Jump to content

SharpeXB

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    3839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

904 Excellent

About SharpeXB

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    TX USA
  • Interests
    Fencing, RoF, DCS, CloD, X-Plane

Recent Profile Visitors

1437 profile views
  1. Again... a large dead zone like that is going to un-center the TrackIR
  2. @ShamrockOneFive Visibility changed regardless of having Alternate Vis on or off. I do notice MP feeling more stuttery than SP which feels very smooth.
  3. VR performance is apparently unpredictable and subjective then.
  4. You’re talking about this https://developer.nvidia.com/vrworks/graphics/singlepassstereo or this https://developer.nvidia.com/vrworks/graphics/multiview AFAIK the engine has to support this and and IL-2 does not. I always read that these flight sim developers (this and DCS) are reluctant to support vendor specific features. That doesn’t mean they are “naive”. Obviously that’s a factor. With VR only being used by 1-2% of PC gamers, putting manpower towards this kind of thing may not be cost effective. It’s been a consideration throughout the whole development of this series whether or not to put resources towards features which are not fully utilized by players or that actually help sell the game.
  5. By most accounts DCS is even harder to run in VR than IL-2. There are already many graphic settings you can choose to do this with already.
  6. There have indeed been improvements in how well this game runs. But those improvements in performance go towards things like allowing improved or larger maps and increasing the numbers of AI aircraft etc. The goal post keeps moving to the limit which is feasible in 2D. You’re imagining the game engine improving and yet holding back it’s potential so VR can catch up with 2D. That’s really not realistic. You keep citing War Thunder as performing so well and yet complaining about its laser gun planes. It performs well because it’s just not doing as much as IL-2 is. A sim with the fidelity that IL-2 has is by its very nature going to be difficult to run in VR.
  7. Fair enough. My point is that there legitimate reasons why this sim is more challenging than War Thunder to run in VR. And it’s not because the developers lack expertise or that the game engine is flawed.
  8. The cpu draws objects. The GPU renders them. Flight sims like this have a very large number of objects compared to other games.
  9. 2D performance has little to do with running well in VR. You do have a good CPU but even the strongest available today will still need to run the game constantly in ASW which causes all those artifacts. Realize that VR in 3D means drawing every scene twice and that load is on your CPU in addition to everything else this sim asks from it. And that’s already substantial. What you’re enjoying about the realistic flight models etc compared to War Thunder is a direct result of this CPU usage.
  10. The i5 8400 is actually a really decent CPU. Almost as good in single thread performance as the i7 4790K you and I are running.
  11. It’s not single threaded, it’s just very demanding on the single core performance of your CPU. Again this isn’t a flaw in the game, it’s because the game is very sophisticated for example it’s running the advanced flight model on every AI aircraft etc. Its always going to me more demanding to run a game in 3D rather than 2D. So VR will always struggle for performance as those performance limits are intended for 2D
  12. Higher fidelity sims like this will probably never perform well in VR. They are intended to be complex and need all the system resources to create flight and damage modeling, AI etc. making them run well in VR would mean compromising the very thing that attracts players to this genre. The fidelity and realism. Laser cannon planes will run well in VR simply because there isn’t as much going on there. It’s not a lack or expertise on the part of the Devs or needing a better engine. VR just isn’t up to handling a sim like this. There is no “tuning” an engine to make it do everything. But players want everything. Specifically 3D demands that every scene be drawn twice and that puts the load on the CPU which is already taxed by flight models and large numbers of objects and draw distances. And CPUs aren’t getting much faster any time soon. 30 FPS was really never considered “fine” in gaming. Maybe the minimum tolerable rate but not ideal. The game was not designed for 30 fps. lower frame rates are more tolerable in 2D and it’s again a reason sims like this aren’t suited to VR. Even a strong PC would have trouble getting a constant 90fps in 2D in this game.
  13. Can’t get the link to work Yeah, us Yanks don’t like anyone telling us what to do so such things are really unlikely here. 🚘 🚘🚘🇺🇸 plus gas costs less than water...
  14. The PlayStation Move (see a pattern here?) “In October 2010, the PlayStation Move had shipped around 1.5 million units in Europe and 1 million units in North America during its first month of release,figures that Sony felt were selling "extremely well" at the time. 😉 On 30 November 2010, it was announced that 4.1 million units had been shipped worldwide in the first two months since its release. By June 2011, at E3 2011, Sony announced that the PlayStation Move had sold 8.8 million units. By November 2012, this figure had grown to 15 million. In March 2012 Fergal Gara of Sony UK spoke to Official PlayStation Magazine UK to acknowledge that, the device had not lived up to their expectations, 🙁 in either their target audience or the software support that had been provided for it.”
×
×
  • Create New...