulkan instead of me putting out thousands of dollars for computer upgrades just so I can play one sim decently in VR.

 

 

[Mars Exulte]

15 minutes ago, MADLOU1 said:

In that "other" flight sim, I can pretty much max out the graphic settings and get a very smooth, jitter free VR experience with good FPS, in both the tanks and planes, but not so with DCS. 

 You guys keep comparing sims via relative eyecandy, ignoring the part where those sims are not simulating the same level or types of things that DCS is. The engine is dated, and Vulkan and MT will yield some improvements, but no matter how ''Optimus''ed they make it it will almost definitely always trail behind them in FPS because, shockingly, doing more requires more horsepower, which eats into FPS.

If DCS disabled all the things that make it DCS and just focused on pretty graphics, optimised or not, it would yield comparable performance. That's kinda the point, you can't have ALL THAT, AND pretty graphics, AND maximal FPS. You have to pick two.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Mars Exulte

[Willie Nelson]

1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

 You guys keep comparing sims via relative eyecandy, ignoring the part where those sims are not simulating the same level or types of things that DCS is. The engine is dated, and Vulkan and MT will yield some improvements, but no matter how ''Optimus''ed they make it it will almost definitely always trail behind them in FPS because, shockingly, doing more requires more horsepower, which eats into FPS.

If DCS disabled all the things that make it DCS and just focused on pretty graphics, optimised or not, it would yield comparable performance. That's kinda the point, you can't have ALL THAT, AND pretty graphics, AND maximal FPS. You have to pick two.

 

That may be so and it’s a fair point but I had my 3080ti and 12900KF running a Reverb at full res essentially flawlessly in MP albeit with some decrease in FPS on the ground in busy environments but outside of that it was pretty decent……..

Then came 2.8………..

[IanHx2]

6 hours ago, dburne said:

 

You won't find a VR headset that gives you everything you looking at like a 4k monitor. 4k monitor is 2d, flat screen, very small comparatively speaking. VR is a whole nother animal.  However one can have a very good experience with it even with the current shortcomings. It is the only way I fly now, and has been that way since Jan 2017.

I choose VR - where I am virtually in that cockpit flying that airplane looking at the world all around me. Love it.

 

Well aware of the difference - what I should have said is "something that looks as clear and readable as looking at a desktop 4K monitor".

On a good day with the headset aligned just right, a tiny tiny spot of the Reverb is almost 75% good enough.  

I want the whole display good enough across its entire width... preferably without remortgaging the house

But I know that I am in for a long wait.... and that the computing horsepower to drive such a display simply

does not exist a sub-£3000 desktop system today, much less a 4 year old rig.....

[MADLOU1]

3 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 You guys keep comparing sims via relative eyecandy, ignoring the part where those sims are not simulating the same level or types of things that DCS is. The engine is dated, and Vulkan and MT will yield some improvements, but no matter how ''Optimus''ed they make it it will almost definitely always trail behind them in FPS because, shockingly, doing more requires more horsepower, which eats into FPS.

If DCS disabled all the things that make it DCS and just focused on pretty graphics, optimised or not, it would yield comparable performance. That's kinda the point, you can't have ALL THAT, AND pretty graphics, AND maximal FPS. You have to pick two.

 

Well hopefully this is not true, because if it is, since I'm only interested in playing these sims in VR, my multi-year relationship with DCS will have to come to an end.

[Mars Exulte]

2 hours ago, MADLOU1 said:

Well hopefully this is not true, because if it is, since I'm only interested in playing these sims in VR, my multi-year relationship with DCS will have to come to an end.

VR didn't exist when DCS was made. At all. It was not a design consideration. It is NOW, but they can't gut all their simulation routines so people can squeeze out a few more fps in VR.

It's designed for high fidelity simulation of aircraft and their systems, the ''other sims'' literally are not. To varying extents, they are doing somewhat less to a lot less on simulation side of things, and do not simulate the internal systems or avionics at any level beyond rudimentary. They're casual sims by design, to be accessible. Individual 3rd party modules may be more detailed, but on average, they are ''doing'' a lot less, which gives them a lot more overhead for graphics and VR. These are just facts.

Also, one of those ''other sims'' is run by a multi-billion dollar global megacorp with nearly limitless resources to devote toward building the entire thing from scratch. DCS is not, and change is by necessity slower because of lesser resources and NOT being able to rebuild it all from scratch.

[Mars Exulte]

3 hours ago, Willie Nelson said:

Then came 2.8………..

 I'm not saying there's not an issue there, there clearly is, and it's why I haven't updated But I don't expect DCS to perform like completely different beasts 

[Dragon1-1]

6 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 You guys keep comparing sims via relative eyecandy, ignoring the part where those sims are not simulating the same level or types of things that DCS is. The engine is dated, and Vulkan and MT will yield some improvements, but no matter how ''Optimus''ed they make it it will almost definitely always trail behind them in FPS because, shockingly, doing more requires more horsepower, which eats into FPS.

Depends. First of all, all the things you mention are done solely on CPU. GPU horsepower, which is the main cost center these days, will not change any of them. DCS visuals are good, but it's not quite UE5, and the other WWII sim is comparable in that regard. When discussing GPU-limited things, comparing relative eyecandy is the right thing, because eyecandy is what GPU does (none of them use GPU-accelerated physics, it's a thing but it has limits).

Now, for CPU load, this will all dissipate with multicore. Yes, my 4770 might still struggle, but when I replace it with something like 13700, that will be another story. Getting the latest CPU is far more feasible than shelling out for the 4090, indeed, CPU and mobo prices aren't nearly as fluid as GPU. If DCS can make use of full capabilities of modern CPUs, then all this complexity will be much less of a bother. In practice, there will likely still be bottlenecks bogging down a single thread, but they should be much less problematic than they're now.

[dburne]

5 hours ago, IanHx2 said:

Well aware of the difference - what I should have said is "something that looks as clear and readable as looking at a desktop 4K monitor".

On a good day with the headset aligned just right, a tiny tiny spot of the Reverb is almost 75% good enough.  

I want the whole display good enough across its entire width... preferably without remortgaging the house

But I know that I am in for a long wait.... and that the computing horsepower to drive such a display simply

does not exist a sub-£3000 desktop system today, much less a 4 year old rig.....

As they say oftentimes beauty is in the eye of the beholder. With exception of my GPU my rig is almost 4 years old, it will be in Jan. I run a Varjo Aero and still using my 3090 GPU and I can get a very pleasurable experience which looks very good - to me. I am starting the thought process on upgrading but hoping I can hold off till around this time next year. 

[wilbur81]

18 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 You guys keep comparing sims via relative eyecandy, ignoring the part where those sims are not simulating the same level or types of things that DCS is. The engine is dated, and Vulkan and MT will yield some improvements, but no matter how ''Optimus''ed they make it it will almost definitely always trail behind them in FPS because, shockingly, doing more requires more horsepower, which eats into FPS.

If DCS disabled all the things that make it DCS and just focused on pretty graphics, optimised or not, it would yield comparable performance. That's kinda the point, you can't have ALL THAT, AND pretty graphics, AND maximal FPS. You have to pick two.

 

^^^ This...100%.

DCS has struck an INCREDIBLE balance between eye-candy and simulation power. It absolutely needs to be optimized and it is most certainly a hardware destroyer, but it is doing so much more than the 'other' flight sims out there. "You collided with an object and caused critical damage to the aircraft." 

Edited November 28, 2022 by wilbur81

[dburne]

32 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

^^^ This...100%.

DCS has struck an INCREDIBLE balance between eye-candy and simulation power. It absolutely needs to be optimized and it is most certainly a hardware destroyer, but it is doing so much more than the 'other' flight sims out there. "You collided with an object and caused critical damage to the aircraft." 

 

 

Yeah fully agree with that assesment.

[Phantom88]

 

[Phantom88]

 

[Phantom88]

 

[dburne]

So when is Pimax going to stop talking about it and start shipping it?

[speed-of-heat]

7 minutes ago, dburne said:

So when is Pimax going to stop talking about it and start shipping it?

Maybe when they fix some more of their teething problems… the reviews of this so far are not exactly stellar…

[Phantom88]

3 hours ago, dburne said:

So when is Pimax going to stop talking about it and start shipping it?

I believe The Crystal first batch of 200 pre-orders start shipping end of this month