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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

I prefer to wait, I have news that the next nvidia will come out soon with a big increase in performance.

Wait for the next generation , and you'll wait forever-that's just how tech is-just sayin .

I have news that the next nvidia will come out soon with a big increase in performance.

are you thinking of the new 2075 they mentioned?

Wait for the next generation , and you'll wait forever-that's just how tech is-just sayin .

Believe me or not but I know someone who has a source working on these chips and from what he says it is likely that the new gpu will come out maybe this year 2019 (i know it's incredible). According to what he says the card will have very high tpd 95° and will make about 15-20% more than two 2080ti in nvlink. I know it's incredible but that's what I know.

Believe me or not but I know someone who has a source working on these chips and from what he says it is likely that the new gpu will come out maybe this year 2019 (i know it's incredible). According to what he says the card will have very high tpd 95° and will make about 15-20% more than two 2080ti in nvlink. I know it's incredible but that's what I know.

That's a bold statement with not much to back it up. Historically, for the last decade its been 10-20% improvements every 2 years. Now you are saying in 1 year they are gonna more than double performance and obsolete the last 2 generations of their cards overnight? You'll pardon me if I take that with a small block of salt...

The only reason to push that is to push high end VR, which there isn't really a big market for.

so... the 2075VR ?

That's a bold statement with not much to back it up. Historically, for the last decade its been 10-20% improvements every 2 years. Now you are saying in 1 year they are gonna more than double performance and obsolete the last 2 generations of their cards overnight? You'll pardon me if I take that with a small block of salt...

 

The only reason to push that is to push high end VR, which there isn't really a big market for.

I know it's unbelievable but this is what a guy says about one of his sources working in the silicon valley. This guy is a reasonable guy, he does not say nonsensical things, however it seems absurd even to me and I think like you, it seems impossible but I'm curious to see what he will say if what he said does not happen. This man also has a YouTube channel but he does't speak English.

so... the 2075VR ?

I've never heard of a 2075VR

I'm going to look

I know it's unbelievable but this is what a guy says about one of his sources working in the silicon valley. This guy is a reasonable guy, he does not say nonsensical things, however it seems absurd even to me and I think like you, it seems impossible but I'm curious to see what he will say if what he said does not happen. This man also has a YouTube channel but he does't speak English.

There is a difference between when they develop it in R&D and when marketing releases it to the market. They first want people to buy this generation. A good example of this was recent statements about 5G, Trump says he wants 6G. I thought 6G??? I looked it up and it is already being developed but they want us to first buy 5G phones and devices.

before we can buy 5G we need to allow Huawei to finish developing it.

before we can buy 5G we need to allow Huawei to finish developing it.

It has been or is being developed, I understand the concerns about Huawei. I can't judge of it is a way of keeping the competition out in favor of US-based developers. But remember the news stories last summer about specific hardware components disguised as innocent parts on server boards developed in China, it allows them to do things remotely https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies. I think we all know what China is doing. Their current goal (stated) is t stop stealing technology by 2025 :megalol:

I've never heard of a 2075VR

I'm going to look

2075 is workstation card.

2075 is workstation card.

However, double the performance should refer to the RTX technologies such as ray tracing etc .. not to the power of the cuda but I hope anyway will soon be released the new 3080.

Historically, for the last decade its been 10-20% improvements every 2 years.

What makes you think it's only 10 to 20%?

The performance jump from a 1080 Ti to a 2080 Ti is more like 20 to 30% and people were complaining that this jump is far too small for the price increase.

The gain from a 980 Ti to a 1080 Ti was well over 50%.

However, double the performance should refer to the RTX technologies such as ray tracing etc .. not to the power of the cuda but I hope anyway will soon be released the new 3080.

Is that an AMD?

If yes that is utterly ridiculous naming :lol:

Is that an AMD?

If yes that is utterly ridiculous naming :lol:

obviously not amd

What makes you think it's only 10 to 20%?

 

The performance jump from a 1080 Ti to a 2080 Ti is more like 20 to 30% and people were complaining that this jump is far too small for the price increase.

 

The gain from a 980 Ti to a 1080 Ti was well over 50%.

Just overgeneralizing on benchmarks across all cards. And yes the 980ti to 1080ti was a big jump. Overall its probably more like 20-30%.