Jump to content

haltux

Members
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About haltux

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

444 profile views
  1. You might want to try the "IPD modifier like" feature of c6_lefuneste's 3dmigoto mod.
  2. By the way I think you misinterpret the output of this tool. I can't use it because I am a rift user but from what I quickly read your interpretation is wrong, appolon01 has the right interpretation. The curve does not represent the history of a frame. The X axis does not represent what happens during a frame. It is a distribution of the frame time. When the blue curve is high, say 6% at 11 ms, it means that 6% of the frame took 11 ms. So the more blue you have after the 12 ms vertical the more you GPU bottlenecked. Same thing with CPU.
  3. I am not an expert but I am pretty sure it does not work that way. The CPU has a complete frame time (12 ms) to complete its computation, and then pass its output to the GPU which process it during the next frame, and has a complete frame time as well. They work in parallel, the CPU works on frame t while the gpu works on frame t-1. That involves a 1 frame latency, which is fine. Actually, you can even set more than 1 "pre-rendered frame" provided from the CPU to the GPU in order to smooth the process at the cost of a higher latency. If the GPU was waiting until the CPU has done his job to do his, first that would be a silly waste of ressources, the GPU would spend a lot of time idling, second their would be no clear notion of CPU or GPU bottleneck, because a better GPU would compensate a weaker CPU, which is clearly not the case in IL2.
  4. Sounds to me that you don't reach 40 FPS. Did you actually check that? Backspace key displays the FPS value. This is plain wrong as dburne said. The problem is that there is a threshold effect, under the threshold it's pretty bad, it looks like there is no way the game could run smoothly even on a significantly better machine, but over the threshold it's great. And the threshold is just slightly under the best machines available. I have just boosted the overclocking of my recently acquired i5-9600k from 4.6 to 5 Ghz, and the difference is massive. This is another level of satisfaction when playing in VR. This is a bit upsetting for those who do not have the cash to update their machine, but the good news is that their is little doubt that in a couple of years it will run flawlessly on average machines, even without major breakthrough in CPU performances.
  5. Until recently the prop was making awful artifacts when ASW was on on Oculus Rift. So you had the choice between prop and ASW (and living with artifacts). Now this is solved in the core game engine, so there is no need to remove the prop anymore as far as I know.
  6. Hello, for those who manage to make it run at 60 Hz, how is it? I am still hesitating between Rift S and Reverb, and the 60 Hz sounds to me like a strong argument in favor of Reverb. Dips at 40 Hz with the ghosting effect are still painful, so constant 60 Hz sounds like a good deal, but how does it feel? Is 60 Hz really good enough?
  7. IL2 is mostly single threaded and CPU bounded, so most of your hardware is idling while you play this game. There is no intrinsic reason why large parts of computation could not be offloaded to other cores or/and to the GPU. There is no doubt IL2 could run flawlessly at 90 FPS on modern hardware (and even more obviously on future hardware) if the engine were rewritten from scratch with this goal in mind. But this would be unreasonably time consuming and expensive so it won't happen anytime soon. And really, never? I am kind of pessimistic when it comes to the upcoming progress of technology, but stating that having a given game running smoothly in VR will never happen? Seriously?
  8. 40 FPS is 40 FPS. Double image does only depend on the relative speed of the object, and the screen, that's it. It does not depend on the game. Maybe it is more tolerable in DCS because the contrast is lower, something like that. Basically IL2 has been developed before the VR era and 30 FPS was just considered fine. Once the engine is complete and developed and optimized during years with this target in mind, it is very difficult, or even impossible, to double the performance even at some price in terms of graphic quality. It is too late. Note that most pre-VR era flight simulator have the same issue: DCS and flight simulator in particular. Bear also in mind that il2 is a niche product. A very advanced simulator with a limited number of buyers. Most probably, it is not very profitable. VR is a niche in the niche. You can't expect people to spend thousands of hours working on something for a couple of hundred users that pay just a little bit of cash each, and that would pay anyway even with no-so-good performance because there is no competition. It is not economically viable. With a recent CPU (overclocked i5-9600k, 200$), with a single enemy plane on sight, possibly two, you stay over 80 FPS.
  9. Yes what you describe with your first photo is exactly what everyone is experiencing when the FPS goes under your screen refresh rate (so practically half of it if vsync is activated). That is perfectly expected. Sad but expected. This is not a new problem, I remember having exactly the same issue on my Amiga in the 80s with small fast sprites that looked great at 60 FPS (screen refresh rate) but with an ugly double image at 30 FPS, exactly like today with IL2. This is a well known phenomenon. Unfortunately you don't see one image per 40th of seconds, but one per 80th with two consecutive one being the same. With ATW (so even with ASW off), your oculus does a very good job at smoothing your head movements and adding the right frame to reach 80 FPS. But that does not work with enemy plane movements. With ASW on it should theoretically help but practically it does not work very well in this game. You can still try to see if you like it better with it. This is one of the reason I want to change my CV1. Maintaining 90 FPS is still significantly harder than 80. With the Quest at 72 Hz and the Reverb potentially at 60 Hz it might be even better. The risk is that having half 72 or worst, half 60 when the scene is too busy and it's unplayable. About your performances I am not that surprised. Your GPU is great but it is unfortunately not what matters here. Your CPU is just not powerful enough. I have a I5-9600k overclocked at 4.9 GHz and I maintain constant 90Hz (I have a CV1) only in ideal cases: one opponent, high altitude, low details. Practically I drop often under 90 FPS as well and I experience the same issue as yours, to some extent. You just have to live with it or invest in a greater config, knowing that it will not fully solve your issue. Yes everyone face it, except the ones with alien technology that run this game at 90 FPS full time. And in VR it is very noticeable and pretty annoying, but I guess some people are more annoyed than others. Good for you if you did not even notice it.
  10. Hello, I am trying to make missions for Flying Circus, however I am facing a pretty straightforward issue. Among the plenty of ground units with obscure names (sdkfz251 ???), I have no idea which ones are WW1 and which ones are WW2. I would like at least to know that and preferably to get additional data on which vehicle do what. I found a couple of threads on the topic but that was pre-FC times. Any help? Thanks.
  11. Same thing with the Saitek. I don't have too many issue on the ground because I don't try to make precise movement but small, strong corrections, but in flight using rudder for anything precise, like aiming, is not possible.
  12. Very informative, thanks. What is particularily interesting is "pilots searching for opposing aircraft without some sort of cue to limit their search are unlikely to detect them until the less acute peripheral vision is able to resolve them at about 2 nm." It is something that can be easily checked in real life. From an airliner you can spot other airliners quite far away but once you have "lost" them it is rather difficult to locate them again unless you look exactly at the right place. My feeling is that long range detection when you know where to look is just fine in game. The plane appearing as one pixel is appearing far enough. However, medium range, peripheral view detection (which according to this document should be possible under 2nm), typically locating a plane under you in a glimpse during a dogfight, is harder in game (VR) than in reality. In reality in normal condition you instantly and effortlessly locate a plane at medium range (1 km?) in just a glimpse, even if you don't know it is there. In game, when the background is the ground, you clearly need to scan the background to locate the plane, which requires concentration and takes more time. At least in VR. This is easy to understand and very difficult to solve. In reality the sharpness of the contour of the plane contrasts with the blurred background, and allows stereoscopic vision making the plane looking closer that infinity at moderate distances. In game the lower resolution does not make that possible.
  13. Really? Is that a fact from multiplayer game stats? I only play single player and the Spad is my favorite aircraft. Fast and stable, perfect for zoom and boom attacks. View is terrible but you get used to it. Camels are fun to fly but painfully slow and SE5a are pretty good but but it seems to me that when you have your enemy in your sight they are less efficient than Spads to get it down. Less stable, less firepower, I don't know. Or maybe it is just me, I don't know. Plus historically its seems that Spads were considered by pilots as excellent so I am surprised.
  14. Please state what you mean by that. Devs make performances as good as they can, VR or not. If they could make the sim look better and smoother they would do it, VR or not. "Optimizing for MR" in my opinion might mean two things: - Improving interface to make it more convenient in MR. That might be discussed but it does not seem like this is what you are talking about. - Make it smoother (90 FPS no matter what on a reasonnable machine) at the price of simplified graphics. It is the choice of the only "pure" VR simulator I know, VTOL VR. It does not seems that it is what you are looking for either, as you said you found IL2 "ugly" in VR. So I am confused.
×
×
  • Create New...