Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About AceVenturi

  • Rank
  1. I have worse performance and visuals in version 3. I'll try and change some settings but spotting and id'ing is far worse now and my fps has taken a hit by about 10-20fps. Does anyone else notice that the HUD on no longer affects fps or is it just me?
  2. Hi Fenris, Just a question, you suggest Fullscreen off. For me Fullscreen ON gives me about 5fps improvement. I wonder if that's because I have 4k display? i.e. when set to low-res full screen it's using less GPU (1080p) than windowed where windows desktop is at 4K??
  3. Hi guys. Here's something interesting. I updated nvidia drivers the other day and geforce experience must have overrode my nvidia settings. I had terrible frame rates and game was unplayable. I discovered it had set multicore cpu to "off" and pre-rendered games to "1". Worth checking after a driver update.
  4. Managed to exchange the Ryzen so wasn't to bad a financial hit. I figured my results would be same as the others with 7700k, 1070 and 3ghz RAM but will do another test at some stage to see.
  5. Hi there. I had a 1700 at 3.8GHz and 3ghz ran and I had to have graphics on low and aa at 2 for it to be playable. It's not bad but to get full performance you need a high end CPU for vr in il2. I switched to 7700k and even without overclock I have solid 90 on high graphics and aa4. I wouldn't spend anything on ram unless you think you can get really high speed, like 4 GHz which might possibly give you a boost. Who knows how much though.
  6. Just wanted to post to say awesome job devs. Had a few mins for a quick fly around the mountains and coast in my rift and it left me with mouth wide open, smiling, saying wow wow wow. The water is amazing, so much so I accidentally flew my duck into it trying to get closer. I might have taken the nickname too seriously ;p. It's just so beautiful. Well done.
  7. Just a note for those considering ryzen. Despite the low performance of my rig in the benchmark I don't suffer in multiplayer. My fps is normally at 90 unless I'm on the deck and I don't get dropped frames unless HUD is on or there's server lag. So I'll prob stick with this rig as I don't play single player anyway. Might look at coffee lake when it's available or at least wait to see if 7700k prices drop in the lead up.
  8. But even at ss1 my CPU can't do the job Increasing super sampling for me doesn't change fps too much. I am running steam vr ss at 2 which improves the picture dramatically but only seems to hurt my fps at the top end, I.E. When I'd be getting 70 i only get 50. At the low end (45) I guess it's already so slow that it doesn't make a difference? The in game AA has a much bigger impact on frame rate for me. I can't run it at 4 without lots of frame drops. For me the ss has less performance impact per gain in appearance than AA or high vs low graphics setting. The low frame rate (45) isn't actually too much of a problem for me, it's when I get dropped frames and particularly the dropped compositor frames that it gets painful. Almost feels like one of my eyes gets pulled sideways or goes out of focus. The double vision when moving head quickly is a problem too which occurs at low frame rates, I guess as it delivers the left eye frame faster than right?
  9. I think I had the same problem awhile back. Getting into the game took what seemed like a couple of minutes. It was so bad I couldn't alt tab or alt esc out of il2 without pc crashing. I don't know what caused it but reinstalling il2 seemed to fix it. Maybe try that, make sure to backup your settings. I also have variable vr performance when doing an unknown to me sequence of settings changes. A restart should clean up though. The oculus tray tool and devtool caused me all sorts of problems. I use the steamvr settings to control SS and ctrl+numpad 1 to turn off asw.
  10. Thanks Radek. That might explain the problem. However, my thread cpu usage in the main thread is much lower in vr compared with screen version which means there must be something else going on in vr that limits cpu utilisation, perhaps what Samuel mentioned to do with frame rendering? My rig can run max settings at solid 60fps on my 4k monitor but just struggles in vr. Also, other users with slow ram are able to achieve much better performance with high clocked cpus. My ram is at 2933. They only released vr implementation earlier this year so do you think there's maybe potential to see more optimisation? I don't really want to buy a while new rig but will do so if it gets me better vr performance. Tried playing in 2d yesterday and although it's much clearer and performs flawlessly, the experience really can't stack up to vr, even with the vr fuzzy image and poor frame rates. I'm coming round to the idea that perhaps there's something we or devs can do to shift the load in vr back onto the gpu and not have this cpu bottleneck.
  11. Thanks. Have updated and made two new graphs. I tried changing pre-rendered frame settings but just got lots of tearing and lower frame rates. Setting of "1" offered no tearing but also no FPS improvement. The graphs are very similar to the per core graphs but obviously without the extra 'noise' from the other cores. The VR thread does move with the same spikes as the screen version but seems to average about 60% vs 80% so about 20% lower CPU utilisation in VR. I'm no programmer but what you suspect is probably right, low frequency CPUs can't deliver the frames in time leading to overall lower FPS. This explains why the person who got to 5GHz didn't see any improvement over say 4.5GHz as once the frequency is high enough the load probably shifts back to the GPU. Now what would be interesting to see is what CPU speed we need to get max frames possible. I was going to try overclock but someone else with a 1600X at 4GHz wasn't able to get any improvement so I suspect a 'full' frame rate isn't possible on anything lower than say 4.5GHz which puts it out of reach of Ryzen owners. Other VR games run flawlessly but BOS unfortunately does not. Do IL2 Devs look at these threads? It would be good to work with them to see if we can find a way to make BOS work well in VR on lower clocked CPUs.
  12. Looks like Performance monitor in Windows. I did what I thought is the same test using %processor time and got these two results, one with screen test and one in VR. In VR my most used thread only gets to 60% average whereas on screen it goes up to 75% average. Weird but in either case it's not maxing out the CPU. Samuel what counter did you use in Perfmon to get your graph?
  13. Finally got round to Ryzen benchmark. I think something's very odd with my system as my performance should be much higher and my CPU utilisation on the most-used core sits around 40-60% while GPU is at 30-50%. I'm downloading the IL2 game standalone so I can test without Steam version. Chilli, my old I5 4670K benchmarks were totally wrong, I wasn't using FRAPS correctly so you can ignore them. Have Ryzen 1700 @ 3.65GHz, 16GB 2933MHz RAM, GTX 1070 Asus B350 Plus MB Screen results 2017-08-17 10:33:40 - Il-2 Frames: 5460 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 91.000 - Min: 73 - Max: 119 VR 2017-08-17 10:57:58 - Il-2 Frames: 2674 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 44.567 - Min: 41 - Max: 51 Low graphics settings 2017-08-17 11:00:24 - Il-2 Frames: 2840 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 47.333 - Min: 43 - Max: 80 What's odd is that in-game I've seen a massive improvement, often even getting 90fps taxiing and most of the time in the air and drops to 45 are normally only flying close to ground or with lots of AI/Players around. (Low graphics) So I'm stumped really. The experience is much better than with my I5 but benchmark says otherwise. My GPU is not remotely being utilised (40% avg) and CPU is hardly being taxed (50% avg) so why isn't the game pushing my hardware? It's like I've got throttling turned on somehow. Passmark benchmark gives me total score of 4674.9 and CPU of 13883.3 single thread 1727
  14. Thanks. I must have grabbed the wrong record or something. I've run a few more tests. Maybe I'm not doing it right? The other entries seem to have a lot of frames or are they recording from game startup?. I only run FRAPS once the track has loaded and I've turned off HUD and Pause. I stop it as soon as replay finished message comes up. Here's a HIGH, AAx0, HUD off, no SS. Screen res at 800x600 Frames 519 Time (ms) 8562 Min 33 Max 91 Avg 60.617 AVG 60 which seems more reasonable. Here's same test with just screen at 1080p which I presume is the resolution the others are running at? Frames 491 Time (ms) 6922 Min 43 Max 128 Avg 70.933 Screen test seems to have some low frame rates somehow even though when I watched the FPS counter it never dropped below 90 so not sure how FRAPS reads Min FPS as 43! I've run it multiple times and same each time . Should also say that my CPU almost never gets down to 3.4GHz unless it's idle. Normally sits about 3.7 and obviously boosts to 3.8 in game. Can you explain exactly how the test is being performed I don't think I'm doing it right?
  15. I've just got the rift and had trouble initially so found this thread. I've had a brief test using the track and get results as follows. Min Max Avg 51 91 65.382 SS1 Low Gfx, HUD off AAx4 38 91 72.842 SS1 High Gfx, HUD off AAx0 44 91 59.877 SS2.0 Low Gfx, HUD off AAx4 I have I5 4670K not overclocked, GTX1070 and 12GB of DDR3-1600 RAM I've found that anything over low settings has a big impact on performance but offers little to no improvement in quality. In contrast SuperSampling and to a much lesser extent AA vastly improves clarity with less impact on FPS. Even though the AVERAGE framerate may be ok on Normal/High/Ultra I get a significant number of dropped Frames and Compositor dropped frames which for me makes the game unplayable. CPU usage remains constant regardless of settings, about 40-60%. Am getting a Ryzen 1700 build shortly so will post new results once that's setup. I don't expect any improvement as clock speeds will be similar but will be interesting to see if RAM speed (2933MHz) will help.
  • Create New...