VR Test Discussion

I am sorry but I haven't found time and gumption to do my civic duty in filling out the rigorous test form, but on my box, DCS has been smooth as a babies' butt lately. Very happy with 2.5.5 !

even without the 50% improvement, dcs has not gotten any worse. just fly and enjoy.

no need getting stressed out about it.

 

if an improvement happens, it happens. it a bonus, not a blocker.

I was mainly worried about Reverb performance without it, but it seems like the people who actually have been able to get them can get decent performance out of them.

Performance improvements may have been implemented. Many on the Forum have noticed increase in FPS including myself.

interestingly i got a boost using my cv1 but then lost it after getting the index.

interestingly i got a boost using my cv1 but then lost it after getting the index.

Hmm, thats weird. Did you run the test using both headsets with different results? I.e. CV1 goes from 45 to 90 or whatever and WMR stays at 45 for both cases?

Nineline, when you get a some info from the team on this issue, out of curiosity, please let us know, such as what data from the test the community contributed helped with a solution, if any, What the suspected issue is/was, and possible forthcoming solutions. Not asking for in-depth technical details, just something in layman terms so to speak.

+1 It would be nice to know I guess. I just want it work tho :)

+1 It would be nice to know I guess. I just want it work tho :)

Indeed, let’s see the solution first!

I´m one of those who see a major improvement (although there´s always room for more, its just a comparation as before). I have the Vive, sometimes i get 30 fps but it is a lot fluid. Most always in 45Fps. I know that without my system specs and testing its difficult to understand. I don´t have room available right now for installing stable version to test. 1080Ti Zotac, 32Gb Ram 1800Mhz, M.2 SSD, 2x SSD´s, 1 OS SSD, I7 4790K 4.4, Liquid Cooling, and HTC Vive. Tested in VR With this graphic settings on DCS Beta. SteamVR SS1.0, DCS VR Options SS1.5 and forced IPD 68 (DCS VR Options).

Textures: High

Terrain textures: High

Civ. Traffic: Low

Water: High

Visit Range: High

Heat Blur: Low

Shadows: Flat Only

Res. of cockpit displays: 1024

MSAA: 4x

Depth of field: Off

Lens Effects: Dirt+Flare

Motion Blur: Off

SSAA: Off

Clutter/Grass: 1500

Trees Visibility: 80%

Preload Radius: 150000

Chimney Smoke Density: 1

Gamma: 1.8

Anisotropic Filtering: 16x

Terrain Object Shadows: Flat

Cockpit Global Illumination: On

Message font scale: 1

Raind Droplets: ON

VSync: Off

Full Screen: ON

Scale GUI: ON

I'd post that in the official thread.

What is the status of the FPS VR Performance Optimization?

Is ED still working on the FPS improvement for VR that was set for release to BETA a few weeks ago? The last mention of VR Performance Optimization in the Beta Update logs was 6/5. What is the current status on this?

Its already released

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=243521

Where was it mentioned in the update logs?

Sent from my Moto Z Play using Tapatalk

I'd post that in the official thread.

Sorry, you´re right. My bad.

Any info on the test results?

I'm interested also. Shouldn't new test results be null and void now since the release version has caught up to the OB?

I am getting significantly worse (at least to me) fps since the latest patch. Was a solid 45 with some upward spikes. Now getting 38 - 40 with some downward spikes.

Anyone else seeing this?

Depends on the aircraft. On the F-14 I am seeing a decrease in FPS from the previous versions without optimization. With the F-15 and MiG-29 modules, I am seeing increases in FPS. I do not have the exact numbers.

Depends on the aircraft. On the F-14 I am seeing a decrease in FPS from the previous versions without optimization. With the F-15 and MiG-29 modules, I am seeing increases in FPS. I do not have the exact numbers.

I was in the 18 both before and after.

Any info on the test results?

Yes, would be nice to know. With the provided data, there are only two possible conclusions/scenarios:

1. VR improvements are restricted to a very special combination of hardware and/or settings.
   
2. Error in measurement of the few outliers who actually saw an improvement (in other words no measurable FPS improvement).
   

I hate to be that negative, but case 2 appears to be far more likely to me given the simplicity and hence error margin of the test and the majority of people with very different hardware and settings who saw no improvement.

Yes, would be nice to know. With the provided data, there are only two possible conclusions/scenarios:

1. VR improvements are restricted to a very special combination of hardware and/or settings.
   
2. Error in measurement of the few outliers who actually saw an improvement (in other words no measurable FPS improvement).
   

I hate to be that negative, but case 2 appears to be far more likely to me given the simplicity and hence error margin of the test and the majority of people with very different hardware and settings who saw no improvement.

Yeah, I'd have to agree here. So far we do know there is/was some issue with the map/rendering of it that ate a bunch of frames (maybe that "solved" memory leak)

#1 I'd hate for this to be it, because it suggests a pretty basic lack of testing on ED's part, which I want to doubt since they have to have "internal" testers who probably have some diversity in computer setups.

#2 I'd say this is more likely, but honestly a 50% improvement would be pretty hard to get wrong. I don't count those guys who saw less than 10fps improvement since I think that is a measuring error.

At a guess and a possible #3 it DID work in their "test environment" and integrating it into the the rest of DCS broke whatever they did, which is what was suggested.

Yes, would be nice to know. With the provided data, there are only two possible conclusions/scenarios:

1. VR improvements are restricted to a very special combination of hardware and/or settings.
   
2. Error in measurement of the few outliers who actually saw an improvement (in other words no measurable FPS improvement).
   

I hate to be that negative, but case 2 appears to be far more likely to me given the simplicity and hence error margin of the test and the majority of people with very different hardware and settings who saw no improvement.

I’m kind of agreeing that #2 is most likely. I initially posted a 50% improvement until I realised my stable and beta settings were quite different!

I’m kind of agreeing that #2 is most likely. I initially posted a 50% improvement until I realised my stable and beta settings were quite different!

Ouch...

Interestingly i run steam beta an i insalled the ED stsble and it copied my gfx settings over.

Many have already noticed FPS improvements from the previous updates. Are you looking for additional improvements?

Many have already noticed FPS improvements from the previous updates. Are you looking for additional improvements?

Not sure about the 'many'. From what I can tell from postings and the results on the VR test thread, very few have seen any improvement.

We are still waiting on ED to analyse the results of the test, I think.

Many have already noticed FPS improvements from the previous updates. Are you looking for additional improvements?

The overwhelming majority have seen no improvement. Thats what this thread and the test thread is about.

"The overwhelming majority have seen no improvement."

Not that I disagree, But... your sample size is super small to make quite that claim.

The sample size is that thread. And in that set most people dont. Given there is about 0 scientific rigor in it i wouldnt call 45 fps vs 47 any improvment. Maybe 45 to 55. And since it was advertised as 50% it should be 45 to 67 or so.