[Varjo] DCS 2.9.8.1107 Tree draw distance changes with QV and Eye tracking

[Rosly]

After switching to DCS 2.9.8.1107 with build in QV and Eye tracking and with Varjo 4.3.1.29 I notice that trees draw distance is dependent on where I'm looking.

It seems to be function of horizontal angle between my sight and center of the view port.
When I shift my eye left or right the draw distance of trees decreases, causing them disappear below the ground.
When I look straight into HS view port, the draw distance increase.

Video:

 

Edited October 5, 2024 by Rosly
Attaching video for bug report

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 10/1/2024 at 1:10 AM, Rosly said:

with build in QV and Eye tracking and with Varjo

You mean the new tickboxes in the DCS VR menu? I recommend leaving them off: we Varjo users don't need them as both are already included in the Varjo software.
I think this is meant as a replacement for user-created solutions so people are no longer reliant on other software from github.

 

On 10/1/2024 at 1:10 AM, Rosly said:

trees draw distance is dependent on where I'm looking

not just trees: mountains too for example.

Edited October 3, 2024 by Raven (Elysian Angel)
clarification

[Rosly]

10 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I recommend leaving them off: we Varjo users don't need them as both are already included in the Varjo software.

Not true. Those settings is part of the procedure where app is checking QV availability and request it's use. Previously it was hard coded into DCS. Now it is conditional.

Follow the thread: 

 

If you not check these on Varjo, DCS will not use QV. Issues mentioned in topic will not appear because simply QV will not kick in.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

That doesn't make any sense. Why am I not seeing a massive performance degradation in DCS then? The only way that could happen, is if quad view never worked in the first place, but if that is the case then why did so many people in other threads say the github script for quadview is not needed since the Varjo software has it built-in?

I was using the github script on my Reverb G2 (before it died), and I noticed a substantial performance increase after switching to Varjo (granted, I also changed gfx card from 6900XT to 4080S, but that doesn't explain the higher framerates if quadview hasn't been working since: the new card is not THAT much faster).

None of it makes any sense... We'd need someone at ED to clarify what those new options actually do, and when (not) to use them 

[sleighzy]

4 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

We'd need someone at ED to clarify what those new options actually do, and when (not) to use them

I raised a post here asking what the Quad Views box does exactly, and if is required for runtimes like Varjo and Pimax. I largely understand what it means for the QVF api layer, but not what impacts this has for the likes of Varjo. Will be interesting to see what feedback (hopefully) we get from ED.

 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 hour ago, sleighzy said:

if is required for runtimes like Varjo

Thing is, I don't have the mbucchia script installed atm, and I have disabled OpenXR Toolkit (it is still installed, but disabled in settings). When I tick the "quad view" and "use eye tracking" options in DCS, my framerate drops by around 40%. That tells me there's something weird going on, and perhaps QV was active but is disabled when ticking these boxes because of a conflict with the Varjo API layer? 

 

*edit* I am using the latest Varjo software: v4.4.010

Edited October 4, 2024 by Raven (Elysian Angel)
minor grammar fix

[Rosly]

On 10/4/2024 at 11:06 AM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Thing is, I don't have the mbucchia script installed atm, and I have disabled OpenXR Toolkit (it is still installed, but disabled in settings). When I tick the "quad view" and "use eye tracking" options in DCS, my framerate drops by around 40%. That tells me there's something weird going on, and perhaps QV was active but is disabled when ticking these boxes because of a conflict with the Varjo API layer? 

 

*edit* I am using the latest Varjo software: v4.4.010

 

Woooahh I was thinking this is only my problem!

So here you have it. You see the same thing as I. varjo 4.x is the issue!

I'm using 3.x line in order to mitigate this crazy tree draw distance issue (I cannot stand it) as well as the performance problem. Basically using 4.x I have 75fps on Viper free flight missions low level when on the same NVidia driver, same everything but Varjo 3.x I have solid 90.

Both with VQ of course, set in Varjo base and DCS. Thought eye tracking option on 3.x with mbucchia script cause the center spot to be wrongly rendered. With eye tracking option dossabled while QV option enabled I have best performance and no issue. This os expected as eye tracking part the mbuchia script is actually forcing and probably messing around.

Try 3.x Varjo base + mbuchia and + only the QV option in DCS enabled and tell me if you confirm tree draw distance problem and performance problem go away!

Edited October 5, 2024 by Rosly

[lefuneste01]

I had also bad fps, far worse than in the past... So after reading your post, I went to Varjo site to download the last 3.x version. Then I saw there was the 4.4 version since the 1st of October, I missed it.

So I installed it and went form 72 fps in A10CII / instant action / takeoff  to 90 fps !

In DCS, QV enabled, eye tracking disabled, mbucchia Varjo Varjo-Foveated.

 

[Rosly]

49 minutes ago, lefuneste01 said:

So I installed it and went form 72 fps in A10CII / instant action / takeoff  to 90 fps !

Heh. Hope knowledge about this will reach more folks!
Somebody in Varjo should get to work.

Edited October 5, 2024 by Rosly

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

7 hours ago, Rosly said:

Try 3.x Varjo base + mbuchia and + only the QV option in DCS enabled and tell me if you confirm tree draw distance problem and performance problem go away!

So basically you're asking me to revert to an older version of the software to undo the performance hit from enabling options I don't need to enable? 
If I simply ignore those 2 new options, the sim runs just fine and performance is the best it has ever been...

[Rosly]

3 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I don't need to enable?

If you do not need QV you do not need to enable those options.

[motoadve]

6 hours ago, lefuneste01 said:

So I installed it and went form 72 fps in A10CII / instant action / takeoff  to 90 fps !

You installed 4.4 or 3.X version of VB?

[lefuneste01]

9 hours ago, motoadve said:

You installed 4.4 or 3.X version of VB?

4.4

15 hours ago, Rosly said:

Heh. Hope knowledge about this will reach more folks!
Somebody in Varjo should get to work.

 

I do not know if the issue is with 4.3 or because I uninstalled (plus registry hack) then re installed mbucchia Varjo-Foveated. But if you think you lost some fps, re install Varjo base with last version...In worst case you'll have same fps, in best case you'll go to normal fps.

[F19_CoNa]

I'm a bit confused for the fix.

I have VB4.4 and only the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Varjo\OpenXR set as per Settings Tips for OpenXR Applications: Varjo Quad View and Foveated Rendering – Varjo.com

So should I keep VB 4.4 but remove this set, and just install mbucchia Varjo Varjo-Foveated again (had deleted it as I thought is was not needed anymore).

Edit: Removed the regedit fix, and installed mbucchia Varjo Varjo-Foveated and all is working well again

Edited October 6, 2024 by F19_CoNa

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 hour ago, F19_CoNa said:

keep VB 4.4, and just install mbucchia Varjo Varjo-Foveated again

See this is why I wonder why people keep suggesting to install that, when mbuccia himself recommends not using it if you have Varjo Base 4.3+:
https://github.com/mbucchia/Varjo-Foveated/releases

[quote]UPDATE JULY 2024: AS OF VARJO BASE 4.3, THERE ARE NOW SETTINGS DIRECTLY IN VARJO BASE THAT ALLOW YOU TO ACHIEVE THE SAME EFFECT AS THIS SOFTWARE PREVIOUSLY DID. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU USE THESE NEW SETTINGS INSTEAD OF USING VARJO-FOVEATED. PLEASE SEE THE BLOG POST FROM VARJO. LOOK FOR THE ForceFoveatedRendering KEYWORD SPECIFICALLY.[/quote]

[motoadve]

9 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

See this is why I wonder why people keep suggesting to install that, when mbuccia himself recommends not using it if you have Varjo Base 4.3+:
https://github.com/mbucchia/Varjo-Foveated/releases

[quote]UPDATE JULY 2024: AS OF VARJO BASE 4.3, THERE ARE NOW SETTINGS DIRECTLY IN VARJO BASE THAT ALLOW YOU TO ACHIEVE THE SAME EFFECT AS THIS SOFTWARE PREVIOUSLY DID. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU USE THESE NEW SETTINGS INSTEAD OF USING VARJO-FOVEATED. PLEASE SEE THE BLOG POST FROM VARJO. LOOK FOR THE ForceFoveatedRendering KEYWORD SPECIFICALLY.[/quote]

Because he will not support it anymore , that is all, but Mbuccia DFR gives you at least 10 to 15 more fps and works nicely with better visuals too, that you can modify to your liking and performance.

[Topboy]

You need to do the following:

1. Install latest DCS patch - 2.9.8.1214.1

2. Install latest Varjo Base - 4.4.1

3. Make sure Eye Tracking is enabled in Varjo Base

4. Add the Registry Keys under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Varjo\OpenXR as per the article Regkeys

5. Reboot

6. Make sure both Quad Views and Eye Tracking checkboxes are ticked enabled under VR tab in settings.

 

[Rosly]

On 10/22/2024 at 6:34 PM, Topboy said:

You need to do the following:

1. Install latest DCS patch - 2.9.8.1214.1

2. Install latest Varjo Base - 4.4.1

3. Make sure Eye Tracking is enabled in Varjo Base

4. Add the Registry Keys under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Varjo\OpenXR as per the article Regkeys

5. Reboot

6. Make sure both Quad Views and Eye Tracking checkboxes are ticked enabled under VR tab in settings.

 

If you do 6) than ForceFoveatedRendering = 1 by 4) is not needed.
Actually 6) is enabling XR_VARJO_foveated_rendering by DCS which was previously forced by mbucchia

+ to all above mbucchia mod uses smaller "high res view port" and lower resolution for "peripheral res view port" so installing it will still improve performance (less pixels to draw with no impact on visuals). It not needed due 6) but also gives me ~15 fps extra (as @motoadve mentioned in his post). 

[zildac]

For an Aero you're still better off using Varjo Foveated as you can configure the peripheral and focus areas. Remove the Varjo base reg entry for Foveated, if you added it. enable quad views in DCS and ensure eye tracking in DCS is disabled. Configure VFR as you wish.

[Rosly]

13 hours ago, zildac said:

 still better off using Varjo Foveated as you can configure the peripheral and focus areas.

Can you point out where to do it?

If you are talking about "Image quality" presets in Varjo Base than this is not allowing you to change peripheral and focus separately. Those presents are not as good as what mbucchia is adjusting.

 

Btw: 

Quote

ensure eye tracking in DCS is disabled

This will disable request for XR_VARJO_foveated_rendering altogether. Unless tou have mbucchia installed it will make your setup Fixed Foveed Rendering. Mbucchia layer forces this setting if installed.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Rosly

[zildac]

43 minutes ago, Rosly said:

Can you point out where to do it?

If you are talking about "Image quality" presets in Varjo Base than this is not allowing you to change peripheral and focus separately. Those presents are not as good as what mbucchia is adjusting.

 

Btw: 

This will disable request for XR_VARJO_foveated_rendering altogether. Unless tou have mbucchia installed it will make your setup Fixed Foveed Rendering. Mbucchia layer forces this setting if installed.

 

My reply was relating to the use of Mbucchia Varjo Foveated.  I think we are agreeing. My point was that whilst Vajo Base supports DFR natively now (with the relevant reg key created) it doesn't offer you the control that Varjo Foveated from Matt does. So my point was, it's probably more advantageous to continue using Matts Varjo Foveated tool until(if) it stops working. In order to use Varjo Foveated (as you probably know) you NEED to disable eye tracking in DCS and ensure Quad views is enabled in DCS, all the config is done in the relevant file, as outlined here: https://github.com/mbucchia/Varjo-Foveated/wiki#configuration

Locations

In order of look-up:

1. %LocalAppData%\Varjo-Foveated\settings.cfg (you may have to create this folder and the file yourself, or copy from the fallback path below)

2. %ProgramFiles%\OpenXR-Varjo-Foveated\settings.cfg

First file that is found is used!

Syntax

peripheral_multiplier=1

focus_multiplier=1
turbo_mode=1
no_eye_tracking=0

Edited October 24, 2024 by zildac

[Rosly]

43 minutes ago, zildac said:

peripheral_multiplier=1

focus_multiplier=1
turbo_mode=1
no_eye_tracking=0

Yup seems we are talking the same thing, but this part I didn't known! Thanks!

[zildac]

10 minutes ago, Rosly said:

Yup seems we are talking the same thing, but this part I didn't known! Thanks!

No worries, for info I run 1.4 for focus and 0.7 for peripheral...YMMV

[mmike87]

I moved away from the tracking and FR in general on my Aero. The eye tracking isn't fast enough and I can see the detail shift, especially at night when looking at a lit urban area. It's terrible.

IMO the fixed FR with three zones in OXRTK offers the best FR experience, as the three zones, along with the Aero's large sweet spot mostly prevent me noticing the detail shift.

I'm hoping, if my Somnium VR1 ever ships that it's 120hz DFR will be less noticeable in regard the seeing the resolution change as my eyes move.

[zildac]

5 hours ago, mmike87 said:

I moved away from the tracking and FR in general on my Aero. The eye tracking isn't fast enough and I can see the detail shift, especially at night when looking at a lit urban area. It's terrible.

IMO the fixed FR with three zones in OXRTK offers the best FR experience, as the three zones, along with the Aero's large sweet spot mostly prevent me noticing the detail shift.

I'm hoping, if my Somnium VR1 ever ships that it's 120hz DFR will be less noticeable in regard the seeing the resolution change as my eyes move.

Interesting, I don't notice too much as I do little night flying, but sometimes it is noticeable in certain lighting conditions. How do you find the performance difference with FFR versus DFR. Better, worse or the same?

Edited October 25, 2024 by zildac