Bring 90FPS VR back

The problem running 45 is that if the mission adds a couple of units the fps drops to ~32 and under 45 fps AWS or motion smooth or whatever technology is disabled and you will start to be sick.

No, it doesn't and no, I don't!

No, it doesn't and no, I don't!

I agree, I'm running a pretty low end system for VR. I can often get 45fps in some cases (even before shader mod) and often even 30fps is smooth for me. If it dips into the 20's then there are issues. Often on those missions I disable the 2xMSAA I try to run if I can and its fine though. I also usually fly weedwhackers, the Gaz or the A10 or the Harrier are my typical rides and I usually fly in the Caucus or PG. NTTR seems to be the easiest map graphpically for me as long as I don't fly near vegas. Though I'm all about them optimizing VR further.

I think foveated rendering is the only way to get 90fps again.

I agree, I'm running a pretty low end system for VR. I can often get 45fps in some cases (even before shader mod) and often even 30fps is smooth for me. If it dips into the 20's then there are issues. Often on those missions I disable the 2xMSAA I try to run if I can and its fine though. I also usually fly weedwhackers, the Gaz or the A10 or the Harrier are my typical rides and I usually fly in the Caucus or PG. NTTR seems to be the easiest map graphpically for me as long as I don't fly near vegas. Though I'm all about them optimizing VR further.

I’m struggling on a high end rig with Vice Pro.

What is your headset and videocard, DCS settings? Could you post them please?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bring 90FPS VR back

did DCS introduce a software change and cause the maximum fps to drop from 90 to 45?

or did we do that with our setting choices?

did DCS introduce a software change and cause the maximum fps to drop from 90 to 45?

 

or did we do that with our setting choices?

They're refering to DCS 2.x alpha where the deferred rendering method was first introduced. I think it was implemented in 2.1? You still had the option of disabling deferred rendering at that point.

By 2.2 the devs decided deferred rendering was the way to move forward and removed the option to disable it from the game to save themselves added development time. The downside has been that MSAA is much less friendly with deferred shading, where at least in older versions of DCS between af and high MSAA levels you had sharply defined objects where now, the overall picture can look better in many ways but aliasing is much more present depending on your comfort with performance and variables like resolution.

I’m struggling on a high end rig with Vice Pro.

What is your headset and videocard, DCS settings? Could you post them please?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check the thread low end VR settings i have posted. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=229510

Its a work in progress since I've updated to the shader mod, so I'm trying to up the quality as much as I can vs the previous settings.

Alot of the standard DCS settings can be/should set to high for VR, but others should be off or low. I'd ditch shadows, turn down draw radius/trees if you are having issues.

Also, frankly I'm shocked at how well my 980m does compared to guys running 2080's as an example who are running settings that aren't that much higher/better than what I use.

For a high end rig I'd say start at pd1.2, msaa2x, anisotropic filtering at 16x and then start bumping pd in .1 increments till you fail and dial it down by .1 or .2. If you need more frames, try the shader mod.

Specs below.

Check the thread low end VR settings i have posted. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=229510

Its a work in progress since I've updated to the shader mod, so I'm trying to up the quality as much as I can vs the previous settings.

Alot of the standard DCS settings can be/should set to high for VR, but others should be off or low. I'd ditch shadows, turn down draw radius/trees if you are having issues.

Also, frankly I'm shocked at how well my 980m does compared to guys running 2080's as an example who are running settings that aren't that much higher/better than what I use.

 

For a high end rig I'd say start at pd1.2, msaa2x, anisotropic filtering at 16x and then start bumping pd in .1 increments till you fail and dial it down by .1 or .2. If you need more frames, try the shader mod.

 

 

Specs below.

Thx for the help!

Do you play multiplayer with the shader mod? I’ve quit using it because it was not accepted by the servers.

Also how can you read text on MFD/DDI with PD1.2 and MSAA2X?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Also, frankly I'm shocked at how well my 980m does compared to guys running 2080's as an example who are running settings that aren't that much higher/better than what I use.

.

This is something i have also noted in my perusal of all things VR with reference to DCS . I would be horrified to spend the money for a 9900k and a 2080ti and see the incremental performance gains posted on these forums .

Higher pd's certainly , with the greater number of rops in the ti series , but relatively little else it seems . Frames still "mostly" 45 ? With occasional drops into the 30s ? Disgraceful !

Actually just for $ hits and giggles I dropped most of the eye candy and well I could even crack 90FPS on Normandy just, not enough headroom to record a clip at the same time. But Normandy is the most demanding map.

DCS settings used for testing here PD was at 1.1 as you can see there is some wiggle room there.

Although the PG map was already a tad iffy holding 90FPS Short clip 90FPS on ground I was able to hold mostly 90FPS at the airport whilst not recording but that would no doubt drop in built up areas knowing how the PG preforms

Unsurprisingly Caucasus and NTTR did well holding 90FPS in the test series and I feel I could have a couple more incremental increases in some parameters.

Whilst I could have likely optimize setting further to be honest I much prefer 45FPS and as much eye candy I can have without dropping below 45FPS.

Speaking of eye Speaking of eye candy NTTR shadows and all 90FPS just don't look back towards Nevada. I can remember getting that with my old 980Ti. :cry:

That's with These settings and PD = 1.3.

So what we really need is much better faster and dare I say multi-threaded rendering and image quality from DCS, it seems CPU bound ATM.

So until we get VR improvements I'm going back to 45FPS with eye candy. But I will do some more testing. :thumbup:

@svsmokey I don't know what the answer is hardware wise TBH if I wasn't planning another PC build I wouldn't have the 2080Ti* and as much as it does well it really only brings some eye candy and some headroom when things get busy. As for CPU 9900K although currently for me it will likely be a 9700K bang for buck as I doubt even a *9900K at 5.2Ghz will really help DCS in a significant way currently. Although i get it and gain is all additive of course. :D

* Although it's mesmerizing watching it do the fractals in the Performance Test software. :beer:

Yes , i would like to hold off further pc upgrades until the DCS Vulcan implementation . I don't yet know how much additional cpu performance gain will be from multi-threading , and how much due to offloading calculations to the gpu . VR optimisations are another factor....

Beyond ordering the Rift wednesday , i need to spend some DCS dollars upgrading my simpit , for VR transition , much-needed ergonomics and to placate the wife , who has to look at the cobbled-together mess currently residing in our living room .

That will put my upgrade timeline out about 8 months , and if Vulcan is not on the near-horizon by then , i'll invest in a 7700k , the fastest cpu my motherboard can handle .

I don't know about drops to 30fps as my settings allow for never dropping below 45 fps in VR. In that regard, motion reprojection does a really good job of keeping gameplay fluid, although it comes with it's own nuisances.. like aircraft's wings "flapping" like some kind of bird on *insert stimulant here* or other anomalies.

90fps vr would be great. But I think chances are slim we're going to convince ED to go back to the old rendering method at this point. We can only hope for improved fps as ED continues to optimize the VR experience. Honestly if we could just find an alternative to MSAA, we'd be much closer.

Yeah , no chance of losing deferred shading . (Sigh) Maybe I'll find a use for that 1.5 build on my DCS SSD :)

And if history is any guide , no support for DLSS either . I'll be Rifting so ASW (artifacts ?) ' Tis a scary journey on which I'm about to (nonetheless enthusiastically) embark .

Actually just for $ hits and giggles I dropped most of the eye candy and well I could even crack 90FPS on Normandy just, not enough headroom to record a clip at the same time. But Normandy is the most demanding map.

 

DCS settings used for testing here PD was at 1.1 as you can see there is some wiggle room there.

 

Although the PG map was already a tad iffy holding 90FPS Short clip 90FPS on ground I was able to hold mostly 90FPS at the airport whilst not recording but that would no doubt drop in built up areas knowing how the PG preforms

 

 

Unsurprisingly Caucasus and NTTR did well holding 90FPS in the test series and I feel I could have a couple more incremental increases in some parameters.

 

 

Whilst I could have likely optimize setting further to be honest I much prefer 45FPS and as much eye candy I can have without dropping below 45FPS.

 

Speaking of eye Speaking of eye candy NTTR shadows and all 90FPS just don't look back towards Nevada. I can remember getting that with my old 980Ti. :cry:

 

That's with These settings and PD = 1.3.

 

So what we really need is much better faster and dare I say multi-threaded rendering and image quality from DCS, it seems CPU bound ATM.

 

So until we get VR improvements I'm going back to 45FPS with eye candy. But I will do some more testing. :thumbup:

 

@svsmokey I don't know what the answer is hardware wise TBH if I wasn't planning another PC build I wouldn't have the 2080Ti* and as much as it does well it really only brings some eye candy and some headroom when things get busy. As for CPU 9900K although currently for me it will likely be a 9700K bang for buck as I doubt even a *9900K at 5.2Ghz will really help DCS in a significant way currently. Although i get it and gain is all additive of course. :D

 

* Although it's mesmerizing watching it do the fractals in the Performance Test software. :beer:

Fragbum, that is all very useful stuff.

I would like to just add in my take on some of this as I think there are a lot of misconceptions around.

Firstly, I think people should stop obsessing over fps. Go with what you see and feel, not what a counter says.

I say that, partly because one person's 45fps is not the same as another's.

Let me explain.

I don't whether it's because of SteamVR and the way it works, but I don't ever see fps more than 45fps with MS on. (Occasionally go below on dense terrain at low altitudes.)

If I run with Fragbum's low settings as above, I get 45fps. If I run with my very high settings, I get 45fps.

However, the important thing here is frame times, and that is where the critical difference lies.

With the low settings, I am getting around 12ms per frame. Now, that is - 1000/12 - approximately 85fps. But, it still shows as 45fps. (With around 35% GPU usage.)

If I run my high settings, my frame times go up to around 20-22ms, 45-50fps, but still show as 45fps on the counter. (GPU usage going up to 80-90%.)

Now, the visual difference between one 45fps and the other is massive, and both are silky smooth.

(None of this is taking into account the CPU usage in these scenarios.)

All I can say is that when I replaced my 1080Ti with a 2080Ti, there was a very significant difference in terms of the smoothness and ease of DCS performance, but the actual fps performance wouldn't show that for the reasons above.

(Making comparisons directly with the Rift is difficult as the Vive Pro is pushing 80% more pixels around making it more demanding and also is using SteamVR with its own settings.)

Getting motion sick in VR is in the nature of things and has little to do with fps. Many professional pilots do experience sickness in the professional set-up, also in a half-dome kind, it is not something new, popping up with VR. It is a simple matter (or actually pretty complicated) of your sense of balance not agreeing with your eyes. It is equally nauseating in instrumental flight your gut not agreeing with your instruments. So do not expect finding a universal cure in fps. Some people are always going to remain prone to nausea, whatever the fps.

Getting motion sick in VR is in the nature of things and has little to do with fps. Many professional pilots do experience sickness in the professional set-up, also in a half-dome kind, it is not something new, popping up with VR. It is a simple matter (or actually pretty complicated) of your sense of balance not agreeing with your eyes. It is equally nauseating in instrumental flight your gut not agreeing with your instruments. So do not expect finding a universal cure in fps. Some people are always going to remain prone to nausea, whatever the fps.

Yes FPS or at least sudden or abrupt changes in FPS tend to lessen the immersion or drop you out of the MATRIX so to say, where as perceived motion and or change in orientation without balance feedback can cause motion disorientation, even motion sickness. :D :thumbup:

I saw 16 FPS briefly just last night on my current rig. This was on my custom mission, Khasab airport at dusk with some tanks and soldiers running around. The lightings and shadows were gorgeous, but the FPS tanking really broke the immersion big time.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wow, I'm getting the impression,

The majority here would rather NOT have VR Optimization & higher FPS,

or don't think it's worth the effort.

That's fascinating ...

I'm sure any improvement would be welcomed by everyone who uses VR.

Wow, I'm getting the impression,

The majority here would rather NOT have VR Optimization & higher FPS,

or don't think it's worth the effort.

That's fascinating ...

"A falling tree makes more noise than a growing forest". A lot of subjects, in this forum, give the wrong perspective because of this phenomenon.

Wow, I'm getting the impression,

The majority here would rather NOT have VR Optimization & higher FPS,

or don't think it's worth the effort.

That's fascinating ...

I don't get that at all. Just because its ok at 45 it doesn't mean its great. I'd love to see 90+fps beacause its smoother.

I think the other half is that we have no idea what has been optimized for VR, and what could be. Personally I think VR is absolutely the future of most flight sims. Once the Headset resolution issues, framerate issues are solved, and a good and balanced way of interacting with the pit is sorted out. And I do see ED/VR makers trying to do all these things, its just going to take time. My .02 on the interaction with the pit being the easiest one to solve soon, things like captoglove + conventional HOTAS is the way I "think" its gonna work near term. Long term, I think Captogloves + some sort of configurable, or even "dummy" hotas for specific planes will be the way it goes.

Getting motion sick in VR is in the nature of things and has little to do with fps. Many professional pilots do experience sickness in the professional set-up, also in a half-dome kind, it is not something new, popping up with VR. It is a simple matter (or actually pretty complicated) of your sense of balance not agreeing with your eyes. It is equally nauseating in instrumental flight your gut not agreeing with your instruments. So do not expect finding a universal cure in fps. Some people are always going to remain prone to nausea, whatever the fps.

Yeah I mainly get it not with low fps, which is mainly immersion breaking and lame, but rather when I'm heavlily maneuvering yanking the plane around.

Bring 90FPS VR back

i’d prefer 150fps like my monitors, but i will settle for 90.

I think 15 pages of "VR improvements" clearly hint that that there are quite a few wishes to satisfy the VR crowd, other than merely "give me 90 fps, or I will shoot the rabbit."

Fragbum, that is all very useful stuff.

I would like to just add in my take on some of this as I think there are a lot of misconceptions around.

Firstly, I think people should stop obsessing over fps. Go with what you see and feel, not what a counter says.

I say that, partly because one person's 45fps is not the same as another's.

Let me explain.

I don't whether it's because of SteamVR and the way it works, but I don't ever see fps more than 45fps with MS on. (Occasionally go below on dense terrain at low altitudes.)

If I run with Fragbum's low settings as above, I get 45fps. If I run with my very high settings, I get 45fps.

However, the important thing here is frame times, and that is where the critical difference lies.

With the low settings, I am getting around 12ms per frame. Now, that is - 1000/12 - approximately 85fps. But, it still shows as 45fps. (With around 35% GPU usage.)

If I run my high settings, my frame times go up to around 20-22ms, 45-50fps, but still show as 45fps on the counter. (GPU usage going up to 80-90%.)

Now, the visual difference between one 45fps and the other is massive, and both are silky smooth.

(None of this is taking into account the CPU usage in these scenarios.)

All I can say is that when I replaced my 1080Ti with a 2080Ti, there was a very significant difference in terms of the smoothness and ease of DCS performance, but the actual fps performance wouldn't show that for the reasons above.

(Making comparisons directly with the Rift is difficult as the Vive Pro is pushing 80% more pixels around making it more demanding and also is using SteamVR with its own settings.)

Agree and in your situation with the additional pixels to render would increase the workload on your system comparatively so. I also noticed that the 2080Ti made DCS feel well more responsive with a more fluid image presentation.

For Rift (now that my weird aliasing issue is gone) I pretty much tweak with a compromise between image quality (yeah I know it's Rift ;) ) and allowing some CPU/GPU headroom which works well, I am bemused when I see people pushing CPU/GPU to 100% then complain because because they get frame rate drops or stuttering.

I was partly inspired by Harlikwins endeavours and curious to see what my expensive room heater (2080Ti) could actually achieve and not to simply to say look I get 90FPS which sure it can do but I really do prefer better image quality over raw frame rate. Which was the primary reason for taking a hit in FPS and enabling deferred shading when it was an option, IMO the improvement in image elements was worth the FPS hit, hopefully we should get improved MSAA and PD and VR processing soon.

Now one thing I have noticed and I didn't notice when DCS (I presume) changed it and that is how the transition between frame rate changes is so smooth now it's hardly perceptible which is an awesome improvement right there.

Wow, I'm getting the impression,

The majority here would rather NOT have VR Optimization & higher FPS,

or don't think it's worth the effort.

That's fascinating ...

It's actually fascinating how you derived that observation. :P :D

To be fair up until early 2.5.x "Deferred Shading" was an option a lot of people didn't use it mostly because of the performance hit it gave in exchange for what was a better image presentation and using DS also meant "your GPU" worked harder just to do 45FPS. The outcry when DCS went down the DS path was fairly loud for a while and eventually everyone kinda found their sweet spot settings and accepted 45FPS as the new norm.

To be honest I actually preferred Deferred Shading with the then new Caucasus map elements it looked better and the difference in Caucasus in 1.5 and the new map were quite stark.

I am rather hopeful that VR (Actually DCS as a whole) improvements will give DCS a much needed performance boost. It's been about 12 months now so hopefully soon. :thumbup: :music_whistling: