VR in normandy

So guys as I am struggling with VR performance as you are I found that lowering PD below 1 made an improvment! Maybe 2.1 really needs 2x horspower than 1.5? I mean i lowered PD in NEVADA to 0.8 and saw improvments, i looked at the gpu and asw and my conclusion is that in L-39 quick start mission Camp attack (basicly flat Nevada ground and some 10 units) PD 0.8 is ok (cannot say definetly if asw kicked in) 1.0 is on the edge but 1.2 is already too much for my overclocked 1070! The shortage of gpu power is best seen flying low and looking at the ground down under. This is wierd as small amount of objects is drawn this way only ground quite close but fast! This really needs horse power! Can someone comment this? Is there guys with 1080 and TI and that l-39. Can u please rerun that instant action camp attack mission! Fly around low looking at your wingtip, i am really interested at which PD you start to struggle! Cause in 1.5 i can run as high as 1.7- 1.8 depending on situation;) All above in 2.1 was done with deffered shading - ON!

When comparing FPS's, don't forget that there are factors other than your graphics settings or hardware that have a major impact: 1) MODULE: There are those modules with very complex cockpit models (MIG-21), and there are those that are simpler/optimized (F-86, FW-190) 2) NUMBER OF A.I. OBJECTS: The performance degrades more and more with the number of A.I. objects in the sim. 3) WEATHER: In Nevada, with 2.0X, you get halved FPS with any cloud in the screen. 4) LOCATION & HEIGHT: As you know cities are more difficult to draw compared to an empty sea. When comparing smoothness or FPS, we need to put these in the same footing as well. In general I am not happy with the graphical bar being set higher with every release. It seems like it is getting away from VR users.. I am personally more happy with flawless performance rather than eye candy.. I think at the end of the day everything may be hanging on the design decision to keep graphics on one core only..

When comparing FPS's, don't forget that there are factors other than your graphics settings or hardware that have a major impact: 1) MODULE: There are those modules with very complex cockpit models (MIG-21), and there are those that are simpler/optimized (F-86, FW-190) 2) NUMBER OF A.I. OBJECTS: The performance degrades more and more with the number of A.I. objects in the sim. 3) WEATHER: In Nevada, with 2.0X, you get halved FPS with any cloud in the screen. 4) LOCATION & HEIGHT: As you know cities are more difficult to draw compared to an empty sea. When comparing smoothness or FPS, we need to put these in the same footing as well. In general I am not happy with the graphical bar being set higher with every release. It seems like it is getting away from VR users.. I am personally more happy with flawless performance rather than eye candy.. I think at the end of the day everything may be hanging on the design decision to keep graphics on one core only..

I don't think the single core CPU performance is the bottleneck in 2.1. I never see any core go over 40% yet my GPU easily hits 100%.

In my case, with DCS 1.5 and 2.0X, my GeForce 980 GPU hovers around %30 while CPU hits 100%. When I use SLI, GPU's go back down to %15. But I don't have a 5.1 GHz CPU like you do (not a lot of people have it also). I have a 3.1 GHz with 32 GB RAM and SSD.

This is exactly what I am talking about.. People are comparing FPS's while their systems and test environments differ a lot..

In my case, with DCS 1.5 and 2.0X, my GeForce 980 GPU hovers around %30 while CPU hits 100%. When I use SLI, GPU's go back down to %15. But I don't have a 5.1 GHz CPU like you do (not a lot of people have it also). I have a 3.1 GHz with 32 GB RAM and SSD.

 

 

This is exactly what I am talking about.. People are comparing FPS's while their systems and test environments differ a lot..

That's a fair point. In my case, with my setup, I still have very poor performance. Point being, it's less about hardware and more about poorly optimized alpha software. Hopefully there's plenty of room for improvement and now that 2.1 is out the door ED will start focusing on optimization. I agree there is not point comparing FPS given the amount of variables.

Quick find that works nicely for me, setting terrain shadows from flat to default gives less shimmering and no loss of FPS. The flickering may be more noticeable low down as I rarely notice it in a plane but for flying the choppers it was a PITA with the sun low down

Could I ask what is meant by 'ASW'?

I too am a VR user (Oculus) and no matter which PD setting or graphic setting I use I cannot get anything better than 45fps

https://developer.oculus.com/blog/asynchronous-spacewarp/

ASW will set your frames to 45 thats kinda how you know it works. It guesses the frames it thinks will be missed and replaces them, best read the above for more reliable info;)

wonderful - thanks

So far I've not been too disappointed - more in the speckly appearance than performance.

I uploaded a video of low-level flying in an Su-25 yesterday. It went very smoothly. I then flew a ground attack mission and that showed a slightly different story. When firing rockets the stuttering started, though it wasn't extreme.

I also did flights in all the helicopters. In every one, flights close to airfields produced stutters - again, not extreme, but very noticable. The further I got from airfields, the less it stuttered.

I did a very enjoyable flight in the Ka-50 at treetop-level and below, and it wasn't bad at all. I think it needs tweaking, but then, I'm sure that's the plan in any case.

Here's the Ka-50 flight - mic volume is a bit low....

The light is, as is well known, an issue. Also, when I jumped into the Su-25, at first the gauges were completely dark and unreadable, it was only once the Sun was shining through the canopy at the right angle that the gauges became visible and stayed that way.

Like I said, though, this is kind of expected and will hopefully be sorted with enough feedback - though how long it will take is another issue entirely.

...we need better frames for sure. Performance is poor so the looks. VR is the future, hope devs will better this product! I have an ASUS ROG which connects to a DisplayPort so I can forget of the "special way" of adjusting anything. I have a 1080ti and a 7700 oc at 4.9Ghz , I would have hoped for better results with the map than 45 fps!

In the VR Thread here and Performance thread here, there have been many many many suggestions on how to improve the performance for this alpha release.

Also, one of the mods reported that the internal build is already better.

PS: letting DCS rebuild the SAVED folder (make a copy of your config/INPUT folder so you don't have to remap the controllers) seems to help quite a bit.

... and what was with the big green dot in the middle of the F-15 HUD?

Anyone know what this dot is??

Has anyone noticed that the pixel density in game doesn't work anymore ? I have had to use the Oculus debug tool to set it up. Also when you look out the right window does anyone else get stutter with shadows enabled?