Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About IdahoBookworm

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I thought I'd bring some closure to this thread. I upgraded from 2666mhz RAM to 3600 mhz RAM and that seems to have brought me to performance parity with Alonzo and others who talk about their VR experience on this forum. I no longer get ghosting and smearing with every dogfight. I still have jutters and hitches, but that seems to be normal and it doesn't ruin the experience. It's strange that Alzono still got measurably better performance than me when he downclocked his ram to match mine at 2666. But the RAM upgrade is the only thing I've changed since we ran those tests, so it has to be it. Maybe I got a bad set of the 2666, or, more likely, Alonzo's slightly better processor made the difference. Anyway, that final upgrade of getting 3600 mhz RAM seems to have pushed me over the top at last, after more than a year of frustration and far too much money spent. So if anyone is looking for what to upgrade to try to get better VR performance, don't ignore the RAM!
  2. Hey Fenris, thanks for the suggestion. I just got this motherboard. I was using a B360 board and getting poor performance, so I upgraded to a Z390 so I could overclock the 9600k. Performance did improve, but as you can see, it's still fairly bad. With the new mobo I did a complete reinstall of Windows. I also moved IL-2 to a different (SATA) SSD. I've tried running it off the C drive (M.2 NVMe) before with no improvement there. Since I started trying to get into IL-2, I have upgraded everything except the hard drives (and actually, one of them is new, I just forget which) and the RAM. The only other thing that's the same is a single fan I moved out of my old case.
  3. @Jason_Williams, I apologize if anything I said seemed like a personal attack on you or your willingness to address VR. My original post was an attempt to ask, respectfully, if CPU optimizations could be looked into for VR, because I am not the only person trying and failing to get a good experience there. (Most who fail don't stick around, which may be why you don't hear from them a much. I've spoken to several who fly in War Thunder because, "Yeah, I just can't run IL-2.") I wasn't trying to attack. I was trying to request support. If support is impossible, if nothing can be done about it, a "Sorry, we understand but can't do anything right now" would have been fine. But I felt like I was made an enemy for merely raising the suggestion, especially after Alonzo's polite "yeah, VR hits the CPU hard" post was deleted. The reason I care about this is because I love IL-2. I pre-ordered Bodenplatte more than a year before I knew I'd be able to run it, in part because I wanted to support the sim. I recently wrote a long screed to my War Thunder squadron mates in an attempt to get them to try IL-2, despite how difficult it is for me to run it, because the sim experience is just so good, especially in Alonzo's Combat Box server. It addresses all our complaints about the gamey-ness of War Thunder, and the P-51 flight model in particular is just plain fun. I'm excited about the upcoming update because of what you have said about better division of work between CPU and GPU, which seems ideal for my rig. I applaud you for all the hard work you and the other devs are doing and have done to give us the best WWII flight sim on the market, and I look forward to enjoying the sim more in the future.
  4. @kalbuth My squadmates agree that IL-2 is heavily CPU-bound in VR and could benefit from any improvements in this area. This understanding was gleaned from testing in the community: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/56485-benchmark-for-cpuram-performance-remagen-4002-to-4004/. However, my squadmate's polite comment to this effect was deleted here. I expect this comment will be as well, while yours, agreeing with the status quo but equally "off topic," will be allowed to stand. Perhaps what gets people's hackles up is the mention of a "competing" sim. God forbid we should say a "competitor" performs better. But, as you say, it is likely rig dependent. My perception is that DCS appears to be slightly less CPU bound, but hits GPUs a little harder. IL-2 is a bit easier on the GPU and a bit harder on the CPU. Each sim is hard to run in VR and has a bottleneck, but where the bottleneck sits is different. I was gifted a great GPU, which eases DCS considerably for me, but I can't overclock to 4.8 ghz or higher, which seems to be the CPU bottleneck in IL-2. Hopefully this coming patch will ease that bottleneck and allow myself and others who can't break that ghz barrier to enjoy VR in IL-2, even if VR-specific optimization are not a dev priority because they "didn't invent the technology." 🙄
  5. This is great news! Anything that can take the load off the CPU in VR is very welcome. Jason, could I ask, respectfully, if your team could please consider taking a hard look at VR performance as you update the engine? I upgraded two days ago to a 9600K to pair with my 2080 Super, but my VR performance is still terrible. On Rhineland in particular my performance tanks in almost any dogfight, to the point of being more frustrating than fun, no matter how I adjust the settings. I'm told if I can overclock to 4.8 Ghz or above I should have better performance, but I will need a new motherboard before I can overclock, and I'll probably need faster RAM as well. Unfortunately, I've spent all I can afford to reach where I am currently; I have no idea when I'll be able to justify spending more, especially right now. (My PC started life as a budget build before I was gifted with the 2080S.) My rig can run anything and everything very well — except IL-2 in VR. Even DCS VR runs great. I took a cruise down the notoriously hard-to-run Vegas strip yesterday and it ran smoothly. Only IL-2 defeats me. If anything more can be done to take more of the load off the CPU in VR, I and many others would be incredibly appreciative. If bigger engine changes can't be made, even something smaller like native Oculus support would be a big help for many of us (the Rift S is the most-owned VR headset currently according to new Steam surveys). Pretty please? I think better VR performance would potentially draw more customers to you, as well. I know people who fly War Thunder in VR because they can't run IL-2. Personally, I am excited for Normandy but I won't be able to preorder or purchase it for the foreseeable future because, firstly, any spending money I get I need to save to try to upgrade my rig yet again, and, secondly, I know I won't be able to enjoy it until my performance is better. Better VR performance will potentially open IL-2 up to other flight simmers who have made the jump to VR and can't give it up, but who don't quite have the power to run IL-2 in VR successfully.
  6. Okay, thanks. I'll just ignore him, then. With your help, Alonzo, I found settings that make even Combat Box look and perform tolerably in basic flight. Adding 4X antialiasing on top of 1.2 supersampling didn't phase my GPU a bit, and it helps a lot with the double-vision in normal flight. Berloga runs great and fights there are a ton of fun, but Combat Box still defeats me when the actual combat starts. Jerky, smeary, and impossible to see what's going on. This morning I set myself up above some bombers and then when I dropped closer I couldn't see them because they doubled and so did the landscape, making everything look like an impressionist painting. I couldn't even control my aircraft well because the jerking was making me overcorrect all the time. I might try one more time when I can actually fly with squad mates, though I'm not sure how helpful I would be to the team. Sim mode in War Thunder is mostly like this. It's actually pretty great in many areas. Reasonable flight models for most aircraft (though some are very bad), excellent time-to-combat (great for me, since I usually only have an hour to play every day), and the strategy of spotting and positioning works great. It's something in between the constant chaos of Berloga and the more measured and realistic strategy of Combat Box. And it is supposed to be joystick only. The problem with War Thunder is that Gaijin pays a lot more attention to "realistic" and arcade players than sim, and there are loopholes that "realistic" pilots use to mine Gaijin's in-game currency in sim mode. Specifically, the bombers in sim mode have guns that are mouse-controlled and horizon-stabilized, meaning it doesn't matter what the bomber is doing, the gun sights stay where they are pointing them — even in a flat spin after you blow their wing off. So "realistic" players spawn bombers in Sim mode and make trucking runs, dropping bombs to earn in-game currency, while swatting away the poor joystick-using simmers who dare try to intercept them. Often there are more bomber pilots than fighter pilots in a room. Also, though the flight models are mostly reasonable, you can upgrade your pilot until they don't seem to feel G-forces even at 12G, so realism goes out the window there. I enjoy War Thunder, and I fly with a great squad there led by a couple real pilots including a former F-15E WSO, but I was hoping when I had the time to also be able to fly with the Red Devils in a more detailed and strategic arena that's less likely to make me tear my beard out because video game mechanics are contaminating my sim. I wish the devs had the manpower to make more VR-specific optimizations. I really do think the CPU usage in VR could be dramatically reduced.
  7. No, I'm imagining the devs making certain features that are not essential to gameplay ("bells and whistles") toggle-able for those who would happily trade them for better performance, as well as doing other optimizations such as making use of VR-specific techniques such as instanced stereo rendering (which reduces CPU use). You keep bringing up the flight model, but DCS is just as complex and runs noticeably better on my rig. I really don't think it's a choice between "have a high fidelity sim" and "have good performance in VR." Like I said: false dichotomy. There is, however, a definite correlation between engine optimization and the manpower to accomplish it. It sounds like that is the limiting factor here.
  8. So . . . nothing to do with the flight model, then? And I'll just point out that War Thunder renders an awful lot of objects, too . . . All engines need to be tuned and optimized. This is why pre-release games often run much worse than the final project: because the developers ultimately went in, identified the stuff impacting the framerate most, and made cost-cutting measures and tradeoffs to hit target framerates in common use situations on the lowest hardware they want to support. I can't imagine this would be impossible in IL-2. I understand if the developers don't have the manpower. But I don't think this engine is optimized for VR, and I do think it theoretically could be, if the devs had the resources to do so. I am very glad to hear this! I'm guessing you have a monster rig, but still, at least I know it's possible, if you throw enough power at it.
  9. Drawing a scene is primarily a 3D, GPU-bound requirement, no? At least, it is so for most engines. After all, the engine doesn't have to calculate the flight model twice, just because there are two viewports. So saying "you either get accurate flight models or good VR performance, but not both" seems like a false dichotomy to me. I mean, I'm sure there are CPU-bound elements that get impacted by VR, but the flight model's not one of them. If it is . . . well, that would be a serious problem at the engine level, having the game calculate all the flight physics twice, needlessly. But hey, maybe that explains my wing blobs: two competing instances of the flight model running at the same time, and the game unsure which to go with at any given moment! lol
  10. It is! That's why I want to fly here. I had some great dogfights in Berloga last night after leaving War Thunder in frustration at being mouse-killed twice by super-paper-bombers, even with all the jitter (but Berloga runs better than any other map I've tried). I love IL-2's flight model and pilot physiology model. But I can't give up VR, and VR in IL-2 currently makes me sick in most situations. Nonetheless I am going to try jumping into Combat Box today, to see if I can tolerate it. No, trust me, 40 FPS with no ASW looks better in DCS on my machine (haven't tried with ASW yet), and 60 FPS loooks waaaay better. Downright playable. So this issue is either unique to IL-2, or to my machine. I really hope the latter. Does anyone else get the wing-blob effect shown in the screenshots above? Because I can see that in-game, with my eyes, and I think that's what makes IL-2 look so much worse for me than DCS. And wow, when I turn on ASW everything looks SO bad. It's like flying with double vision. Everything, from the landscape to the aircraft, looks like it is overlaid by another version of itself, at all times unless I hold my head perfectly still and don't look down. I'm really hoping it's something to do with my machine, and not what everyone suffers. I wish I had another rig to try it on . . . Yeah . . . coming from WT's crystal-clear multi-aircraft battles, that's not much consolation. Some of my favorite fights have been sudden, unexpected furballs with my squadron mates, running egress strategies and surviving while landing kills through excellent teamwork in crowded airspace. Maybe if all I cared about was being a lone wolf bouncing lone aircraft . . . Thanks for your info and graphs. This does look like I'm limited by my 8400. Wish I could afford an upgrade. Also wish I were confident it would make the experience substantially better. I keep hearing from people with far better CPUs whose advise boils down to "just tolerate the bad performance" (see above). I hear this all the time, but for flight sims, it's becoming more than that, and arguably already is. Flight simmers are a dedicated bunch of hobbyists, with many spending thousands on peripherals or simpits. How many people here have a Warthog? You can get a good VR headset for cheaper than that already. And VR tends to be a conversion experience, once you experience it. I know several fellow simmers who tried it on a whim and now won't fly without it. Also, look what happened when Microsoft said they weren't really thinking about VR for the new Flight Simulator. The community made enough of an uproar that they changed plans. I have no idea how they'll make such an advanced engine work well in VR, but they have stated they are dedicated to doing it. I've done this and see no difference. This makes me a tiny bit hopeful that my experience is unique to my machine and can be improved? The fact that my rig can get very high FPS in 2D 1080p suggests to me that my CPU is running those calculations acceptably, but something happens on the way to translating the graphics into VR. That suggests engine issues, not "this sim is just too complex to calculate fast." And as others have noted in other threads, there are VR-specific optimization technologies that could be implemented to speed things up. But I did read in another thread that Jason has only a single graphics engine programmer, so . . . I can't expert miracles, I guess. I love IL-2, what little of it I have experienced. I don't want anyone to think I'm just moaning because I'm bitter. But I can't give up VR, and right now I have a hard time enjoying flying IL-2 in VR, and from what I see, no one at all can really run it well, i.e. a stable native framerate all the time. I'm just melancholy about this. Someone mentioned competition above. I thought I had no interest in DCS for WWII stuff, but . . . they mentioned in their update today that they are still plugging away at adding support for Vulkan, which they expect will lead to noticeable performance improvements. And they announced a brand new WWII Channel map in development. I quote: "In order to improve game performance, particularly in VR and take advantage of today’s hardware, we have been working on the integration of the Vulkan API into DCS World over the past year. This is an important undertaking, but we believe it will be well worth the end-results." Don't get me wrong: I love what IL-2 offers, and I supported the game by preordering Bodenplatte before I had a rig that I even thought could run it. But if I were the devs, I would make mature VR support a priority for the not-too-distant future.
  11. Honestly, though, IL-2's performance at a dropped framerate is noticeably worse than DCS's. DCS gets some jitter when it drops into the 60s, but it doesn't smear like IL-2 does at the same framerate. It'll give me noticeable double images in the 40s, but it still looks better, like the doubled images aren't as offset, or like they persist for a shorter time, or something. It's hard to describe, but in DCS the lower FPS is tolerable. It's just not tolerable for me in IL-2. To get into a multi-aircraft dogfight in multiplayer only to find myself going, "Wait, which of these jerking smears is the bandit?" is just no fun. I have to say, too, to everyone who is tolerating it: can't we expect better? Is VR just a low priority for the devs, or do they not have the expertise or staffing to tune their engine to better support it? Because brute force isn't the answer, not when no one can keep a steady native FPS even with the best graphics cards and processors out there for consumers. It sounds like I could spend $500 on a new CPU to complement my $700 GPU and still have a poor experience. I don't mind turning off all the bells and whistles if I can just get a good clear image at a native framerate, but even turning it all down doesn't give me that. At the moment, I'd be embarrassed to list VR as a feature of this engine. It's more like an experimental alpha-state option: turn it on if you don't mind a very sub-par performance, so you can dream about what it could be like once it's done. "Here's a sneak peek at the future." The future that other engines are already accomplishing. At the very least, couldn't we get native Oculus support? Pretty please? With a cherry on top? In the meantime, it's back to WT for me, with its horizon-stabilized laser cannon-toting zombers and 12G premium paper planes . . .
  12. I just upgraded my GPU and I’m still having a very bad experience in IL-2 in VR. I’ve looked over all the threads about VR performance I could find, and implemented what I could, but I still cannot hold a stable 80 FPS in the Rift S, no matter what settings I apply. Low settings with no supersampling or antialiasing, and balanced settings 1.3 OTT supersampling, yield similarly unstable results. I get a 76-80 when looking at the sky. In the merge with another aircraft my FPS drops to the 60s. With multiple aircraft it drops to the 40s. Lower graphics and no SS run up to ten FPS better, but the dips in framerate go just as deep. My hardware: Intel Core i5 8400 (no overclocking possible) RTX 2080 Super (mildly overclocked) 16 GB DDR4-2666 RAM 256 GB M2 PCIe NVMe, used as OS drive and IL-2 drive Rift S Software I run with IL-2: OpenComposite (I suppose it’s pointless to ask the devs to support the Rift natively . . . sigh. But OpenComposite gives a huge FPS boost over SteamVR, at least) Oculus Tray Tool: ASW off, Oculus Home suppressed 3DMigoto VR mod In-game settings: HUD off Prop disc turned off in 3DMigoto I get that it’s probably my processor holding me back. I also get that there appears to be no one on the face of the earth who can run IL-2 at a locked 80 FPS in VR, given that there are people in this forum with 2080 TIs and 9700Ks who can’t hold it. (Note to devs: this means your engine needs work, NOT that there aren’t powerful enough rigs out there. Just FYI.) These are things I can deal with. What I can’t deal with is what happens when my FPS drops (and even when it doesn’t, to a lesser extent): the world around me feels unstable, and aircraft double up, so they no longer feel solid but appear elongated and ghostly, as if two aircraft were set to 50% opacity and overlaid on top of each other, with a slight offset in the direction of travel. It looks kind of like this representation I made in Photoshop: This plane is identifiable as a 109 in a freeze frame, but it’s much harder to ID when it’s smearing past the canopy at high (if jerky) speed. It makes the game no fun to play, because the close-in knife fight is what I live for, and I want to fight planes, not smears of Vaseline. The motion is also stuttery and jerky, which translates to motion sickness pretty quickly. I’m used to this kind of look when using ASW in other games, but this is with ASW off. Its more evident the lower the FPS drops, but even at 79-80 FPS there is a shimmer to the aircraft, and I can see the wings flickering. It looks like they’re not fully there. I fired up Oculus Mirror and OBS (I don’t run these in IL-2 normally because they greatly impact framerate) to try to record this. This is what I got. It’s a recording of what one eye sees over four frames. Yuck, right? I always fly with ASW forced off in the Oculus Tray Tool. With it on, I get an UNstable 40 FPS (still with dips and stutters) and the smearing is all the time and everywhere, even on the instrument panel when turning my head. It looks terrible. I fly a lot of War Thunder, which ran great even on my previous GPU, the lowly 1060 6 GB. In War Thunder the FPS rarely dips below 80. Aircraft are solid, never doubling or smearing. And even when I pumped up the supersampling beyond what my previous card could do, and got dips into the 40s and 50s, I didn’t get the kind of smeary look that IL-2 gives me most of the time. Aircraft felt more solid in War Thunder even with a degraded framerate. Ditto DCS. I never expected to be able to run DCS tolerably even with this new GPU, but last night I fired it up as a comparison. I set it to VR graphics and tried fights over Nevada in the F-15 and Normandy in the P-51. I forgot that I’d left 1.2 supersampling on, and it still ran noticeably better than IL-2. Best of all, even when the framerate dropped (over Normandy and especially over Vegas) aircraft appeared stable and solid, not smeary. The motion degraded, but the image did not. So my question is: is this smearing normal to IL-2, or is it just something afflicting me? Is it because IL-2 doesn't support the Rift natively, unlike WT and DCS? I was hoping to be able to fly in IL-2 with this new GPU. I love IL-2’s feeling of flight and its pilot physiology model, which negates the obnoxious continuous 12G maneuvering that you sometimes see in War Thunder. But if it always runs like this, I just can’t do it. I’m grateful for any ideas or suggestions.
  13. P-38!!! I just wish my 1060 could handle IL-2 better in VR. Maybe if ASW 2.0 is implemented someday . . . ? For now, I can only drool.
  14. I've been waiting for Bodenplatte to try IL-2. So, I don't own any of the other sets or maps. If I pre-order Bodenplatte now to get these planes, will I be able to do anything with them? Or will I have to buy Stalingrad, Moscow, or Kuban as well to get a map to fly them from?
  • Create New...