community advice Dynamic Foveated Rendering - Everything in one page

[gonvise]

18 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Ive not personally seen any performance change with colour grading changes. 

We are talking about the squared box of the Quad Views foveated area, is much more perceptible after the last patch (fog)

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, gonvise said:

We are talking about the squared box of the Quad Views foveated area, is much more perceptible after the last patch (fog)

also when you look at a light source like the sun, I have mentioned it to the team. 

thank you 

[gonvise]

13 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

also when you look at a light source like the sun, I have mentioned it to the team. 

thank you 

Thanks @BIGNEWY, I hope Quad views are increasingly taken into consideration (even integrated), for VR it is a must have!

[gonvise]

I'm still testing the two options/types we currently have for foveated rendering, and although the openxr one gives a little less performance, with the current patch (fog) the squared box area at the limits of the foveated area is less noticeable, and even less stutters in some areas under heavy load such as the low-flying Marianas map.

OpenXR toolkit Foveated Rendering (with eye tracking) -> Less FPS gain, less stutters

Quad Views Foveated Rendering -> More FPS gain, more stutters in certain areas of high load

What are your experiences?

[Mr_sukebe]

Gonvise>

By two methods, are you referring to the options of:

• XRtoolkit version with the Mbuch DFR had effectively 3 circles, with the XRtoolkit allowing the choice of detail available in the centre, middle and outer circles
• Quad-views built into DCS, where you can edit a .cfg file in the Saved Games folder to change the level of detail in the outer rectangle

That's how I'm seeing the differences.  I'm currently using option 2.  If you're seeing a difference in frame rate, might be worth checking the settings you have within the .cfg file for Quad Views.  As one used circles with 3 levels of detail, and the other a rectangle, and two levels of detail, it's pretty likely that you'll have dialed in a different level of detail reduction outside of the centre areas.

[gonvise]

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Gonvise>

By two methods, are you referring to the options of:

• XRtoolkit version with the Mbuch DFR had effectively 3 circles, with the XRtoolkit allowing the choice of detail available in the centre, middle and outer circles
• Quad-views built into DCS, where you can edit a .cfg file in the Saved Games folder to change the level of detail in the outer rectangle

That's how I'm seeing the differences.  I'm currently using option 2.  If you're seeing a difference in frame rate, might be worth checking the settings you have within the .cfg file for Quad Views.  As one used circles with 3 levels of detail, and the other a rectangle, and two levels of detail, it's pretty likely that you'll have dialed in a different level of detail reduction outside of the centre areas.

XRtoolkit -> yes

Quad views -> yes but... DCS does not have quad views implemented, only two options to enable it, but you have to have installed mbuchia Quad Views "outside" DCS.

Yes, I try similar options with two tools, but keep in mind that they are two very different implementations of FR, and although I am aware that with my 4090 and 78003D Quad Views it should give me better results, it is not so.

[slughead]

If you have maximised the DCS options which loads up the CPU but your rig is good enough not to notice a drop in fps, running quad views over densely populated areas will affect performance as it pushes your cpu load even harder by drawing the image four times. This is why I don’t use quad views anymore.

[Panzerlang]

3 minutes ago, slughead said:

If you have maximised the DCS options which loads up the CPU but your rig is good enough not to notice a drop in fps, running quad views over densely populated areas will affect performance as it pushes your cpu load even harder by drawing the image four times. This is why I don’t use quad views anymore.

And yet without QV I get serious degradation of graphics (stutters up the ying yang). It's a trade-off, yes, but in my case at least QV is a must. And that's with powerful hardware (4090 and 13900k).

[slughead]

1 minute ago, Panzerlang said:

And yet without QV I get serious degradation of graphics (stutters up the ying yang). It's a trade-off, yes, but in my case at least QV is a must. And that's with powerful hardware (4090 and 13900k).

I have the same cpu/GPU as you. How hard have you pushed your PD/resolution?

[Mr_sukebe]

Gon>
Have you reviewed and updated the .cfg settings?  If not, they might need a bit of an overhaul.  The default settings were no what I was looking for.

[sleighzy]

8 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Quad-views built into DCS, where you can edit a .cfg file in the Saved Games folder to change the level of detail in the outer rectangle

The settings are not in Saved Games. The file is “C:\Users\username\AppData\Local\Quad-Views-Foveated\settings.cfg”

[jnr4817]

There is also still an issue with stutters and grass/clutter, tree detail, and scenery details. These are all effected by what shadows you are using. These micro stutters are present with and without QV, but the effect is less pronounced without. I am not sure whats causing it. Using the no vr hangar mod and better shadows for VR mod have helped. I have a 9800x3d/4090 running a G2. I have noticed tweaking shadows and view distance has really helped the micro stutters, but they still pop up. Afghanistan in the worst, especially the tress being used in forested areas.

 

[gonvise]

6 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Gon>
Have you reviewed and updated the .cfg settings?  If not, they might need a bit of an overhaul.  The default settings were no what I was looking for.

I use Quad Views Companion for simplify the tweaking...

7 hours ago, slughead said:

If you have maximised the DCS options which loads up the CPU but your rig is good enough not to notice a drop in fps, running quad views over densely populated areas will affect performance as it pushes your cpu load even harder by drawing the image four times. This is why I don’t use quad views anymore.

For that reason it might work better for me openxr toolkit FR.

Edited December 12, 2024 by gonvise

[slughead]

4 minutes ago, gonvise said:

For that reason it might work better for me openxr toolkit FR.

 

I use a Quest Pro which has eye tracking and edge-to-edge clarity. FFR would be a visual retrograde for me.

[Panzerlang]

8 hours ago, slughead said:

I have the same cpu/GPU as you. How hard have you pushed your PD/resolution?

I have max in the headset (2.0) and min in DCS (0.5). I might have to try lowering that, because in the Mig21 Cold Start the two taxiing Migs that go past me were jerking, and even with the VR preset it wasn't eradicated. Also flashes of red message in the FPS window referencing Main Thread. 

[slughead]

1 minute ago, Panzerlang said:

I have max in the headset (2.0) and min in DCS (0.5). I might have to try lowering that, because in the Mig21 Cold Start the two taxiing Migs that go past me were jerking, and even with the VR preset it wasn't eradicated. Also flashes of red message in the FPS window referencing Main Thread. 

Hmm. That's an equivalent PD of 1.0 overall. What's the render resolution in your dcs.log file?

[sleighzy]

58 minutes ago, gonvise said:

I use Quad Views Companion for simplify the tweaking...

Just a heads-up that the horizontal and vertical focal sizes can't be controlled via the Companion app for folk on non-eye tracked headsets. Those settings need to be updated for the "horizontal_fixed_section" and "vertical_fixed_section" directly within the settings.cfg file itself. In addition to this anything saved in the Companion app will overwrite those settings. So for a non-eye tracked headset that app is good for the initial creation of the default settings.cfg file, but after that you should tweak directly within the file.

[zildac]

Are people still playing with PD in DCS?! Just leave it at one and config DFR and the PPD in whatever vendor tool you are using (Varjo Base, Pimax etc).

[Panzerlang]

6 minutes ago, slughead said:

Hmm. That's an equivalent PD of 1.0 overall. What's the render resolution in your dcs.log file?

I'll have to run VR again to get that, last use last night was in 2D.

How is 2.0 in the Pimax headset equal to 1.0 in DCS PD? When I switch those around (max in PD, min in headset) the image appears identical resolution-wise. I just find the headset's to give slightly sharper text in the cockpit.

Edited December 12, 2024 by Panzerlang

[slughead]

1 minute ago, Panzerlang said:

I'll have to run VR again to get that, last use last night was in 2D.

How is 2.0 in the headset equal to 1.0 in DCS PD? When I switch those around (max in PD, min in headset) the image appears identical resolution-wise. I just find the headset's to give slightly sharper text in the cockpit.

1.0 overall. 2 x 0.5 = 1.0

[gonvise]

57 minutes ago, slughead said:

I use a Quest Pro which has eye tracking and edge-to-edge clarity. FFR would be a visual retrograde for me.

I also have Questo Pro, and openxr toolkit have an eye tracking option...

[slughead]

2 minutes ago, zildac said:

Are people still playing with PD in DCS?! Just leave it at one and config DFR and the PPD in whatever vendor tool you are using (Varjo Base, Pimax etc).

I don't use QFVR/DFR. I use Virtual Desktop at Godlike and bump the render resolution further using PD in DCS, as I can't increase it further in Virtual Desktop. It doesn't matter where you do it as long as you give it due consideration.

1 minute ago, gonvise said:

I also have Questo Pro, and openxr toolkit have an eye tracking option...

Does it? I thought it was fixed foveated rendering in the OpenXR Toolkit.

[Panzerlang]

3 minutes ago, slughead said:

1.0 overall. 2 x 0.5 = 1.0

You've lost me. I have 2.0 (two point zero) in the headset. Plus 0.5 in PD, that's a total of 2.5.

[gonvise]

null

[slughead]

Just now, gonvise said:

null

Oh right. I missed that.