Anyone actually (or claim) to have acceptable VR performance?

I have found that DCS responds better to a CPU upgrade vs a GFX upgrade. It is just the nature of simulators. They crunch a lot of numbers on the back end before they even get to your graphics card. The 1080 is more than enough card to run DCS. The i7 7700 is an older generation and while still a capable chip you would have seen a bigger jump in preformance in DCS if you had upgraded the cpu instead.

 

 

 

I for example am running a i5 8400 and a gtx 1080. with a oculus rift s. I have everything but water maxed(oddly that is my frame rate killer) and am getting betwen 50 and 80 fps depending on what is going on. The i5 8400 is a newer and depending on whos bench marks you look at better cpu than the i7 7700. Swapping my old gtx 970 back in barely affects my frame rate at all. But you should still be doing better than 20 fps. The i7 7700 is old but it ain't that old.

What you are saying makes a lot of sense, HOWEVER think about it this way. The number crunching aspect of DCS really hasn't changed a whole lot since a year ago right? The biggest kick in the pants to DCS VR was the move to deferred shading, which had nothing to do with the simulation (which I believe is actually tables, not real time) and everything to do with the rendering pipeline. either there is a lot of turnover in this community and/or people have short memories. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3467302 I remember there were a lot of folks with pitchforks because they could get full, smooth DCS VR prior to being forced into using the deferred shading. The official company line was (paraphrasing) "It's a lot of work to maintain two rendering pipelines, deffered shading is the future of DCS." which I certainly understand. The next gen hardware didn't really move the needly much vs what existed than but there was once upon a time were DCS had excellent, smooth VR with even a mid tier system.

If you weren't around for that, it certainly looks like DCS is DCS and we are just waiting for hardware to catch up - but in reality, you aren't wrong that simulations in general have similar shortcomings when it comes to VR. It's easy to blame the number crunching behind the scenes, but I think it likely has more to do with having to engineer 1st party VR integrations on top of engines that have been updated for (sometimes) decades that can generate acceptable 2d performance. If you think about X-Plane, FSX, hell even ED and some of the racings sims, these aren't built on Unity or Unreal and because of that require a lot more engineering to implement a VR SDK as gracefully as "built for VR apps" are able to. It isn't just that someone decided they were going to make a VR game and knows how to optimize, it's that they did it in a engine that requires a few clicks to install an SDK with the low level stuff already done for you.

Am I a bit bitter they pulled the option to disable differed shading a little prematurely? yeah :) People went way harder than I've seen anything recently, I think there was a thread like 10+ pages deep where someone clearly spent hours benchmarking before/after to make a point that fell on deaf ears. There was some hope when they announced the VR performance update, like "hey we found a thing in our terrain engine, 50% boost incoming!" (editorializing) to "Well, you need to have ASW off to see it" --> "ok it didn't work for everyone" --> never updating the other maps with the patch even though some folks saw a benefit.

I got my Rift S a few days after release and it was my first VR headset. I had an AMD 2700 OC'd to 4.0 with a 2060 and 32GB of 3200 ram.

it ran well with the settings rather low but holy crap the immersion vs the 1080 monitor was worth it. When I built this system around January I built it with AMD's Zen 2 in mind which is why I went with an X470 MB to ensure it would would work. I was also hearing the rumors around NAVI and was excited Zen 2 and Navi would launch together.

I was getting 40fps in the air but around crowded waypoints or on the ground on MP servers it would constantly dip into the 20's or teens.

Zen 2 came out and I picked up a 3700X and since Nvidia decided to under cut AMD I got a 2070 super.

since those two upgrades I get a solid 40FPS anywhere in MP with much higher settings. I am very happy with the performance I have now and just shipped my 2700 and 2060 to my brother to upgrade his system so he can get into the VR game eventually.

So with a 3700X, 2070 super and 32Gb of RAM I am very satisfied with the current implementation. with that said, there are some instances such as following a weapon to the ground I'll get 80 FPS. so that obviously it's possible....just not in the plane with my current set-up. and everything I've read another upgrade to the 2080Ti is not going to benefit me in any significant way.

I know ED is a small company and has been around for years and has basically been upgrading their engine to fit the current hardware, but I think as much work as it would be, they need to re-work DCS onto a modern, more robust engine. If they are truly working on building DCS onto Vulken, I think that will help a lot of us out in the long run...

I noticed a fairly decent improvement when I got a Ryzen 3600 and 32Gb of 3600 ram. I was flying MP last night in the 4YA caucus server. 33 players. lots of AI. Never dropped below 45 FPS with pretty high settings. My old 1700 and 3000 memory struggled to keep 45 FPS with frequent dips into the 20s and sometimes teens on the same server.

 

I'm wondering if ANYONE has "acceptable" performance on their VR rig, and what that is defined by.

 

Acceptable performance for me is taxying the Tomcat on PG in a heavily ground object populated AlDhafra airbase, complete with other taxying aircraft groups and not having blurriness when turning; or when looking sideways out of the cockpit, not seeing the taxiway lines / taxiway lights on joining taxiways jiggling and jumping.

If it is butter smooth on ground, it will be better in the air, unless you fly down downtown Dubai main street at mach one and twenty feet.

Yes I have the above performance using the Reverb. Only ever fly single player. MSAA x2; settings high or very high, except shadows, which are low /flat. Reprojection on.

Specs in Sig below.

I have found that DCS responds better to a CPU upgrade vs a GFX upgrade. It is just the nature of simulators. They crunch a lot of numbers on the back end before they even get to your graphics card. The 1080 is more than enough card to run DCS. The i7 7700 is an older generation and while still a capable chip you would have seen a bigger jump in preformance in DCS if you had upgraded the cpu instead.

.

What you are saying makes a lot of sense, HOWEVER think about it this way. The number crunching aspect of DCS really hasn't changed a whole lot since a year ago right? The biggest kick in the pants to DCS VR was the move to deferred shading, which had nothing to do with the simulation (which I believe is actually tables, not real time) and everything to do with the rendering pipeline. either there is a lot of turnover in this community and/or people have short memories. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3467302 I remember there were a lot of folks with pitchforks because they could get full, smooth DCS VR prior to being forced into using the deferred shading.

From what I've read, deferred shading just destroys MSAA. From my testing I don't think MSAA is any worse than supersampling, but it's every bit as expensive.

I haven't been around that long but I do remember when people were pushing PD 1.8 - 2.0. Doesn't seem like that's a thing anymore; seems like if you can live with MSAAx2 or PD 1.4, a 1080 or the equivalent is plenty. Nobody in my squad has anything better and some of those guys are downright frightening. We all have decent CPU's and lots of RAM tho

It looks like it's the case for every headset: Index, Rift S, Reverb.

 

But I'll tell you that: I used to be sick and uncomfortable with CV1 at 45fps.

After months not using CV1, I'm totally fine with Rift S at 40 fps.

 

So fps isn't the end of everything.

Honestly I was locked at 45 with the CV1, I don't think going to the reverb had any real negative effect on my settings, in fact because I'm super-sampling less than I was with the CV1 I actually increased some settings.

But yes at the end of the day FPS isn't everything. A solid 45 is totally fine in WMR for me for 90% of the flying I do (which these days is online). The main thing IMO is to avoid those dips under 45. If FPS is changing alot is where you notice it.

From what I've read, deferred shading just destroys MSAA. From my testing I don't think MSAA is any worse than supersampling, but it's every bit as expensive.

 

I haven't been around that long but I do remember when people were pushing PD 1.8 - 2.0. Doesn't seem like that's a thing anymore; seems like if you can live with MSAAx2 or PD 1.4, a 1080 or the equivalent is plenty. Nobody in my squad has anything better and some of those guys are downright frightening. We all have decent CPU's and lots of RAM tho

It is a thing for people with top end GPUs because they aren't being utilized. You can see threads in this forum right now. That was my sort of initial spiraling event hehe. For context, I had the exact same rig prior to deferred shading and it would be hard NOT to lock @90fps, rarely would it drop into ASW land.

When I upgrade from a 1080 to a 2080ti my performance with the exact same settings was worse in terms of stability. I actually had to introduce a PD of 2.0 (1.8 was actually the sweet spot) to put enough of a load on my GPU that the CPU wouldn't drop frames.

MSAA was a feature that came with deferred shading, one of the chief points of this thread is, yes a 1080 is, in fact, plenty, the problem is that plenty also represents the current top-end for performance as hardware just stops mattering. Circling back to the whole deferred shader thing, what I was trying to say was prior to the update VR users enjoyed an experience that I feel should be roughly equal to what you could get today with high-mid to top end hardware. Since nobody apparently really is, I'd settle for just a stable 45fps but am having trouble even getting that.

My new ram should be here tomorrow going to see if that does the dew, I'm also working on something else w/ hardware spoofing.

Hmmm, Not to dash your hopes but I am running really not that great RAM. Corsair vengence....16g at I think 2400mhz. It is why I don't play with multi player, anything over 4 human pilots and a few dozen A.I and DCS turns into a slide show. But in single player missions it is enough to keep me in the 50-80 range.

Do you over clock at all ? If you are not OC'ed( and if your comfortable doing it don't do anything that could damage your computer) try pushing up the clock speeds on you i7 closer to5mhz if you can get it stable and don't see at least a 10-15 frame improvement I would be supersized. Also means a cpu upgrade would get you into that sweet spot.

* JoJo, Not sneazing at the i7 7700k. But they are more comparable to current gen i5's than current gen i7's http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/502/Intel_Core_i5_i5-8400_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-7700K.html *

I recently updated my 2015 mobo Bios and my VR performance improved dramatically! Much smoother experience, I run at PD 1.5 and it sits at 40 pretty comfortably.

Still get that ASW ghosting with fast-moving aircraft in a DF etc - but hoping DCS 'VR perf increase' might help with that stuff - eventually.

I recently updated my 2015 mobo Bios and my VR performance improved dramatically! Much smoother experience, I run at PD 1.5 and it sits at 40 pretty comfortably.

Still get that ASW ghosting with fast-moving aircraft in a DF etc - but hoping DCS 'VR perf increase' might help with that stuff - eventually.

I think this is a good point too. Mobo/drivers etc all have to be considered as well.

Only had hands on with 1st headset ever (index) a matter of hrs so no idea what i`m doing yet.

Initially seemed locked at 25 fps somehow. Improved that to 30 with everything zeroed. Changed from default 90 fps config to the 80 and also turned off enable motion smoothing. Reprojection on (cant actually see where to turn on/off). Now a low of 40 with fluctuations up into the 60-80 range. That with a few of the usual things turned back upwards.

i7 @3.9, 32gb slow ram DDR3-1865/PC3-14900 In game ipd set 1.0 1080ti

GPU-Z reports Memory used 11095 GPU Load 100%

Little update.

Ive now installed fpsVR and its telling a slightly different story with same settings. 40fps. av 37.7, GPU usage av 78%, cpu av 18%

If those usage are to be believed then there is headroom and no reason for the av fps and GPU frametime 19-20 ms ? cpu frametime av 10.5

Anyway it seems playable at 40 and a brief visit to a mp server also seemed ok.

Well I seem to be ok in Multiplayer with Odyssey Plus..Get 45FPS and 18-20FrameTime.. higher FPS when flying higher I do not use reprojection..

Played all kinds of MP missions with up to 10 guys..

Ok, can confirm ram made/makes a huge difference. I upgraded to 32gb of 3200mhz ram from 16gb on 2400 and it's like, the improvement I thought a 1080-->2080ti would give. I'm no longer locked to 45fps and it's much better. Not perfect, but I think I see what everyone else saying it is fine is seeing.

Ok, can confirm ram made/makes a huge difference. I upgraded to 32gb of 3200mhz ram from 16gb on 2400 and it's like, the improvement I thought a 1080-->2080ti would give. I'm no longer locked to 45fps and it's much better. Not perfect, but I think I see what everyone else saying it is fine is seeing.

So do you attribute the improvement to the speed increase from 2400 to 3200, or the move from 16GB to 32GB (i.e have you checked to see if you are utilising more than 16GB RAM?)

So do you attribute the improvement to the speed increase from 2400 to 3200, or the move from 16GB to 32GB (i.e have you checked to see if you are utilising more than 16GB RAM?)

I think it's just the move from 16 -> 32. I don't think speed is irrelevant but for sure it's using 19gb according to my monitoring. Using this thread and some anecdotes from other similar ones I could see that almost everyone claiming they were happy with performance had 32gb of ram. There is even one within the last two pages that has slower memory, but 32gb and says it's cool.

Ok, can confirm ram made/makes a huge difference. I upgraded to 32gb of 3200mhz ram from 16gb on 2400 and it's like, the improvement I thought a 1080-->2080ti would give. I'm no longer locked to 45fps and it's much better. Not perfect, but I think I see what everyone else saying it is fine is seeing.

? whats your spec? iv just done the same upgrade and its made sod all difference, im struggling to get 48 fps solo and mid 20s!!! on multiplayer on pretty low settings too

? whats your spec? iv just done the same upgrade and its made sod all difference, im struggling to get 48 fps solo and mid 20s!!! on multiplayer on pretty low settings too

i7 7700k, 2080ti and now 32gb ram. What you describe is where I was at, it was also where I was at with a 1080 gpu.

i7 7700k, 2080ti and now 32gb ram. What you describe is where I was at, it was also where I was at with a 1080 gpu.

ah i have 7700 at 5ghz 32gb ram and an oc 1080

I think it's just the move from 16 -> 32. I don't think speed is irrelevant but for sure it's using 19gb according to my monitoring. Using this thread and some anecdotes from other similar ones I could see that almost everyone claiming they were happy with performance had 32gb of ram. There is even one within the last two pages that has slower memory, but 32gb and says it's cool.

Yea man have to agree with you there, everyone I've talked to thats happy with performance has 32gb.

I have 16gb and im in the same boat, but I also have a 3770k thats what I'm trying to investigate but I only have issues with a lot of static objects around and my cpu load would be fine but bad fps. Changing settings doesn't hardly change the fps, I mean from shit low 1.0 pd to high settings is 25fps to 32 fps avg. I tried on an empty map out in tonopah on the nttr and I get good framerate. Its not even when there a lot going on on the map its when there's tons of static objects. What I don't understand though is I'm only using 13.9gb of my 16 ? My problem is I have 4x 4gb sticks and I don't wanna buy 32gbs of ddr3 lol so I might as well buy processor ram and motherboard anyway.

Edit: missed your post about upgrading ram . Will need to grab 32gb then it seems.

I can get 80 fps, in some situations.

Those are .

High altitude, not to busy missions.

So if my style of play would be air starting at <15k and not going below 10 I would probably see 80fps for a lot of it.

It also depends on the module.

That's kind of boring so I spend most of my time in ASW.

I did notice an increase in situations where I saw full fps when I got the S, it was easier for Dcs to do 80, rather than 90.

The bottle neck is software, not our hardware.

Do now for vr and DCs. The question is.

Is motion smoothing acceptable to you?

To me the constant ghosting from running between 40-80 fps is far worse than any minor artefact from interpolation.

Fact is most doesn't notice SpaceWarp is running at all until it falls to keep 40 fps, once it hits the mid 30's it becomes absolutely horrible.

But if you do that low there is no way disabling SpaceWarp would do any good.

I'm also running a moderate CPU over clock if 4.7, don't see any reason to be red lining it, don't notice any difference from running it at 4.9.

Expect that temps peak at 85, that's at takes like rendering video, when playing DCs it never barely goes over 65c.

Adding a second set of RAM chips also didn't like running with xmp profiles at all, and while troubleshooting my pimax I was at default frequency for must of it.

Didn't notice any difference in performance really.

Wouldn't even boot at 3200, did sometimes on 3100, but could have bsod on occasion, running those at 2900 has been rock stable for 8 months now.

I almost think the benefit I see from oc is less about frequency, and more a matter that all cores now run at a constant high frequency.

But that's just an idea of mine.

As for 32 gb ram I'm barely ever using now than 14 of it while playing, it's only when I'm off on Sunday mission with the sluggers and there's twenty plus players with lots of ai units I notice running close to 20gb of ram.

Figure I'd rather have it not need it.