Performance in VR. Are they testing?

[YoYo]

It's nice to finally see some update, but I'm very curious how the optimization in VR looks like and how the map works and how many generates FPS, even at this stage in VR. It's not hard to put a lot of objects on it, but the trick is to make it work properly with maximum performance.

I hope that the authors realize that many people use VR in DCS and how important it is that the map should be nicely done but not cause FPS problems. I hope they won't repeat the mistakes of Razbam's South Atlantic map, and the performance will be not worse than Syria and Sinai or the Caucasus (the best way).

It should also be remembered that the map is to be filled with AI later (by users or campaign makers), so with an exaggerated amount of details and objects it may become unplayable. It's important to find a compromise and test it thoroughly before release and during development.

It's not MSFS, the map is supposed to work great as a priority, and as a second priority it has to look good, not in reverse order. Its very important.

Edited August 1, 2023 by YoYo

[Hotdognz]

Spot on YoYo, I wont be buy this after the flaws of the SA map and large urban areas and trees, ill take a wait and see approach from now on with maps like this.

[corbu1]

Curious as well! I really hope they make it work well in VR!

[Solemn-laugh]

Yes. I also hope it works well in VR. Will also wait and see. 

[YoYo]

Btw.

Good to see that they read questions (however Im not sure that question was here or on Discord only).

Not tested yet in VR, so we havent any answer yet about it and how they want to take care of VR subject.

[Glowingheat]

Forget about Aurora, it's so hit and miss anyway, I'd rather see Kallax/Lulea for the F21 Viggen action. 

Seems a bit odd not to include that base in early access given it's strong association with the Viggen and the F21 paint schemes already sported by the Viggen in DCS.  Not to mention it's proximity to the Gulf of Bothnia - literally on the coast, ideal for anti shipping.  Glad it will get added at some point hopefully.

[YoYo]

So according this:

I hope they are tested it in VR too and they didnt the same issue like Razbam for South Atlantic map with poor performance.

Edited April 27, 2024 by YoYo

[zerO_crash]

On 8/3/2023 at 8:00 PM, YoYo said:

Btw.

Good to see that they read questions (however Im not sure that question was here or on Discord only).

Not tested yet in VR, so we havent any answer yet about it and how they want to take care of VR subject.

The quality of the third answer though...

 

 

It was probably friday. All good.

Edited April 27, 2024 by zerO_crash

[YoYo]

Some1 tested it already in VR? Im particularly curious about the impressions from a helicopter, at a low altitude, below 500ft, also near cities, e.g. Murmansk.

[westr]

I’m eager to hear people’s impressions in VR, I’m not making a purchase this time without hearing some positive feedback. 

[Glide]

Runs fine with Grass and clutter and both Trees sliders all the way to the left (lowest).  Grass and Clutter makes a big hit to performance, but the ground looks great with it.  Without those things the maps looks just fine.

[YoYo]

2 minutes ago, westr said:

I’m eager to hear people’s impressions in VR, I’m not making a purchase this time without hearing some positive feedback. 

Yes, with the SA map there was a problem in DCS that I never had, in some respects this map is similar and it's not from ED/Ugra so it's still a question mark, especially since ORBX himself is silent here and doesn't seem to even look at this is a forum, so I also want to know first opinions from VR users. On the SA map, even the vegetation is a heavy FPS load, without the buildings.

1 minute ago, Glide said:

Runs fine with Grass and clutter and both Trees sliders all the way to the left (lowest).  Grass and Clutter makes a big hit to performance, but the ground looks great with it.  Without those things the maps looks just fine.

Which GPU and goggles resolution?

[Glide]

4 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Which GPU and goggles resolution?

Pimax Crystal at 3500x4142, 3080Ti.  No Quadviews applied for this test, just DLSS Ultra Performance. 

[skywalker22]

I will be testing it in 2 hours  Can't wait to try it out in VR (Quest PRO).

[fjacobsen]

Performance on my system with a Quest 3 is Ok.

I'm a bit underwhelmed by the number of Airbases and has yet to find any of the Swedish Road runways and I hope they can optimize it for better performance.

Otherwise it looks like a good start with some beautifull scenery.

I would say that performance is like on the Syria map.

 

Edit***

Maybe fly around for a while, since the shader cache has to be properly "updated" in order to gauge performance.

I think I got better performance on my last flight out of Bodø AB in a F-16

Edited May 3, 2024 by fjacobsen

[Morat]

Works fine for me. I have some Genesis Effect (tree pop up) but I always get that. I just ran my normal settings and was getting a steady 60 FPS pretty much everywhere, even down on the deck - with a slight drop over towns (50FPS). I was flying an F16. I'll have another go in the Tomcat for comparison.

I would agree this this is similar to Syria, perhaps a touch better. I'm not a frame chaser though, so I don't have solid performance numbers.

G2/4080/13700/32Gb @ 4800

18 hours ago, westr said:

I’m eager to hear people’s impressions in VR, I’m not making a purchase this time without hearing some positive feedback. 

I think it's worth every penny!

Edited May 4, 2024 by Morat

[cfrag]

Runs acceptable, comparable to Syria on a Vive Pro2, 2080Ti. Not as smooth as Caucasus (but then again, no other map is)

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Shameless cross-post:

 

[westr]

2 hours ago, Morat said:

Works fine for me. I have some Genesis Effect (tree pop up) but I always get that. I just ran my normal settings and was getting a steady 60 FPS pretty much everywhere, even down on the deck - with a slight drop over towns (50FPS). I was flying an F16. I'll have another go in the Tomcat for comparison.

I would agree this this is similar to Syria, perhaps a touch better. I'm not a frame chaser though, so I don't have solid performance numbers.

G2/4080/13700/32Gb @ 4800

I think it's worth every penny!

 

Hi can I ask what your draw distance (visible range is set to)? 
 

thanks. 

[YoYo]

Hello, 

@Holger Sandmann and ORBX Team here!

Since we don't have a bug section here, I want to draw your attention to my observations about Kola in terms of VR. First of all, I must point out that the DCS market is different from the MSFS market (we know also each other personally from the times of FSX, P3D and MSFS, when the ORBX forum was still active ). Here, we fly primarily dynamically and combatively, where missing every frame may mean being hit by A2A or G2A systems. Therefore, combining performance elements with elements of realism and visual look is crucial. Performance is therefore even more important. In MSFS I can personally get 40 frames and it's ok (for calm, direct flight). Here, it's not a good level. Also please remember that about 25% of DCS users fly in VR (this ratio is also growing), so performance is quite an important issue here. Generally in 2D I have here 150 to 280 FPS, not bad at all, but this is one story only because I don't fly in 2D at all.

I've done a lot of testing of the map in VR from yesterday and as far as I can tell it's generally good or very good with performance of (no impact for FPS or very low for me with my settings):

• grass,
• clutters / bushes,
• objects,
• buildings and cities,
• airbases,
• lakes, seas (of course).

BUT there's something wrong with... the trees and forests. I don't compare it to desert maps (although sometimes there are also large forests), but to the Caucasus, Normandy (there are of course fewer forests here) and Channel maps. Eliminating part of forests quality significantly increases the FPS rate and ensures stable FPS and changing the level of this setting significantly affects the quality and performance of the map. My tests show that this is the only factor currently spoiling the reception of the map. What is important, in 95% of situations on other maps (except SA), I always have a constant 72 FPS. On the Kola map, frames drop to 60 FPS  near the ground, which is noticeable when there is no reprojection. There is no reason for forest itself to load the system so much (see the map of the Caucasus). This is a problem for low-flying aircrafts and helicopters, but this is a very large part of the community, 50% of the time I fly helicopters in combat just above the ground. Above 2000 ft the problem disappears. 

In general, the trees here consume more PC power than the entire Murmansk with all buildings and cause a greater FPS drop.

To sum up, compared to the Caucasus - with the same number/similar of trees, we have a worse result in performance by about 40% (GPU render time - from 11 ms to 16 ms).

In my opinion, the map works better than the Razbam SA map (but let's add that there seem to be only 2 people working on it), but I can place it efficiently like this: A) Caucasus, Syria, Sinai, Nevada, PG, B) Marianas (part of Guam only), Kola C) South Atlantic. Generally in the middle. However, it is worth considering whether you can improve the performance of trees, maybe a different LOD, maybe less accurate, maybe only the same as in the Caucasus (even here we have a predominance of coniferous trees)?

Video comparison:

I will be happy to recommend cooperation with @Taz1004 , vegetation mod specialist. I'm sure it would be a good solution and he has proven many times that much more can be extracted from textures and models.

Also, @Flappie maybe it is worth considering more broadly whether the "Speed trees" system itself is no longer an obsolete system that works well in 2D but causes performance problems in VR?

The good thing about this whole situation is that this is just one problem I diagnosed on the map in terms of VR and performance. If this can be fixed, we will all be very grateful and happy.  Pretty please (if you need me for test incoming optimalizations - no problem).

Btw.

It works for me (more in video):

Btw2.

Test tracks attached (you need Viggen and Mi8).

test.trk test2.trk

Edited May 4, 2024 by YoYo

[zerO_crash]

8 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Hello, 

@Holger Sandmann and ORBX Team here!

Since we don't have a bug section here, I want to draw your attention to my observations about Kola in terms of VR. First of all, I must point out that the DCS market is different from the MSFS market (we know also each other personally from the times of FSX, P3D and MSFS, when the ORBX forum was still active ). Here, we fly primarily dynamically and combatively, where missing every frame may mean being hit by A2A or G2A systems. Therefore, combining performance elements with elements of realism and visual look is crucial. Performance is therefore even more important. In MSFS I can personally get 40 frames and it's ok (for calm, direct flight). Here, it's not a good level. Also please remember that about 25% of DCS users fly in VR (this ratio is also growing), so performance is quite an important issue here. Generally in 2D I have here 150 to 280 FPS, not bad at all, but this is one story only because I don't fly in 2D at all.

I've done a lot of testing of the map in VR from yesterday and as far as I can tell it's generally good or very good with performance of (no impact for FPS or very low for me with my settings):

• grass,
• clutters / bushes,
• objects,
• buildings and cities,
• airbases,
• lakes, seas (of course).

BUT there's something wrong with... the trees and forests. I don't compare it to desert maps (although sometimes there are also large forests), but to the Caucasus, Normandy (there are of course fewer forests here) and Channel maps. Eliminating part of forests quality significantly increases the FPS rate and ensures stable FPS and changing the level of this setting significantly affects the quality and performance of the map. My tests show that this is the only factor currently spoiling the reception of the map. What is important, in 95% of situations on other maps (except SA), I always have a constant 72 FPS. On the Kola map, frames drop to 60 FPS  near the ground, which is noticeable when there is no reprojection. There is no reason for forest itself to load the system so much (see the map of the Caucasus). This is a problem for low-flying aircrafts and helicopters, but this is a very large part of the community, 50% of the time I fly helicopters in combat just above the ground. Above 2000 ft the problem disappears. 

In general, the trees here consume more PC power than the entire Murmansk with all buildings and cause a greater FPS drop.

To sum up, compared to the Caucasus - with the same number/similar of trees, we have a worse result in performance by about 40% (GPU render time - from 11 ms to 16 ms).

In my opinion, the map works better than the Razbam SA map (but let's add that there seem to be only 2 people working on it), but I can place it efficiently like this: A) Caucasus, Syria, Sinai, Nevada, PG, B) Marianas (part of Guam only), Kola C) South Atlantic. Generally in the middle. However, it is worth considering whether you can improve the performance of trees, maybe a different LOD, maybe less accurate, maybe only the same as in the Caucasus (even here we have a predominance of coniferous trees)?

Video comparison:

I will be happy to recommend cooperation with @Taz1004 , vegetation mod specialist. I'm sure it would be a good solution and he has proven many times that much more can be extracted from textures and models.

Also, @Flappie maybe it is worth considering more broadly whether the "Speed trees" system itself is no longer an obsolete system that works well in 2D but causes performance problems in VR?

The good thing about this whole situation is that this is just one problem I diagnosed on the map in terms of VR and performance. If this can be fixed, we will all be very grateful and happy.  Pretty please (if you need me for test incoming optimalizations - no problem).

Btw.

It works for me (more in video):

Orbx uses their own proprietary system (I generally am not a fan of those, but if it makes them more effective, so be it). Report it here:

 

[YoYo]

25 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

Orbx uses their own proprietary system (I generally am not a fan of those, but if it makes them more effective, so be it). Report it here:

I know but the answer is here too:

However I will create the copy of this post too, good idea. Edit. Done - https://kola.orbxdirect.com/posts/25/bad-performance-in-vr-at-low-alt-caused-by-forest-optimization pls vote VR users. 

Edited May 4, 2024 by YoYo

[Qcumber]

4 hours ago, YoYo said:

BUT there's something wrong with... the trees and forests. I don't compare it to desert maps (although sometimes there are also large forests), but to the Caucasus, Normandy (there are of course fewer forests here) and Channel maps. Eliminating part of forests quality significantly increases the FPS rate and ensures stable FPS and changing the level of this setting significantly affects the quality and performance of the map. My tests show that this is the only factor currently spoiling the reception of the map. What is important, in 95% of situations on other maps (except SA), I always have a constant 72 FPS. On the Kola map, frames drop to 60 FPS  near the ground, which is noticeable when there is no reprojection. There is no reason for forest itself to load the system so much (see the map of the Caucasus). This is a problem for low-flying aircrafts and helicopters, but this is a very large part of the community, 50% of the time I fly helicopters in combat just above the ground. Above 2000 ft the problem disappears. 

I am noticing the same. Trees are a big factor on this map. If you keep away from trees the performance is very good: 72 FPS most areas; 50-60 FPS low over trees. The stutter is most noticeable when looking to the side. I need to do some more testing but I think disabling ground shadows might help. 

[zerO_crash]

7 hours ago, YoYo said:

I know but the answer is here too:

However I will create the copy of this post too, good idea. Edit. Done - https://kola.orbxdirect.com/posts/25/bad-performance-in-vr-at-low-alt-caused-by-forest-optimization pls vote VR users. 

 

I see. I'll notify them

[YoYo]

If anyone wants to improve the performance of Kola map in VR, please vote (you must log in with your email address). I see that the topic is now addressed by ORBX now, thanks!

https://kola.orbxdirect.com/posts/25/bad-performance-in-vr-at-low-alt-caused-by-forest-optimization