Rift CV1 vs 5760x1080 performance?

Any of you having gone from triple screen (3 monitor lua) to CV1, would you say the VR performance is worse, or better? And by how much?

I had a triple monitor setup 5760X1080 and VR is *MUCH* *MUCH* more taxing. I'm sure part of it is that it's not as optimized, but it's also because you can't afford to loose frames in VR.

It depends on what you mean by performance I guess - do you mean how taxing is the performance on the system, or how is the "performance" of the overall video game/sim experience in comparison between VR and triple screen?

I had 3 Asus 24" 144hz monitors in triple/surround for a long time, went to a 34" Asus ROG 100hz 1440p monitor with that system, and now use both VR headsets in DCS.

In terms of the system - as the previous poster said, huge increase in requirements, your system is going to be working hard in VR, and that video card fan(s) with any kind of profile at all is going to be going wooosh the majority of the time, compared to either 3 or a single large 27 to 34" monitor. Especially the higher you have your settings in VR, I have pretty fast systems, and in 3 screen I could with my 980ti SLI setup usually run DCS and anything else at very high FPS, at least satisfactory for me. VR, with 2 1080s (I realize SLI isn't optimal for DCS or VR), you have to turn things down, not that they make much difference when maxed due to the poorer resolution and general...look I guess of VR vs a good LCD.

I still like VR, there are issues with it, IMO anyone with VR going into a multiplayer fight vs equal pilot is at a HUGE disadvantage in terms of spotting enemies, and keeping them in sight, or generally looking around, compared to head scalable trackIR or just a thumb hat. If DCS can do like what Aces High is doing and incorporate head views WITH VR, so that you can thumb your head to a direction, and that will be the new VR point of view, instantly, it'll maybe level the playing field, otherwise - ya, things will look cool in VR, but you're going to get mowed IMO playing against equal pilots head to head. They can just see you further away, more accurately, and keep track of their environment/Situational awareness better in an LCD/trackIR/etc environment. Determining your opponents aspect visually is critical in any fight, and you have to be much closer in VR in order to do this, IMO.

I find in either VR headset, within guns range, say in the F15 intercept basic instant mission, the enemy Mig23s look like blobs until you get VERY, VERY close, it's a far cry from what an LCD monitor looks like. It's a trade off for the immersion factor I guess.

Thx gents :thumbup:

Yea it was a fps vs fps thing I was after, to get an idea of what is required. I know you want as many - 90 fps preferably - with VR, so that alone is quite the demand. And triple screens already put a lot of strain on the performance, and, well with the 1070 its better for some reason, that when going below 60 fps, its not as nauseating for me with TIR, compared to the 970 I had previously. With that, ush, didnt want to go below 60 fps.

Agree Jar, 100%, I have the same experience precisely on my end.

The Asynchronous Time Warp feature of the Oculus software makes the 90 FPS target a no factor to be honest. I get 90 a lot and then at times 45, I can't see the difference and wouldn't be able to tell you when ATW was active unless I looked at the FPS counter.

Sounds good :thumbup:

Does the fact that VR requires two frame buffers double the draw calls on directx? This would have a huge impact, as DCS has a dependence on the directx api as far as draw calls are concerned.

... IMO anyone with VR going into a multiplayer fight vs equal pilot is at a HUGE disadvantage in terms of spotting enemies, and keeping them in sight, or generally looking around, compared to head scalable trackIR or just a thumb hat.

 

I find in either VR headset, within guns range, say in the F15 intercept basic instant mission, the enemy Mig23s look like blobs until you get VERY, VERY close, it's a far cry from what an LCD monitor looks like. It's a trade off for the immersion factor I guess.

I was having this exact conversation yesterday. 100% agree here.

I have targets to double their sizes in options, and even that doesn't help between 2 to 5 nm. It just near impossible to see planes. They need to be bright white or full black to have a good change of distinguishing them properly, while in TrackIR, its super easy to spot.

In a few years, gen 2 or 3 of VR, this will change somewhat. But TrackIr will always have this unrealistic way to swing the pilot's head left and right and reach impossible angles.

All hardware will impose some degree of advantage and disadvantage, so in the end its just a preference thing. VR clearly being a immersion choice.

Heck, people can even run one of those post effect shader things, and tweak the hell out of it, to achieve better spotting.

Im not too worried about those things. Im one of those that are chasing the 'perfect' immersion.

That's how many feel knockKnock, however anyone who is or wants to be competitive in online combat vs real opponents, this is an issue - I know if I was playing for $ or a tournament like ED had for the F86 or whatever recently, there is NO way I would be in VR, I'd be back to the trackIR/thumbhat and better res monitor in a flash.

For general playing, I'm with you, after the immersion mostly.

I am here for flying, not for win multiplayer deathmatches ;) so for me the rift is the was to go! It brings you closer to the feeling of flying a plane, but brings you some handicap against other TIR-4K players...just my 2ct :)

Expected VR performance is loosely similar to performance with three screens. If you're not getting a solid 90FPS "most" of the time in three screens, don't expect your VR experience to be positive.

ATW will only help so much. DCS performance even with the best hardware out there is marginal to acceptable at best. It's up to ED to do more work to get better results performance VR IMO.

I have a somewhat cogent post on frame rates, VT and ATW here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=168856

We need a league of our own. ;)

Seriously ... VR against VR, or TIR against TIR, otherwise it's as pointless as racing dirt bikes against GP bikes .... on water.

OK .. so maybe more like going up against an F86 with a P51.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Irrespective of how I feel about the realism differences ... to expect a level field of play if you fly competitively (especially if for money) in an arena that allows play amoungst competitors with hardware having such significant performance differences, is unrealistic in every sense of the word.

NASCAR restrictor plates against no restrictors??? :)

I have targets to double their sizes in options, and even that doesn't help between 2 to 5 nm. It just near impossible to see planes. They need to be bright white or full black to have a good change of distinguishing them properly, while in TrackIR, its super easy to spot.

I've resorted to modifying labels so that I can at least determine there's a target there at realistic ranges. I have it so that there's no information on the distance or type of target, it's just a red "." starting at 10nm out. Thinking of changing it to black.

Came across this Oculus Blog post: Powering the Rift

https://www3.oculus.com/en-us/blog/powering-the-rift/

On the raw rendering costs: a traditional 1080p game at 60Hz requires 124 million shaded pixels per second. In contrast, the Rift runs at 2160×1200 at 90Hz split over dual displays, consuming 233 million pixels per second. At the default eye-target scale, the Rift’s rendering requirements go much higher: around 400 million shaded pixels per second. This means that by raw rendering costs alone, a VR game will require approximately 3x the GPU power of 1080p rendering.

I wasn't a supporter of VR until i tried it, but its definitely a cool experience. You are definitely going to be disadvantaged against track ir monitor players in multiplayer enviorment, but close formation flying is hell of fun, you really feel the speed, the altitude and your throttle control gets a lot better because you feel the speed of the aircraft way more, so you can can fly a lot tighter formation. I went from a 40 inch phillips 4k monitor to the rift, in way it ruined both experiences for me, because now its hard to go back to 4k monitor and sometimes the lack of high resolution in the rift gets really annoying also. I find my self switching to the monitor once in a while just to remind my self how good DCS actually looks, but not much. At first if you get the VR head set, you will be blown away by the emersion and will think that the resolution is not even as bad as you thought, but as you start to get used to it like everything you are going to wish you had more. You can actually get used to it and learn to do pretty good in MP, but you are going to have to work hard for it, its going to be quite a work out for your neck and back trying to check your six...good luck with that on lazy days. Now that i tried it, I really wish we were living in the days of CV3 and 1280ti's.

I really wish we were living in the days of CV3 and 1280ti's.

Hehe, that might come quicker than we think. I actually think that one thing that holds back VR resolution, is that we simply dont have the oompf to pull higher res yet. But word around the campfire is, that nVidia's Volta will be with us in 2018 - some even say 2017, which will boast an even bigger jump in performance, than the Pascal did on the Maxwell.

I really wish we were living in the days of CV3 and 1280ti's.

Well if making a wish .... I'd add tactile feedback gloves that work like LeapMotion (but much better) and provide the sensation of turning knobs/flipping switches/and basically grabbing things.

Or better yet ... entire tactile body glove ... but then I might get distracted on the Porn sites and never cyber-fly again. :doh:

Well if making a wish .... I'd add tactile feedback gloves that work like LeapMotion (but much better) and provide the sensation of turning knobs/flipping switches/and basically grabbing things.

Or better yet ... entire tactile body glove ... but then I might get distracted on the Porn sites and never cyber-fly again. :doh:

Oh I am sure that's coming, omong other things...lol. You can't stop the steady hand of progress.

I completely disagree with the "ATW fixes everything" statement on page 1.

I am tweaking away and generally sit between 40 and 90. If theres any action or low over towns I am in the 40s and for high level stuff it's usually higher.

The difference, to me, is huge. Looking left and right quickly in the 40s results in a judder with slight double vision. The same can be said for low, fast flybys when you're holding short of the runway. The passing aircraft will look like it's drawn twice per frame as it passes - one slightly ahead of the other.

It's not game breaking for me and I hope it becomes less of an issue as more optimisation comes along. But it may prove too much for some peoples stomachs if they are not already VR hardened.

Like everyone else has said - I get MUCH more enjoyment using the VR in the sim than winning every fight. The presence, for the most part, is missing due to the frame issues... But that doesn't ruin the experience at all. It's still great being able to tell exactly how much clearance you have between your blades and his blades (in the Huey)

ATW only is as good as the base frame rates under it...ATW experience quality degrades exponentially as frame rates decrease.

Just a quick aside about running things optimally...

Is it better to have DCS on a completely separate drive, on the same drive as windows or with other games on a drive separate to the OS?

Thanks!