Jump to content

=SFG=capt_nasties

Members
  • Content Count

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About =SFG=capt_nasties

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @HunDread I have the MSI MEG X390 ACE and it runs my memory at the 4433 XMP profile no problem, i9900k @ 5.0 as well.
  2. i have not tested IL2, but in other titles the 60HZ does not flicker on a G1, but the low frame rate is very displeasing. there is some ghosting (unreal engine) and tis just "not for me" I have always been in the camp of "low settings, locked at 90 fps" (although in IL2 MP there is no "locked at 90 fps with a 2080)
  3. it will be a while but I will definitely do some benchmarking in VR (against my current 2080) when I get a 3080 ( probably holding out for the 20gb version) with my reverb g1. This is a great thread @chiliwili69 is always coming up with good topics and data to discuss here!
  4. It sure would be nice to have an option to select only 1 eye to view on the screen for VR users. A zoom option on top of this, only visible on the single screen, would also be a huge improvement. As a content creator its hard to capture VR flights because the steam VR mirror is only 45 FPS and its hard to watch VR at low FPS for viewers. IL2 would get such better coverage if the on screen display was as I describe because it would allow content creators to easily use capture cards to record / stream footage to a 2nd PC at 60 FPS. I know its a niche request, but I think more exposure to the VR consumer would be a good thing for IL2.
  5. @Alonzo I will test and report back. this might sound obvious, but I find that my frame rates are much better in CB when there are less than 60 pilots
  6. combat box training server has similar functionality
  7. samsung odyssey is the one, I got a headset from HP (thank god) and will do another video NOT IN THE SUN like a total idiot. LOL
  8. Lots of good discussion here and thanks to the developers for engaging in a difficult topic. My $0.02 is that as long as the spotting is a level playing field for all users then I support any changes. my experience with a high DPI VR head set (hp reverb) is that spotting an tracking contacts is VERY difficult. It always seems that my wing men on monitors are able to better spot and track contacts more effectively than those of us using high DPI VR headsets. The issue of looking backwards in VR is also a real dis advantage, as we literally have to crane our necks around to check six, i think a "snap to 6" button for VR users would level the playing field a bit as monitor users can easily just move their perspective to look backwards with ease.
  9. I have not yet done any data logging on the CPU or GPU usage. but in the scripted campaign I usually use for bench marking I noticed better performance and upped my base line graphic settings from balanced to high and still was holding between 87 and 90 fps on my reverb. I doubt they can take advantage of more cores without fundamental changes to the graphics engine, but I am no graphics pipeline expert. Given its a DX11 title pretty sure single core speed is still king.
  10. Just wanted to check in with the VR crowd here to see if anyone else has noticed improved FPS performance on 4.009 or am I loosing my marbles (don't answer that)
  11. so glad this server is back up such a good way to get people into IL2. thank you
  12. there is a link in the description to the product... more importantly i FRIED my headset with the minimal sun exposure to record this video and take a picture...DO NOT EXPOSE YOUR HEADSET TO SUN EVER. tough way to learn...there is nothing anywhere about sun exposure in the user manual, warranty, ect. I literally read the fine print...probably 3 minutes of sun exposure RUINED this head set...time to test out HP customer service
  13. Hey Fellas, I know many of us here use the reverb, here are 2 tricks I used to make mine much less hot in the summer. VR cover makes a cover that fits perfectly but is not advertised...
  14. has anyone been able to improve the hazy / foggy look. This is driving me absolutely nuts. also, the shimmering of distant contacts in the old build really helped with spotting...there is no way to see them without some sort of aid it all just blends together most of the time. i have 20/20 vision and a reverb. and i hate to sound like a dick, but I built a system to run 2160x2160 at 90 fps and the last thing I want to do is reduce the resolution of my reverb....
  15. interesting. have you tried to run VRSS on top of this? Perhaps might boost up the pixels in the center when taking this approach? My issue is that when I tested the reverb at less than 100% SS I did not have any noticeable performance increase...but perhaps a 2nd test is warranted.
×
×
  • Create New...