Alternative Thinking - chasing the VR dream

[DavidE]

Currently I have a 9900k / 3080ti / G2 using an old 34inch 2K low response time 60 Hz monitor. While it works reasonably well it is far from the ideal, particularly in DCS, I also have a decent racing sim set up that I can interchange for the flight sim set up (bit like the thunderbirds 2 pods for those old enough to remember).

Looking at the upgrade path - new CPU (7xxx3DX) - 4090 GPU - Aero / Crystal etc / monitor, this the choice of headset seems to imply that as things stand, I will have to shell out for a Nvidia card, the only practical option being the 4090.  This long and costly upgrade path is making me consider an alternative path.

This path (all start shouting at the screen) is upgrading the CPU and then getting 32 inch triples such as Odyssey G7 (16:9, 2K), the cost of triples is a bit less than the Crystal and a lot less than the aero.  I could then use the G2 or triples, hopefully the 3080ti would drive the triples OK, if not I could upgrade to the cheaper 7900XTX (or 7950TXT by then).

I do enjoy VR but seem to spend half my time setting up and chasing acceptable performance. The G2 also gives access to Alyx etc.  I do find that VR can make me feel a bit odd and don't always sleep well after using it, another reason to have the triples. Overall, I keep VR for when I want it but also have the width and height for racing and flight sims via the monitors

Has anyone been through the same sort of thought process, seems for less money I get triples and VR at the cost of next gen VR, maybe at a point in the future VR headsets will become more affordable and work without having to continually tweak.

[dburne]

21 minutes ago, DavidE said:

Currently I have a 9900k / 3080ti / G2 using an old 34inch 2K low response time 60 Hz monitor. While it works reasonably well it is far from the ideal, particularly in DCS, I also have a decent racing sim set up that I can interchange for the flight sim set up (bit like the thunderbirds 2 pods for those old enough to remember).

Looking at the upgrade path - new CPU (7xxx3DX) - 4090 GPU - Aero / Crystal etc / monitor, this the choice of headset seems to imply that as things stand, I will have to shell out for a Nvidia card, the only practical option being the 4090.  This long and costly upgrade path is making me consider an alternative path.

This path (all start shouting at the screen) is upgrading the CPU and then getting 32 inch triples such as Odyssey G7 (16:9, 2K), the cost of triples is a bit less than the Crystal and a lot less than the aero.  I could then use the G2 or triples, hopefully the 3080ti would drive the triples OK, if not I could upgrade to the cheaper 7900XTX (or 7950TXT by then).

I do enjoy VR but seem to spend half my time setting up and chasing acceptable performance. The G2 also gives access to Alyx etc.  I do find that VR can make me feel a bit odd and don't always sleep well after using it, another reason to have the triples. Overall, I keep VR for when I want it but also have the width and height for racing and flight sims via the monitors

Has anyone been through the same sort of thought process, seems for less money I get triples and VR at the cost of next gen VR, maybe at a point in the future VR headsets will become more affordable and work without having to continually tweak.

 

Well I will tell you when folks read these threads on multiple forums that extend pages and pages of info, and try to wrap their heads around it, it all seems just too intimidating to some I am sure. VR is really not quite like that - well it can be if one chooses to go down that rabbit hole constantly tweaking, changing settings, measuring performance, rinse and repeat.

I myself do not do that - I just use the stock software/stock Steam VR arrive at settings and performance I can live with, then just fly baby fly and have a crap load of fun. Never cared much for running down rabbit holes, and one can easily get caught up in that by chasing their tail trying to squeeze "every little bit" out of their headset.

I think that is one issue we now have with VR and flight simulators, all these posts on tweaking and tuning over and over likely scares some folks away that do not want to get caught up in a never ending battle with their headset and rig. VR needs to be easier, less friction getting into and out of, less friction getting things set up and running satisfactory. Until then VR will never come close to being mainstream in any game, much less flight simulators.

So yeah to address your comment, absolutely with just a little work on the front end and not going crazy with mods, a real blast can be had in VR with DCS or most any flight sim.

Btw - absolutely love my Aero.

[Dangerzone]

I think you're in a good position DavidE - as a lot of the groundwork has been laid out before you. 

When I first jumped into VR - yes - there was a lot of chasing around. I wasn't tweaking trying to get every little bit out of my GPU. On the contrary - I was running low textures, MSAA/SSAA off, No Shadows, Low Water, Low Clouds. The only thing I was chasing was smoothness because what I was experiencing was enough to make me motion sick or give me headaches with the constant stutters, and in VR these stutters are far worse than in 2D.  So I'm one of 'those' who went down the rabbit hole, and spent countless hours over many months trying to find "something" that would give me a smooth experience.

Now though - it's a different story. Numerous people being down the same, and there is so much more knowledge that one doesn't have to repeat the process for themselves. And in addition to this - there is OpenXR. Extremely simple to setup - and for me this was the big gamechanger. 

So when you see lengthy threads on performance - realize that you're not starting at the beginning of these threads - but you have the benefit of skipping to the end of the story and getting the conclusions straight up. This is also one of the reasons why I run Stable Release and not OB.  If you look at 2.8 as an example - numerous threads about performance issues, etc. Now if Stable was to update today - I have benefits of those who have gone before and tested, and come to conclusions (a big one I believe is shadows being a large contributing factor), so can jump straight to the settings and change what I need.

However in saying that - please be warned - this may change. One of the problems that we are constantly facing is that ED continue to add more and more features requiring more overhead which is taking more strain on the equipment without yet being ready to release the fixes we need (MT & Vulcan). What we've seen with 2.8 and shadows, well - the next fancy thing they bring in may increase this worse. The trend with ED has been to continue to add more resource eating features with each update even though numerous people are at the limit - and we're still who knows how far out from Vulcan or MT. So while I am having success right now - until Vulcan and MT actually come out - there is risk that feature creep may take what's working today and break it for you tomorrow. 

As a result - regarding your spending less and having more options - I think this is a very good option to consider. Just having more options means that you have more fall-back opportunities if ED changes something that breaks VR immersion on your system. To be fully committed to VR means you risk a situation that I've seen with numerous others posting here  - that they're done with DCS until Vulcan/MT is implemented because it's now too broke on their system. Whereas in your situation if DCS gets to a point where it's not running smoothly in VR on your system - you still have a fantastic 2D environment to fall back to. 

For me - I have learned not to make decisions based on 'what's being worked on', but 'what we have now'. "Being worked on" could mean 12 months, 3 years, or longer. There's no guarantee on time frame - so whatever decision you make - I would suggest making it with the though that what DCS is now is 'the best' we will have for some time (performance size), and has the potential to get worse and not better - until that magical day appears.

[Digitalvole]

The monitor plan sounds solid, especially with the WinWing MIP (if you fly the Hornet) But VR is pretty much unbeatable for immersion. I’ve been using VR for 6 years and I still get excited before every flight. It’s cost a bloody fortune to keep up with hardware requirements though. If/when I get a 4090 I will have crossed the line where I could have learnt to fly a real plane! Though I don’t regret it.

But the above by @Dangerzone is why I’m taking a break from DCS. It’s an amazing product that has bought me a lot of happy times. But I’m now flying warbirds at 90fps with great SP content in VR and I don’t think I can come back to the performance of DCS. Also the endless wait for things to improve or get fixed is a young man’s game. I only get one life, and waiting for stuff isn’t a great use of it.

I’ll be straight back when MT/Vulcan get done, and I commend ED for their vision there really is nothing like DCS. But having seen that 90fps in a flight sim is possible and amazing and despite preferring jets to warbirds (by a small margin) I don’t think I can go back anytime soon.