Integrated Pimax XR + Quadviews: Is it worth it?

[ldwater]

Hey all,

I'm an OG Crystal owner and I've been holding off upgrading Pimax PLAY due to the hassle (and potential problems) with using the integrated Quadviews over the old separate install.

I'm currently on Pimax Play v1.30.01.01 and I'm really happy with my VR config at the moment. 

I really don't want mess with it if I don't have to, but it seems like the new version of PLAY is being pushed out and was wondering if its worth just taking the hit and upgrading, but before I do that I wanted to get some feedback from those who have already done it.

- Does the integrated Quadviews still support the Quadviews companion to allow fine tuning?  Again I'm really happy with my current Quadviews config and don't want to reset to default and have no way of changing it.

- Are there any other advantages (or disadvantages) of upgrading that I should be aware of?

I know I'll have to do it eventually, but I'm really looking for a compelling reason (like upscaling) to do it to make it worth the jump.

 

Thanks!

[Panzerlang]

I just did a fresh install of W11-Pro and it's now on 24H2 version. I'm using the integrated Pimax Quadviews on MY OG Crystal and it's working at least as well as the previous external solution. It did seem to run a bit better than the external even when I tried it on my old W11 install. Intuitively it makes sense to use native software, IF it has no obvious issues, and so far the Pimax solution appears to have none.

I don't think the companion app will work with it though and I'm not going to risk breaking something by trying it. Lol. The API Layers GUI does NOT see the Pimax API and I think the companion app is coded to work with MBucchia's API.

The GUI does see the Necksafer API however (it's the only entry in it) and that works perfectly too, though I do now have to recentre my headset in each new DCS session (with the controller).

Recentre headset with Pimax controller, THEN recentre Necksafer/DCS-VR with the joystick button I assigned.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Panzerlang

[ldwater]

As far as I know the companion app (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3332882/) is just an editor of the quadviews config file in:

%localappdata%\Quad-Views-Foveated

Looking to make sure that this config file is still available or something similar so I can re-apply my QV settings..

[WipeUout]

On 12/18/2024 at 2:15 PM, ldwater said:

Are there any other advantages (or disadvantages) of upgrading that I should be aware of?

Performance wise it is not as optimized as using 1.30 along with PimaxXR and QVFR.  Pimax is aware of the performance degradation and working on it.

From my testing, there is a 1ms increase in GPU frametime with 1.34 vs 1.29. 

[ldwater]

Thanks for the feedback.

I'll keep my distance for now

[Dangerzone]

On 12/21/2024 at 7:41 AM, WipeUout said:

Performance wise it is not as optimized as using 1.30 along with PimaxXR and QVFR.  Pimax is aware of the performance degradation and working on it.

From my testing, there is a 1ms increase in GPU frametime with 1.34 vs 1.29. 

Just wondering if this has been addressed, and if it's been optimized? 

Also noticed there seems to be 2 settings in Pimax. One for what appears to be Pimax's own Fixed Foviated Rendering, and the other one to what I'm guessing is to use Quadviews External Rendering.

i'm trying to find a solution since Germany came out. The challenge I face is using the original Quadviews - I can't maintain 72fps consistently anymore. GPU us running at about 60%. If I turn off FFR - CPU usage goes down significantly, but GPU is up at 98%, and then I start having issues when it peaks and can't maintain 72%. 

Seems either way I look at it, I'm right on the margin of 'almost' being able to maintain 72fps but just not quite. On method has ample GPU overhead remaining, but I'm CPU bound. The other seems to lighten off the CPU load, but maxes out the GPU. 

Just wondering what others are doing.

I did try Motion Smoothing (or whatever it's called in Pimax) and found it horrendous. Not sure how it's working well for others - but it didn't seem to smoothen out the jerkiness at all. Another solution that I tried was going to 120hz and locking to half frame rate. That does seem to make things smoother for me (less large jerkiness) but the movement/ perceived ghosting is pretty bad. 

6 months ago I was able to successfully run Quadviews at 72fps with only the very rare jerkiness, so I don't know if it's the Quadviews software upgrade, or changes in DCS, or something else - but very curious to know which solution others have favored, and if using Quadviews - how are you overcoming the CPU bottlenecking? 

[WipeUout]

21 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Just wondering if this has been addressed, and if it's been optimized? 

Also noticed there seems to be 2 settings in Pimax. One for what appears to be Pimax's own Fixed Foviated Rendering, and the other one to what I'm guessing is to use Quadviews External Rendering.

I use PimaxPlay 1.38 and it is still much better to install PimaxXR over it.

Pimax FFR improves performance but not as much as QVFR 1.1.3 (from mbuccia) which provides much more granular adjustements.  You need to play with the settings such as fixed section size and resolution and find your acceptable balance between quality and performance.

It is true that QVFR is taxing more the CPU and seems that certain CPUs are better than other to cope with QVFR increased demand on CPU.  From my experience, switching from an i9 13900K to a 9800X3D made a huge difference.  I can now maintain 90FPS in all my scenarios.

[Dangerzone]

1 hour ago, WipeUout said:

I use PimaxPlay 1.38 and it is still much better to install PimaxXR over it.

Pimax FFR improves performance but not as much as QVFR 1.1.3 (from mbuccia) which provides much more granular adjustements.  You need to play with the settings such as fixed section size and resolution and find your acceptable balance between quality and performance.

It is true that QVFR is taxing more the CPU and seems that certain CPUs are better than other to cope with QVFR increased demand on CPU.  From my experience, switching from an i9 13900K to a 9800X3D made a huge difference.  I can now maintain 90FPS in all my scenarios.

Thanks for the info. But dang - switching over/upgrading motherboard and CPU was something I was kinda hoping to avoid. Sad to hear that the 13900K might be the issue and may not cut it when it comes to using Quadviews.  I was kind of hoping that there was a setting or something that I've missed that creates compounding GPU usage. Like using DLAA with Quadviews, or turbo mode, or something.  But to go from less than 72 to 90fps by changing to a 9800X3D sounds like the issue may be more hardware and intel isn't going to cut it?

When you say you can maintain 90FPS - can you please advise what your settings are? Are you running at native resolution (at least 100% - if not more for the focused region, or do you still need to back off)?

[WipeUout]

Yes big cost to switch from intel to AMD.  The 13900K is a very good CPU but the 9800X3D is a beast and somehow, better suited for DCS using QVFR.

Here are my setting:

QVFR settings.cfg file:

----------

#These setttings are for all headsets and applications
smoothen_focus_view_edges=0.3
sharpen_focus_view=0.2

[app:DCS]
# The settings are specific to the app "DCS World".
turbo_mode=0
peripheral_multiplier=0.3
focus_multiplier=1.6
horizontal_fixed_section=0.45
vertical_fixed_section=0.35

----------

If you are using a Crystal light, you do not need to supersample the fixed section as the PPD is much higher than the 8KX.  I had a Crystal light for about two weeks and returned it as I could not stand the tunnel vision compared to my 8KX, it was killing immersion for me.

Of note also, I use preset K for DLSS.

And my DCS settings:

 

Edited May 1 by WipeUout
Typo