Oculus Rift and DCS World Discussion

[joebloggs]

That's not taking VR into account, that's slashing away at polys until you end up with acceptable frames.

 

This is why I didn't understand this map for VR idea. ED don't have a boat load of graphics engine optimisation waiting in the wings that they can suddenly impliment because of VR.

 

Sure it's taken VR into account, it's not like you need massive cities in every map. But forget about VR for a second then. Why do you think there is less detail around parts of the Nevada map even without VR? It's because they have to slash the detail to make things run at an expectable frame rate. The same goes for VR slash things to make things run better.

 

I think a map for VR is a good idea for the current Edge engine. I'm not really bothered about huge cites when I fly jets because I don't see much of them. You can already fly over parts of the Nevada map and have a good Rift experience, but it's a different story when you try to fly over Vegas.

 

Edit: BTW - I'm not suggesting every map should be made to run VR smoothly. I'm just saying it would be nice to have one map that runs smoothly, even though the old map does quite a good job until you start adding ai to the mix.

Edited February 8, 2016 by joebloggs

[chev255]

Why do you think there is less detail around parts of the Nevada map even without VR? It's because they have to slash the detail to make things run at an expectable frame rate.

I disagree, IMHO that this is to reduce the size of the map on the hard drive (and ot is also faster and cheaper to produce lower resolution areas)

[DerekSpeare]

VicX pointed out some pages back that some graphical elements were poorly optimized causing frame rate issues and so forth. It sounded to me that it's more carelessness/sloppy form than anything causing issues like poor frame rates at spots. I am recalling this from memory so forgive any inaccuracies.

 

Asynchronous Time Warp will help with frame rates considerably.

Edited February 8, 2016 by DerekSpeare

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Sure it's taken VR into account, it's not like you need massive cities in every map. But forget about VR for a second then. Why do you think there is less detail around parts of the Nevada map even without VR? It's because they have to slash the detail to make things run at an expectable frame rate. The same goes for VR slash things to make things run better.

 

I think a map for VR is a good idea for the current Edge engine. I'm not really bothered about huge cites when I fly jets because I don't see much of them. You can already fly over parts of the Nevada map and have a good Rift experience, but it's a different story when you try to fly over Vegas.

 

Edit: BTW - I'm not suggesting every map should be made to run VR smoothly. I'm just saying it would be nice to have one map that runs smoothly, even though the old map does quite a good job until you start adding ai to the mix.

 

The reason the are areas of lower detail are because ED had limited resources to model everything, especially in areas where people won't fly as much.

 

If you're getting low FPS, turn your detail settings down. A low res map for VR is nonsense.

[Rocky49]

DCSW2 is in alpha :music_whistling: There is still much to do with respect to adding of features and then optimizing. Early days yet guys. Matt has stated that ED is going to work towards VR inclusion so we should wait and see what steps will be made to do that. Just my 2 cents worth

[joebloggs]

The reason the are areas of lower detail are because ED had limited resources to model everything, especially in areas where people won't fly as much.

 

If you're getting low FPS, turn your detail settings down. A low res map for VR is nonsense.

 

It doesn't have to be low res map, I've already explained that some parts of the Nevada map work fine in the Rift and these are parts that are not low res. Derek was also right about someone picking up on double sided polygons or something that caused frames to drop, so there is some tweaking there to be done.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

It doesn't have to be low res map, I've already explained that some parts of the Nevada map work fine in the Rift and these are parts that are not low res. Derek was also right about someone picking up on double sided polygons or something that caused frames to drop, so there is some tweaking there to be done.

 

Sure I get that, but that's the kind of optimisation that benefits all users. If it benefits all users then it's not VR specific, so I still don't get what you mean by a map for VR?

Edited February 8, 2016 by Flamin_Squirrel
typo

[DerekSpeare]

http://www.roadtovr.com/dcs-world-flight-simulator-gets-improved-oculus-rift-support/

 

Matt Wagner's reply is claimed to be as follows:

Hi Raphael and thanks for the article. We feel that VR is an important aspect of DCS World moving forward, and it brings a new dimension to the simulation experience. I think you'll find the readability of the cockpits MUCH better in the CV. We are also working on improvements to the UI and how the user interacts with the cockpit in VR.I found this from the FlyInside FSX forums:

http://forum.flyinside-fsx.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1294

 

I am looking to dig up the link for the source, but the man posting all of this is very reputable.

 

I thin think article touched on some of the glaring issues with DCS in the VR space. The menus have some more to go and the comms options are impossible to use. A menu like Elite Dangerous is precisely what's needed - Live for Speed has an excellent one as well - and the text for the comms options needs to be in the acute visual zone, be larger and with a high contrasting color.

 

I know ED is on all of this - or am assuming they are. VR is the future :)

Edited February 8, 2016 by DerekSpeare

[joebloggs]

I still don't get what you mean by a map for VR?

 

A map that will run VR smoothly, so made with VR in mind. It's not really a map for VR if it judders like Nevada does in parts. Timewarp might help with that, but they already said timewarp has been implemented. Reducing things in a map like buildings would help you to increase frame rate giving you a better VR experience without reducing res. There's plenty of places that someone could build a map around that doesn't have large cities.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Ah I see what you mean now; I thought you meant reducing detail on existing (or planned) maps just for VR, which I think would be a step backwards.

 

I like many have ordered an OR and am I'm expecting it to be an awesome experience, but it's really the first gen headset so I know it won't be without compromise. I just hope there's not going to be an outrage when people realise it's not the perfect headset. Better models will come out later.

[badaboom]

Ah I see what you mean now; I thought you meant reducing detail on existing (or planned) maps just for VR, which I think would be a step backwards.

 

I like many have ordered an OR and am I'm expecting it to be an awesome experience, but it's really the first gen headset so I know it won't be without compromise. I just hope there's not going to be an outrage when people realise it's not the perfect headset. Better models will come out later.

Hello,I'm curious,Did you have or try The OR DK2?

Thanks

[Flamin_Squirrel]

No, just from what I've picked up reading reviews.

[_Acoustic_]

I think the reviews for DCS in VR will be all over the place due to the fact that users will be coming from different set ups.

 

For instance, up until recently with my new 980ti, I've always been fine with my 570HD and 35FPS. Now with the 980ti, I don't notice all that much of a difference between when I'm flying over Vegas with 40FPS with everything maxed out compared to when I get into the outskirts and I get maxed at 60FPS with my monitor refresh rate. Don't get me wrong, I do see a slight difference but that is only if I'm paying attention for it and watching the FPS ticker. If I'm not waiting for the change then I don't notice any difference until I get to about 26FPS or lower, then it starts to get to me. Point being is I've played flight sims within the FPS boundaries of 30-40 for basically 20 years and the last month since I installed the 980ti is the only time I've seen above those levels.

 

The resolution. Sure if you are coming from a 4k monitor it will be a shocker, but I've always played with a 1920x1080 60hz monitor, or my TV at the same res and refresh rate, so honestly I don't think I will see much of a difference. Any review of VR should come with the users prior set up. Some things that are a deal break for one user might not even be noticed by another based on their prior setup.

[DerekSpeare]

It's impossible to compare VR frame rates against non VR frame rates. If you drop below 75 FPS with VR you know it IMMEDIATELY.

 

The folks who have no experience with using VR owe it to themselves to really spend some time with the technology in order to enlighten and inform their perspective greatly.

[_Acoustic_]

Maybe you are right but I'll wait to find out myself. Everyone is different. I for one don't see any difference between 120 FPS and 60FPS and only slight differences between 60 and 35. Other people say anything below 120 is rubbish. Some people get sick the second they get on a boat, others don't.

 

I think VR is going to be different for everyone and their prior experiences are going to shape it.

[S3NTRY11]

Maybe you are right but I'll wait to find out myself. Everyone is different. I for one don't see any difference between 120 FPS and 60FPS and only slight differences between 60 and 35. Other people say anything below 120 is rubbish. Some people get sick the second they get on a boat, others don't.

 

I think VR is going to be different for everyone and their prior experiences are going to shape it.

In VR, you know it when the whole world stutters, which is a massive leniency with a monitor.

[_Acoustic_]

Yeah I can see what you guys are saying, I'm just curious about 75FPS having to be the mark for everyone. Honestly I may get sick at 200FPS just because I might react differently than some.

 

I agree with you guys about noticing when the entire world judders but will it get me sick at 90,75,60 FPS? I just think it will be a different line for us all.

 

The FPS comparison to non VR might not pan out but I think the resolution won't really get to me since I'm coming from something similar rather than something much better.

[DerekSpeare]

when frame rates go below VR refresh rates you get judder (old way with extended) or ghosting (in direct to rift, the standard convention now). Again, frame rates in non VR are irrelevant and mean nothing. The closest comparison is to a three screen system, and anything less than 75 fps there is below acceptable levels for VR.

 

It's not 75 fps you want, it's 75 * 3 or ~225 FPS. You're generating a stereoscopic image which is basically "3 layers" or three images in one (as I understand it). It's much more complex than that, but suffice it to say that if you have a system incapable of producing stellar frames now without VR, you'll be disappointed should you get an Oculus CV1 - that one will be even more demanding.

 

Screen resolution is irrelevant for comparisons as well. You get one resolution with VR, the resolution of the HMD's screen.

 

Many of us have been using this regularly for more than a year, the collective knowledge just here on this forum is likely encyclopedic. I've told newbs this many times that when you first get a VR device and begin using it, you will need some time to adjust to it. Once that passes, you'll not even think about it.

 

VR induced disorientation is most commonly caused by low frame rates and inadequate hardware capabilities. Don't expect to connect the Oculus to an old dog and not get dizzy. Having a VERY powerful system, like 980ti on a high end i7 cpu, will ensure a positive experience with the new Oculus.

Edited February 9, 2016 by DerekSpeare

[metalnwood]

Maybe you are right but I'll wait to find out myself. Everyone is different. I for one don't see any difference between 120 FPS and 60FPS and only slight differences between 60 and 35. Other people say anything below 120 is rubbish. Some people get sick the second they get on a boat, others don't.

 

I think VR is going to be different for everyone and their prior experiences are going to shape it.

 

I know what you mean, a smooth experience can hide what the FPS actually are and sometimes 30 can look like 60. Coming from a screen like you I know what you mean by what various people can accept. 40 can be as good as 60, hard to tell 100 from 120, if you can etc.

 

The rift is different, whether it is an issue that is tied to the hardware I dont know but if you dip even a few frames below 75, the hardware refresh rate then you are in serious trouble.

 

If I was playing DCS on the monitor getting a nice 75 and it dipped to 65 I probably would not eve notice, the same as you. On the rift it works very differently, it is not smooth, you cant get a smooth 65fps on the rift and it can feel like landing with 8fps. It's terrible.

[Rangi]

@DerekSpeare can you please explain where you got the 3 layers from, it doesn't make sense to me.

[joebloggs]

I wonder if 90Hz is going to be any better then 75Hz when it comes to sickness. I'm fine with 75Hz sat in a cockpit in DCS, but First person shooters make me sick after about 20 mins. I'm not sure if 90Hz is going to make much of a difference in First person shooters, but I really hope it does.

 

I just wish there was some option to choose between 75Hz and 90Hz in CV1. I'm going to need an extra 30fps from somewhere for DCS and CV1 when it arrves. I already struggle to get constant 75FPS, so I might have to update to a Geforve 980ti or even a Titan Gp100 if it arrives in April.

[_Acoustic_]

Interesting last couple of pages of this thread, thanks for all the info/insights. I'm hoping my system can run DCS well, the only bottleneck I can see is the CPU but I guess I'll find out in March, or April I guess.

[Enduro14]

Everybody talks about fps with VR, well with my dk2 and Dcs I never got judder until the fps went down to 30 ish range. Also never once felt sick or had any problems so you can't blanket statement if you drop below 75 or 90 fps it's horrible because that is not true. Depends on the user. Everybody is forgetting the most important factor and that everybody responds differently to VR and its frame rates. Don't get wrapped around the axle my experience was awesome even when fps was in 40's but evidently I have very good VR tolerance.

[_Acoustic_]

I think the first time I use it I'll have a bucket next to my sim pit just in case. Haha

[Rangi]

Question for dk2 users that get the vr malady;

have you found that you build a tolerance to the queasiness, or is it as bad after months of use as when you first started?