VR FPS (2.5.1.16543.355)

[Hippo]

Hate to be negative on the OP, but from a point of view of trying to say something accurately, it's a worthless effort and here is why.

 

A quite extraordinary post. I'd accuse you of trolling, but you appear to take yourself seriously.

 

Of all the myriad posts on here with gems such as "fps don't matter", "it's ok as long it looks ok to you", "I don't care what the frame rate is, it looks fine to me", etc, etc, you pick on the one post where someone who actually knows what he's talking about has made a considerable effort to take measurements.

 

Which mission was run isn't of critical importance, because the same mission is being tested across different settings, and it's a comparison between settings that the OP is after.

 

OP - thank you for your efforts, you've gone further than any other poster I've seen to back up his findings. FWIW, my very limited testing is in agreement with your conclusions.

 

OP - my apologies if you're a she; but I can't be bothered with all this s(he) nonsense.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Hippo

[Flighter]

.... Of all the myriad posts on here with gems such as "fps don't matter", "it's ok as long it looks ok to you", "I don't care what the frame rate is, it looks fine to me", etc, etc,.....

 

Thank God I see someone else saying this because after a while I think I may be going nuts. It's amazing how people are not after their own interests.

Not in a rude way ofc, but honesty does not have to be rude.

 

Anyway, before Hippo asks, yes, still sad. :)

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Flighter

[gothicane]

good post, bump

[Flighter]

DCS METAR : NOSIG.... SSDD

:(

 

 

[Wolf8312]

Hate to be negative on the OP, but from a point of view of trying to say something accurately, it's a worthless effort and here is why.

 

 

What process are you performing to document your frames? As far as I see you've listed results and analysis but no method by which you came to them. Everyone knows that frames vary wildly depending on more than just graphics settings.

 

-Being on the ground, being in certain locations, where are you?

-Looking in certain directions, I can look up and get another 40 frames?

-what is going on in the mission at the time, including combat?

-what mission, and what is is doing?

 

 

Then we have how you measured them:

 

 

Occulus app or in game counter?

Take over time or point in time?

Averages? If not averages, how calculated? Mean, median or mode?

 

 

Then we have your testing conditions

Installation of mods?

Non default settings and configuration

Nvidia/AMD global or app settings?

Running other software that consumes CPU

 

 

Point in case, I can load the same mission and record completely different frames by doing different things. Without even the mission, who knows how you arrived at your conclusion? Even with the mission and testing criteria, I can simulate frame drops by spawning or putting planes in combat or missiles in flight.

 

 

I don't deny DCS performance is at best hard to get in VR, but the numbers and graphs have little to no value without how you got them.

 

 

Yeah hate to say it but DCS is just too demanding to attempt to play it as if any mission/campaign can be flown. If you want to enjoy VR/DCS its best to just make some missions with the ME and carefully optimize it and avoid anything that will tank FPS. Hopefully there are fixes on the way and vulcan will improve things, but really you just gotta try to enjoy it for what it is, enjoy the flying and set up some limited air and ground engagements with the enemy, removing anything that might tank performance (clouds at the moment for example).

 

It helps to suck too, as I just love flying around blowing stuff up, but I think people who want to play multiplayer in which there are multiple Hornets buzzing around, are going to be sorely dissapointed especially because some modules in DCS are worse optimization wise than others which is a nightmare for VR.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but shouldnt the developers of certain modules optimize them better (eg Viggen bombs) or is it all the responsibility of ED? Not really sure how it works.

 

It is frustrating but VR and DCS are incredibly demanding, and over the past few weeks things have gotten alot better and it really does seem like now the merge is over, things are looking up. WW2 especially...the biggest problem that needs to be adressed IMO is not fps as my fps is perfectly acceptable to me, but the sudden and large fps drops that occur really are not acceptable. To this end damage models, clouds, and weapons/bombs/rockets all need to be improved/fixed.

 

I've been learning the dora and the spit and they really are a joy to fly, it has so much potential, but I am kinda afraid even to try a campaign for fear of poor performance so for now I just keep assets to a minimum.

 

For now just enjoy it for what it is and forget the fps counters. I'm in reprojection all the time but I still find performance very good and smooth within the limitations I set for myself via the ME.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Wolf8312

[Flighter]

....

It is frustrating but VR and DCS are incredibly demanding, and over the past few weeks things have gotten alot better and it really does seem like now the merge is over, things are looking up. WW2 especially...

Hi Wolf !

I understand what you are saying and mostly agree with you. But since 2.5.1 and for the last 5 updates, the fps/experience quality in VR is steadily bad -- no improvement whatsoever.

And the initial point of this thread is to highlight the fact that 2.5.0 was WAY better of an experience.

Take my measurements or just do your own comparison.

 

For now just enjoy it for what it is and forget the fps counters. I'm in reprojection all the time but I still find performance very good and smooth within the limitations I set for myself via the ME.

 

I am not an fps junkie, and I totally ignore the numbers. I use my eyes and if I like what I see, I do not mind.

I wish this was the case with the current DCS implementation...

VR users had something very very good and they have now lost it. And once the release version gets updated and the old rendered dies, I am afraid that we will see many months/years before we get back what we had.

F/A-18 owners (myself included) are already there.

Non VR users, although affected as much by the slowdown of the rendering engine, do not suffer as much for a variety of reasons that have been beaten to death and I will not repeat.

 

Cheers !

[Bogey Jammer]

But since 2.5.1 and for the last 5 updates, the fps/experience quality in VR is steadily bad -- no improvement whatsoever.

 

Don't waste your time, the recent updates are not made for performance improvements. You have to wait for the end (:clown_2:) of the carrier planes development to see ED to steer the workforce on the other core features. Or else you'll be eventually labeled as a troll for complaining about every single patch of the next 40 to come. Just don't overdo it.

I understand your pain, we are on the same boat, but I believe it's better to wait for the completion of 2 generations of GPU before we can enjoy fully that DS folly.

[Wolf8312]

Hi Wolf !

I understand what you are saying and mostly agree with you. But since 2.5.1 and for the last 5 updates, the fps/experience quality in VR is steadily bad -- no improvement whatsoever.

And the initial point of this thread is to highlight the fact that 2.5.0 was WAY better of an experience.

Take my measurements or just do your own comparison.

 

 

 

I am not an fps junkie, and I totally ignore the numbers. I use my eyes and if I like what I see, I do not mind.

I wish this was the case with the current DCS implementation...

VR users had something very very good and they have now lost it. And once the release version gets updated and the old rendered dies, I am afraid that we will see many months/years before we get back what we had.

F/A-18 owners (myself included) are already there.

Non VR users, although affected as much by the slowdown of the rendering engine, do not suffer as much for a variety of reasons that have been beaten to death and I will not repeat.

 

Cheers !

 

 

No I understand were I still on my old rig I'd be bitterly dissapointed too that they forced DS upon us. Hell even now I wish I had the option as DS really means constant gamma and time of day tweaking!

 

 

I can understand peoples anger because people were led to believe that performance would actually be better but instead PC requirements

 

went up and left alot of people unable to play.

[Abburo]

I think we need to acknowledge the complexity of DCS and to look also for upgrading our parts. While things can and will be improved in time by ED we also need to start upgrading our components as well.

 

And also while VR is a nice thing is not yet mass used. VR will need another 2 or 3 generations until can be really used with latest games in the market. If you look on the best rated games for VR you will find somehow a time travel, somewhere to 1995 genres, only slightly better in VR.

[Wolf8312]

You might consider asking the guy who makes VorpX if he can get DCS to run. Although VorpX isnt quite as good as true VR, performance is close to 2D, and the immersion and head tracking would still be there. It's damn shame Vorpx doesent seem to support some of the more famous flight sims, as although I just cant go back to track IR I would certainly find a VorpX experience with head tracking acceptable.

[nessuno0505]

I do not play complex missions online and stay with PD1, so maybe this is why I do not see this heavy drop in fps, nevertheless I play almost only open beta; the graphics in 2.5.0 without DS is awful (and will be abandoned in future upgrades). I have a gtx1070 and, with the above limitations, the game is playable. We'll see the next graphic cards generation, maybe an upgrade should be considered, and just for dcs. If I could set PD = 1.5 keeping my actual fps and settings, that would be enough to me to buy a new VGA. But I can't imagine to play on a monitor. IMHO the only reason for dcs is VR, I have started to play it in VR and have always played such way. If I had to play on a monitor, maybe dcs would not be the game I like.

 

P.S. a lot of native VR titles are too immature or just demos and today I would not recommend VR for its games library. In addition, I do not like to play standing, or moving around, but I prefer to play sit on a chair. But I cannot say my oculus rift has been a bad buy: if you like flight or driving simulations, it is worth every single cent you spend on it. For what PC simulation is concerned it's a game changer, maybe the biggest revolution in PC gaming after 3d graphics.

Edited June 16, 2018 by nessuno0505

[Quadg]

they seem to have done something to reduce the shimmer with running no MSAA in the last few patches.

yes the jaggies are still there but the shimmer in the distance is 90% reduced.

so long lines of lampposts don't freak out as much as they did.

 

the worst is still built up areas but out in the woods there is mostly no shimmer.

 

its probably the blurriness the 2d guys have been complaining about :)

 

and the jaggies really help with spotting infantry. :)

[Bogey Jammer]

I think we need to acknowledge the complexity of DCS and to look also for upgrading our parts. While things can and will be improved in time by ED we also need to start upgrading our components as well.

There is no component available for that yet. ED pushed the engine too far to the future. And the next VR sets with their higher resolution will not stop the progression of the requirements.

 

BTW if you think it's so easy to upgrade our hardware, can you send me 2000€ please ?

 

And also while VR is a nice thing is not yet mass used. VR will need another 2 or 3 generations until can be really used with latest games in the market. If you look on the best rated games for VR you will find somehow a time travel, somewhere to 1995 genres, only slightly better in VR.

 

I noticed that the masses are not really interested by the VR thing. They just don't need it. The trend for simple games are also a repetition of the first wii console's games. The main difference is the cost of hardware that prevent them to be fooled again so easily.

[Abburo]

@Bogey Jammer: I would send you money for upgrades If I would have exceed them :D, but I am also in the situation where I plan my budget carefully. It always depends on every person priorities, but is not fair to stop evolution of something just because of our preferences or capabilities.

Remember early days for Windows coming into market. It was from the beginning looking a bit more far than the current times hardware was offering at that moment.

 

 

ED is doing a great job and I just want them to keep up with innovation, whishing also to evolve beyond planes to other motorized machines.

[VampireNZ]

I think we need to acknowledge the complexity of DCS and to look also for upgrading our parts. While things can and will be improved in time by ED we also need to start upgrading our components as well.

 

So based on my system components listed below - exactly what components do you think I need to 'upgrade'.....

 

Upgrading stuff isn't going to help me one little bit unfortunately. Fingers crossed for 25% improvement in next GPU evolution and Foveated Rendering in the Rift CV2.

[BeastyBaiter]

I'm able to keep a locked 45 fps in DCS SP and MP, but that's pretty sad given I'm running an i7-8700k @4.9 GHz and a GTX 1080 ti at 2 GHz core. Graphics settings are largely irrelevant up to high-ish detail. This is due to DCS's single threaded graphics engine strangling the GPU. Above high-ish detail, the gpu can bottleneck. And don't tell me to upgrade, there is nothing to upgrade to!

[Bogey Jammer]

ED is doing a great job and I just want them to keep up with innovation, whishing also to evolve beyond planes to other motorized machines.

 

Meanwhile there is still years of work to just catch the development lag of the core functions. You'd better to not die of old age if you really expect an autobus simulation within DCS. See you in 40 years, I prefer to stay and enjoy the present.

[VampireNZ]

VampireNZ,

You need to upgrade to the new "Summit or OLCF-4" hardware.

 

If your not willing to upgrade to this latest hardware, you cannot blame ED for your lack of performance. :D

 

:poster_oops::tomato::banned::poster_ban: :bye_2:

 

 

Sweet, that looks awesome! 27,000 Volta GPU's should do the trick lol.

 

 

On another serious note - do you find any benefit to having 64 gigs of RAM? Thinking about getting another 16 at least.

[Schmidtfire]

Strange thing is that DCS 2.0+ used to run pretty smooth, even over downtown Vegas on NTTR. Around the introduction to Deffered Shading, everything changed. Even with DF off there was still a big performance impact.

 

I flew some mp on 104th Phoenix a few days ago (Persian Gulf) and geez... it "sort" of works but it is not a very good experience in VR due to performance issues.

 

My rig is a 4.3Ghz i7, 32GB RAM, 11GB 1080ti STRIX, SSD, Win10

[Thudster]

On my rig, here's how it goes:

 

VR = 45 fps...seemingly locked here. This should be a whole lot better than this on my setup.

Non-VR = 110 to 150fps. All day.

 

Specs in my sig. below.

 

I have a 1080 Ti card coming in a couple of days to see if there's any real difference from the 1070 GTX SLI setup. Yes, there is some activity on the second card when running DCS with the cards in SLI mode. The second card runs 15-20%. I have no idea why, must be some NVIDIA optimization code.

 

Truth be told, I built this rig to run Prepar3D in VR - and it does with great performance. Running DCS on it is a bonus.

[VampireNZ]

On my rig, here's how it goes:

 

VR = 45 fps...seemingly locked here. .

 

That's the problem with VR in DCS, you could be getting 89 FPS but it will lock down to 45 even with ASW off. Which is strange as in IL2 I can have ASW off and the frames shift around from 60-90 with no major effects. Turning off ASW in IL2 also gets rid of the nasty blurring looking through the prop but doesn't make all the scenery judder around etc when looking sideways. No ASW in DCS means terrible blurring of gauges/scenery etc when moving the head - but that is probably due to the overall low FPS in any case. However I was flying around NTTR in 2.5.0 yesterday at 90FPS and everything was fine, only hit 45 on the ground....No DS ftw lol.

 

So yea not sure what is different about DCS but it doesn't react the same - is much worse for VR. Perhaps because IL2 is running in the Steam VR environment?

 

I get awesome FPS in 2D with everything maxed out so been considering getting a 40" monitor on my rig and going back to 2D and TrackIR....then I jump back in an aircraft in VR and there really is no comparison to the immersion. 2D is like watching a movie of flying an aircraft, VR is like being IN the aircraft and flying it...huge difference!

[sze5003]

On my rig, here's how it goes:

 

VR = 45 fps...seemingly locked here. This should be a whole lot better than this on my setup.

Non-VR = 110 to 150fps. All day.

 

Specs in my sig. below.

 

I have a 1080 Ti card coming in a couple of days to see if there's any real difference from the 1070 GTX SLI setup. Yes, there is some activity on the second card when running DCS with the cards in SLI mode. The second card runs 15-20%. I have no idea why, must be some NVIDIA optimization code.

 

Truth be told, I built this rig to run Prepar3D in VR - and it does with great performance. Running DCS on it is a bonus.

It should be a bit better in VR with a 1080ti but nothing major, you still won't be able to run it all on high. Most of my settings are on high though except shadows, traffic, and like one or two others. Granted I use an odyssey and PD of 1.5, it's completely playable for me in single and multiplayer.

[VampireNZ]

...Granted I use an odyssey and PD of 1.5, it's completely playable for me in single and multiplayer.

 

How do you find the Odyssey for res? Have you used any of the other headsets such as HTC or Oculus?

Have been considering swapping from Rift to Odyssey for better resolution, but have heard it is not much of an improvement.

[FragBum]

Sweet, that looks awesome! 27,000 Volta GPU's should do the trick lol.

 

 

On another serious note - do you find any benefit to having 64 gigs of RAM? Thinking about getting another 16 at least.

 

 

I have 64GB of RAM (8*8GB G-Skill 3200), not needed for DCS but I am able to use the x99 and the CPU's dual memory buss allowing faster RAM through put by using all 8 slots and 4 channels so the actual benefit is more to do with having all 8 slots populated and not the 64GB total. (I would expect the same-ish RAM through put with 32GB using 8*4GB modules.

 

There is a lot of argument out there on RAM needed however I would recommend 32GB, not that I have seen DCS use that much and doubly so since the memory management in DCS has been changed, the point I would make is that Windows in general will work better not relying in pagefile usage.

 

BTW I'm not sure I could run 27000 Volta GPS it would cost a fortune in power. :P

[sze5003]

How do you find the Odyssey for res? Have you used any of the other headsets such as HTC or Oculus?

Have been considering swapping from Rift to Odyssey for better resolution, but have heard it is not much of an improvement.

I have the rift too. Now just waiting on Google to release their headset they partnered with LG..who knows when.

 

Visuals at least in my opinion are improved quite a bit, looks much better and I find the colors better too, pops more. Cockpit instruments are way way easier to read. Visually I am very happy with it, software is annoying but not a deal breaker for me. Tracking is fine as long as you have light. The occulus is in the closet now.