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 h
  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 whi
  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
  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
  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 mot
  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
  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
  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 ma
  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
  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)
  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
  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
  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...