Deferred shading forced on in VR mode?

Is deferred shading forced in on VR mode too? I'm having fps problems and wonder how much it stresses a GPU (in VR) and if there is a way to disable it.

There is no way to disable it.

Ok. Then the question is how much performance impact.

I say 20/25% less frames with deferred and also less clarity in visuals!

Then for what possible reason would a game developer force a graphics setting like that to be always on? I don't see the point of 25% less fps.

That's life, I'm afraid. Software keeps on demanding more from hardware. Hence the never ending upgrade path!

Software keeps on demanding more from hardware. Hence the never ending upgrade path!

But most game studios (programmers) allow for a good quality-performance balance on affordable hardware.

Just upgraded to 8700 at 5ghz and 1080ti no issues here with deferred and that’s with the odyssey. So think it’s safe to say got to brute force dcs world currently.

I say 20/25% less frames with deferred and also less clarity in visuals!

What do you mean with less clarity? I think it is easier to see details in VR with deferedshading on. Before I had to set pixel density to 1.5 in order to read the instruments. Now I can read them while having pixel density set to 1.0.

I think the main issue with DS in DCS is night scenes. I simple cannot fly in the dark any more. I thought the idea of DS is it improves lighting but it's worse.

There is no way to disable it.

Simply, that is not true.

Of course u can enable or disable it in the settings. Nothing special about it.

really how?

Is deferred shading forced in on VR mode too? I'm having fps problems and wonder how much it stresses a GPU (in VR) and if there is a way to disable it.

No it's not forced.

U can disable it. Just disable it. It eats much fps. specially on trees. And there u can see the biggest difference in visual beauty.

No it's not forced.

U can disable it. Just disable it. It eats much fps. specially on trees. And there u can see the biggest difference in visual beauty.

That ability went with 2.5.1. From then on its Deferred Shading only

Deferred Shading render locked in the game and can not be turned off. DCS ceased support of old graphic render without Deferred Shading.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3463558&postcount=8

really how?

That ability went with 2.5.1. From then on its Deferred Shading only

 

Deferred Shading render locked in the game and can not be turned off. DCS ceased support of old graphic render without Deferred Shading.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3463558&postcount=8

Ah, ok. I am not in beta

Ah, ok. I am not in beta

Your not in release either!

Then for what possible reason would a game developer force a graphics setting like that to be always on? I don't see the point of 25% less fps.

Too much work needed to support 2 different render paths. Objects would need 2 seperate texture and material files to properly reflect light as the deferred shaders use the physics based rendering.

Ah okay. Interesting background information.

Too much work needed to support 2 different render paths. Objects would need 2 seperate texture and material files to properly reflect light as the deferred shaders use the physics based rendering.

Not to start an argument - just a discussion, I bring the following up just out of interest:

Have ED actually stated this formally, or is the above an assumption from you?

If it's just about two sets of texture and material files, would it not be possible to programatically convert from one set of files to the other? I.e. not so much effort?

With 4XMSAA turned on, I've had a 50% drop in fps. I feel that this change should have been (ahem) deferred until it didn't cause such a detrimental impact.

Ah, ok. I am not in beta

Expect to see a drop of around 30% in fps when you go to >= 2.5.1. :(

IMHO VR users have been very hard done by with this change.

Personally, I'm staying with 2.5.0 on stable for all my current modules. I only use the beta because I bought the F-18, but will not buy anything else from ED that requires >= 2.5.1.

I didn't turn deferred shading off even when it was possible, because quite frankly, it looked terrible.

I think performance has improved markedly since deferred shading was introduced.

Not to start an argument - just a discussion, I bring the following up just out of interest:

 

Have ED actually stated this formally, or is the above an assumption from you?

 

If it's just about two sets of texture and material files, would it not be possible to programatically convert from one set of files to the other? I.e. not so much effort?

 

With 4XMSAA turned on, I've had a 50% drop in fps. I feel that this change should have been (ahem) deferred until it didn't cause such a detrimental impact.

I can't say where I read this, but I remember this being a major reason going forward. The physics-based rendering requires deferred shading and completely different layers for the textures.

found this post:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3487424&postcount=30

Thanks for replying. From that post:

"** Not an Official ED Response **"

This is the thing with these forums: they have a number of "moderators" who sometimes appear to answer officially, but as far as I can tell they are not employed by ED, and do not speak for ED, so I treat their comments as personal opinions, of equal value to any other poster's.

AFAIK, the only official statement from ED regarding this matter, is two short sentences (buried in an update - quoted above). Disappointing, since its detrimental performance impact is considerable. OTOH, when it comes to COWS, no effort spared on communicating that game-changer.

It may not be'official' but it did explain the difference between the old renderer and new PBR and deferred shading. It's unrealistic to expect a developer to support 2 different render paths.