no bug Triangle amounts are too much for vr (look in post for official oculus documentation)

[XCNuse]

3 hours ago, razo+r said:

I look into a direction with 0 tris I get 49 FPS and then I look into a direction with 3 million tris and I get 50 FPS.

 

Zero.... ?

You mean to tell me your 3D graphical display of land, trees, buildings, a sea... is 0 tris?

 

Again... this is exactly why this thread is complete bogus. You people have no clue what you're looking at or doing.

[razo+r]

1 hour ago, XCNuse said:

Zero.... ?

You mean to tell me your 3D graphical display of land, trees, buildings, a sea... is 0 tris?

 

Again... this is exactly why this thread is complete bogus. You people have no clue what you're looking at or doing.

The counter shows 0 tris with 4 objects while having literally trees and buildings within the screen. I am fully aware that the counter does not count the tris of everything.

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by razo+r

[TZeer]

It's not the triangles that affect the performance the most. It's objects.

I don't know if many remember the performance issues we had way back, in the area around Novorossisjsk area?

Anyway, at that time I did alot of research to find what was hogging performance in that specific area. It turned out to be certain 3d models of containers and construction cranes populating the port. As soon as the you got the port in view the object count shot up from 700+ objects to well over 2000 objects. This was taxing the CPU and and it was not able to feed the GPU with instructions. So you had what seemed like a completely normal scene bringing the FPS to it's knees while the GPU was not even close to running 100%, due to CPU bottleneck.

Deleting/renaming those edm models doubled the FPS, with no loss in visual fidelity, except some random cranes and containers no longer populating the area.

It would be interesting to see if some of those badly optimized models are still with us today.

Well, this was a little of topic. But triangle count of 3 mil is nothing....

[NineLine]

On 12/22/2022 at 11:23 AM, NineLine said:

I have asked about the LODs on the Hangar,

Fixed internally coming to a future patch.

On 12/22/2022 at 6:57 PM, XCNuse said:

This thread should be locked.

Dont tempt me

 

On 12/22/2022 at 11:21 AM, razo+r said:

like the MiG-29s

I see LODs for the MIG-29's in the shape folder, am I missing something here?

[ShadowDoggie]

Just wanted to say thank you NineLine!

Good stuff, love it!

[razo+r]

21 hours ago, NineLine said:

I see LODs for the MIG-29's in the shape folder, am I missing something here?

Which file (and size) and which location?

I only see a .lod file which is not a model (open it with notepad or similar) and the LODs are not within the main model file either.

[lefuneste01]

On 12/25/2022 at 1:09 PM, TZeer said:

Deleting/renaming those edm models doubled the FPS, with no loss in visual fidelity, except some random cranes and containers no longer populating the area.

Could you share the list of these edm and an associated track ? It should help to have things fixed at mid term by devs and allows other to optimize fps at short term...

I had another case with huge fps  impact :

It should not be related to hangar.

It seems devs are not so often taking reports like this into account...It's too bad, because it may help to lower fps impact of things more complex to solve. My mod is still for example increasing fps by 300% with cluster CBU explosion, some optimization and option should be provided to allow people to choose eye candy explosion/smoke putting your PC on its knees or less rough graphics but more constant fps. It will become crucial as soon as better CPU parallelization will be provided, so issue will be mostly on GPU.

 

[TZeer]

@lefuneste01 
I'm not sure if it's still valid, as it's such a long time ago. But I will have a look when I get back from work ( next week).

[Dragon1-1]

On 12/22/2022 at 10:29 PM, ShadowDoggie said:

The official Meta/Oculus website litteraly tells you developers, to don't use more then these triangle counts, yet you completely ignore this.

Yes, they do, and they're correct to do so. Why? DCS doesn't run on Oculus Quest. It runs on your PC. Which, if it's a decent grade gaming PC, is vastly more powerful than Quest. 

Those tris counts? They're for games running on Quest's internal system, where stuff that does the rendering has to fit within the googles themselves. PCs are free from that constraint, meaning those counts are irrelevant for them.

Tris are cheap. Large textures, special effects and, more importantly, rendering the whole thing twice are expensive bits. Vulkan should remove the last one, at least, because it doesn't do that.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, razo+r said:

Which file (and size) and which location?

I only see a .lod file which is not a model (open it with notepad or similar) and the LODs are not within the main model file either.

I see what you mean now, will track it down.

[winghunter]

On 12/22/2022 at 10:29 PM, ShadowDoggie said:

Platform	Triangle Count
Quest 1	350k-500k
Quest 2	750k-1.0m

 

These specs are for Snapdragon mobile processors. DCS wont even run on these so these numbers are meaningless.

DCS is certainly not very well optimised, but 3 million triangles is no problem for 20 or 30 let alone 40 series GTX cards, they can push 100 millions of trinagles per frame. The optimisations have to be done at deeper levels. There may be only marginal gains from improving LODs even though its probably still worth doing.

Edited January 1, 2023 by winghunter