Question about graphic comparison. - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2019, 12:30 PM   #1
The Falcon
Member
 
The Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 100
Default Question about graphic comparison.

Hi.I want play VR(that is demanding) and i'm trying to figure out what the graphic difference between low and ultra is ... and by following this guide:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202092
I noticed that all in all we can arrange to get a decent image and that there is not much difference between low end ultra for many things. Anyway, the most important part of the guide is for me textures in the cockpit and vehicles, civil traffic, explosion smoke, res of cockpit displays etc. and this part is not into the guide so I would like to know what changes for the latter.

Last edited by The Falcon; 02-11-2019 at 01:47 PM.
The Falcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2019, 02:01 PM   #2
DeltaMike
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 113
Default

Let us know what kind of hardware you have, and what you like to fly, and we can be more specific.

Taking into account that link, and my experience tuning a minimum-spec system, I can suggest the following generic advice:

SETUP

1. Start with textures high, cockpit displays 1024. Gotta have that.
2. Set terrain texture, grass, trees, preload and visible range to something. I *think* those things affect RAM and CPU more than anything, don't quote me. But whatever you choose, keep that constant for the test. (Unless you have a monster of a system, consider setting those at low for the GPU test.)
3. Set water and anisotropic filtering to something, just keep em constant.
4. Turn off random stuff like lens effects, heat blur etc. for now.
5. Don't worry about resolution or aspect ratio, although you might want to consider not driving a giant 4k monitor at the same time as VR, just sayin

TEST CONDITIONS

1. Decide on your tools. If you're using Oculus, you don't get a ton of info from frame rate. Download the oculus tray tool, pick something to monitor. (I monitored GPU render time).
2. Decide on an in-game test. I just do a low speed fly-by of towns in Caucasus. Same track every time.
3. Turn MSAA off.
4. Turn off any external processing eg done by steam or by drivers.
5. Turn shadows and terrain object shadows off.

TEST

1. Find the maximum pixel density you can run without stuttering or puking. With an Oculus, you're looking to nail 45fps consistently, once it starts dropping into the 30's, you puke. YMMV

ADJUST

What adjustments you make depends on what pixel density you can run. If the most you can run is like 1.2, the game is playable but you're not gonna be able to turn shadows on, or run any MSAA. If you can drive 2.0 or more, you have lots of options. In between you just have to figure out what works for you.

-- MSAA is pretty, and I read somewhere that's the best solution for reading text in VR. Supersampling with MSAA on top of that. That should help resolution of cockpit instruments and displays.
-- You can add shadows back in. Nice if you're flying low. If you're up high you don't really notice.

Both come at a tradeoff, you have to decrease pixel density to get those in. Which is fine, some people with high end systems are saying if PD is too high it makes it hard to spot other A/C. All I can say is, PD adds to the "magic" of VR and you have to decide for yourself how little of that you're willing to live with.

FURTHER ACTION

Once you have your GPU dialed in you can start messing with terrain objects, visual range and preload radius. Don't get greedy if you have a low-end system.

I dunno if that's "right" or not but I'm playing and enjoying with a rig that is just barely adequate (if that) so it's definitely worth tweaking. Of course if your CPU clocks at 5+ghz, and you have a 2080ti I don't even know why we are having this conversation LOL
__________________
Ryzen 5 2600 (4.0GHz), B450M, 16Gb RAM, Vega 56 (undervolt), T16000M, Oculus Rift
DeltaMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2019, 12:01 AM   #3
The Falcon
Member
 
The Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaMike View Post
Of course if your CPU clocks at 5+ghz, and you have a 2080ti I don't even know why we are having this conversation LOL

First of all thanks to the valuable advice, especially those related to the PD that I could not imagine. I do not have a PC yet but when i take it i will take the best, like i9 and 2080ti etc ..I want to play vr and I'm trying to figure out whether to buy now or wait for better hardware.



I did not explain well in the first question, let me explain it better.
The graphics of DCS that we see in many videos shot at ultra (not vr) is very nice and i'm trying to understand how much the graphics worsens if you go down the settings.


In the link that I posted, you can see that there is not much difference between low and ultra, which is good for me,(lowsettings=+FPS=good vr) I'm trying to understand if it also applies to different things like "textures in the cockpit and vehicles , civil traffic, explosion smoke, res of cockpit displays ", I'm particularly interested in textures, displays and shadows/volumes effects. For example, the terrain does not change much from low to ultra, is the same for cockpit texture? ecc..


Btw about the PD, serves to have a less blurry image or is it a kind of AA?
The Falcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2019, 05:31 PM   #4
DeltaMike
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 113
Default

With a monster rig I'd choose your VR rig carefully. Oculus is good for systems that struggle to maintain 45fps. But the resolution for like odessey and Vive pro and pimax look really sweet.

Keep in mind I'm coming at this from a neurological perspective, I'm no engineer. To my understanding supersampling is an inefficient form of AA that has an interesting spin in VR, it tricks your brain into thinking you have more information than you do, long as you keep your head moving. Adding in MSA makes text more readable, probably by enhancing edge detection I think, but running both together flogs your GPU. Personally I think Pimax is on the right track, giving you more pixels to work with. Still, they are sitting right on your eyeball, you can still see em apparently.

So there's a lot of things the headset just can't do. A good GPU allows for eye candy. Shadows, raindrops. Scratches on the canopy. That's where you get your immersion. Textures are easy, my rig can run high textures and 1024 displays. No matter what you spend, your instruments are gonna be blurry and it's gonna be hard to spot targets.

2080ti strikes me as a good card, it's a little better than 1080ti but I get the feeling it has untapped potential. And ED seems committed to VR, every update it gets better.

I get the feeling people either hate VR or they can't live without it. It's the precise reason I'm back into flight Sims. If you're that way, I wouldn't hesitate. Put it this way. In VR, nothing is ever enough. Might as well go for it.

Basically you optimize anti-aliasing first, realising you can only do so much. Add in eye candy to the extent you can. Dealing with units, AI, terrain objects, load distance is probably going to be more of a RAM, CPU and SSD thing. CPU wise, right now you want fewer cores with faster clocks. At least 16gb of fast RAM. So, a decent MB. Good cooling.

Sounds like you're gonna buy the best all the way around. It'll pay off, but not in bragging rights. Bottom line is, "pretty" in VR is different from "pretty" on a 4k monitor. Just gotta decide which kinda pretty you want.

It's breathtaking. Astonishing, and as a guy who lives life in pursuit of astonishment, I do not use that term lightly. Sunset over the ocean is more beautiful than you can imagine. Which is the thing. The tank I just blew up had jaggies. There are no jaggies in the water, no jaggies in fluffy little clouds still lit by the fading sun. No jaggies where the sun catches the smoke trails of SAM rockets going after some MIG out there. Who is out of sight, out of mind, jaggy tho he may be.
__________________
Ryzen 5 2600 (4.0GHz), B450M, 16Gb RAM, Vega 56 (undervolt), T16000M, Oculus Rift

Last edited by DeltaMike; 02-12-2019 at 06:21 PM.
DeltaMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2019, 06:47 PM   #5
The Falcon
Member
 
The Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 100
Default

I'm exatly that way. I've never tried a vr viewer in person but there are things that I understand like the fact that you feel "inside" and you see things in their real dimension. The thing that mainly hampers me is the chromatic aberration, I hate it a lot, more than the screen door effect, if a visor with filtered lenses does not come out I will not buy a pc now, I think it's better to wait.
The Falcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2019, 03:33 PM   #6
DeltaMike
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 113
Default

I'm waiting to upgrade, but glad I didn't wait. DCS is definitely playable on my system, and while I would like to upgrade my GPU I kinda want to see what the next gen VR devices look like and what it will take to drive it. As it is, I hacked together a system with what I had lying around the house and as it turns out, Oculus handles it fine. A 1070 or a Vega handles DCS fine, and if you're GPU limited like that, almost any CPU can handle it, 3.8ghz plus. You do need RAM, but... heck you could put together an entire system for less than what it costs to buy a 2080ti and have money left over.

I mean, I *think* I want a 2080ti, but as VR technology evolves, who knows what it'll take to drive it? I see GPU clusters in our future...
__________________
Ryzen 5 2600 (4.0GHz), B450M, 16Gb RAM, Vega 56 (undervolt), T16000M, Oculus Rift
DeltaMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2019, 05:29 PM   #7
The Falcon
Member
 
The Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 100
Default

For me it's all a question of how the next generation of cpu gpu will come out, I probably can't build a new pc before August. If for example I had the certainty that in a year we change architecture (gpu / cpu / ram) assuming to have a good vr between 2/3 months (or pimax5 +), I would buy immediately.
I do not know when the new cpu intel or amd will come out but i have the impression that we will have the rtx for 2 years and assuming that vulkan could facilitate amd cards, the radeonvii would be a good choice.

Last edited by The Falcon; 02-14-2019 at 05:32 PM.
The Falcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2019, 06:19 PM   #8
Harlikwin
Member
 
Harlikwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 937
Default

I'd say its more on what happens on ED's end with Vulkan and/or VR optimization. But we have no timetable for it.

Looking at the CPU/GPU market.

Intel is slowly slogging forward performance wise (single thread) the 9X00k isn't really going to be obsolote when they introduce the 10X00k or whatver they are gonna call it in Q4 this year, or probably even the 11th gen proc next year.

Nvida, just dropped the 20x series, so its 2 years out till the next gen, and again, if you look at raw performance, they get like 10-20% better each iteration.

I'm in the same boat as you and I'm getting a 9700k + 2070/80 series and I should be GTG for a while.

VR wise, I'd wait till mid year to see what the Vive cosmos turns out to be. At a guess it may be a 2160x2160 set with a 100degree FOV, so much higher effective PPD than the Pimax, which is mainly what you want for DCS.
__________________
i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).
Harlikwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:45 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.