Oculus support looking iffy

[SOSUS]

Rendering twice 960x1080 is much more demanding than once 1920x1080. Geometry has to be recomputed for each eye. 

 

So even if resolution stays at 1080p (which we don't know), reaching 60fps (not talking about 90fps) on existing games with existing engine will either require to drastically reduce the level of details, or to completely rethink the engine.

Do you have any links showing how much more demanding it is? I mean real fps numbers, like this:

http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/22sm56/whats_the_real_overhead_on_stereo_rendering/cgpz1wj

13-15% doesn't look "much more demanding" to me.

[haltux]

Do you have any links showing how much more demanding it is? I mean real fps numbers, like this:

http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/22sm56/whats_the_real_overhead_on_stereo_rendering/cgpz1wj

13-15% doesn't look "much more demanding" to me.

 

Here are two videos of Elite Dangerous:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scAYi2_OxJU#t=71

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3yeCY2bf7M#t=261

 

Same machine, same settings, same scene. One runs at 86 fps (without OR), the other at 42 fps (with OR). So that's approximately twice slower.

 

I am sure it strongly depends on the engine and how it has specifically been optimized for OR. Two interesting information are provided in your link (and the associated upper level thread): 

- Large part of the overhead comes from the post-processing distrotion neede for OR, which seems to require (for optimal visual quality), an original internal rendreing with a higher resolution

- Only part of the geometry computation has to be done twice, part of it is shared between the two eyes. I am no expert in that matter, but from the provided explanation, I highly suspect that this computation sharing is not provided for free, and most likely depend on specific OR optimisation and the use of recent version of directX. 

[SOSUS]

Here are two videos of Elite Dangerous:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scAYi2_OxJU#t=71

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3yeCY2bf7M#t=261

 

Same machine, same settings, same scene. One runs at 86 fps (without OR), the other at 42 fps (with OR). So that's approximately twice slower.

 

I am sure it strongly depends on the engine and how it has specifically been optimized for OR. Two interesting information are provided in your link (and the associated upper level thread): 

- Large part of the overhead comes from the post-processing distrotion neede for OR, which seems to require (for optimal visual quality), an original internal rendreing with a higher resolution

- Only part of the geometry computation has to be done twice, part of it is shared between the two eyes. I am no expert in that matter, but from the provided explanation, I highly suspect that this computation sharing is not provided for free, and most likely depend on specific OR optimisation and the use of recent version of dir

So worst case scenario, half the performance. Still, it's nice to know it doesn't have to be that bad, that there's no "hard limit" that says it has to perform noticably worse just from the nature of it

[SharpeXB]

Just a note, Oculus does officially endorse products that stick to the best practices guide, and will provide consulting if a title is attempting to reach those targets.

 

The game needs to run at 1920*1080 in 3D, not 8k (seriously?). Technically each render only has to be 948*1080, though rendering at higher resolutions is far nicer on the eyes. There is a lot of misinformation on this thread as you say. It's not some unacheivable goal to have this running on the Rift. Yes, even with a custom engine.

 

Currently looking into how depth buffer information is saved during AA, if the devs do change the way the ap handles loading screens then I'll be ready to hook in my attempt at support and apply non-geometry (single render) 3D.

Really 1080x1920 is barely sufficient for flight sims on a desktop monitor and only bacuse the zoom view is employed. For a VR device to really replace your monitor and be fully viable for something like a flight sim where you need to read cockpit instruments and ID other aircraft at long distance, yes higher resolution would be required. The zoom view can actually be used with OR but I imagine that would be sickness inducing if done as fast and often as its used in 2D. When you see how many systems can barely handle DCS or BoS now then imagine those having to run 2x the image at 4K and a very high frame rate. It's not quite there yet.

[haltux]

Really 1080x1920 is barely sufficient for flight sims on a desktop monitor and only bacuse the zoom view is employed. For a VR device to really replace your monitor and be fully viable for something like a flight sim where you need to read cockpit instruments and ID other aircraft at long distance, yes higher resolution would be required. The zoom view can actually be used with OR but I imagine that would be sickness inducing if done as fast and often as its used in 2D. When you see how many systems can barely handle DCS or BoS now then imagine those having to run 2x the image at 4K and a very high frame rate. It's not quite there yet.

 

Instruments are perfectly readable with zoom maxed out in BoS, where the FOV is at least as wide as what you would expect from a VR headset. Plus, and that is the most important argument, barel distortion makes the actual definition much better in the center of the screen than what it would be with the same FOV and the same resolution on a standard screen.

 

So 1080p might look not perfect because considering the "apparent size" of the screen you can see pixels, but I am pretty sure it will be just as good as 1080p on a standard screen with default zoom to read instruments or identify aircrafts.

[JG27_Chivas]

All the major hardware/software companies will be developing ways to successfully enable VR.  For example Nvidia will be presenting some new hardware/software technics at GDC.

 

VR Direct: How NVIDIA Technology Is Improving the VR Experience (Presented by NVIDIA)

Nathan Reed  |  Developer Technology Engineer, NVIDIA

Location:  Room 3001, West Hall

Date:  Wednesday, March 4

Time:  2:00pm - 3:00pm

 

Virtual reality is the next frontier of gaming, and NVIDIA is leading the way by introducing VR Direct, a set of hardware and software technologies designed to cut down graphics latency and accelerate stereo rendering performance. In this talk, we'll show how developers can use NVIDIA GPUs and VR Direct to improve the gaming experience on the Oculus Rift and other VR headsets.

Edited February 1, 2015 by JG27_Chivas

[SharpeXB]

Instruments are perfectly readable with zoom maxed out in BoS, where the FOV is at least as wide as what you would expect from a VR headset. Plus, and that is the most important argument, barel distortion makes the actual definition much better in the center of the screen than what it would be with the same FOV and the same resolution on a standard screen.

 

So 1080p might look not perfect because considering the "apparent size" of the screen you can see pixels, but I am pretty sure it will be just as good as 1080p on a standard screen with default zoom to read instruments or identify aircrafts.

With 1080 stretched out to fill your whole FOV it's not enough resolution. That's what a lot of people who've tried OR say about using it with flight sims. I think the CV is supposed to be sharper than 1080 though.

[peregrine7]

Regarding visibility with the Rift. In DCS I've been using it with a zoom hotkey (imagine you've got two states of zoom, one is normal, the other is like having binoculars) and it's fine. Same in Arma. Zoom is not all that sickening so long as the headtracking is consistent, you don't feel ill using binoculars (I hope), you shouldn't feel ill with this.

 

The resolution is fine for reading cockpit guages at 1920*1080, rendering in 2d at 948*1080 it's too low res but having each eye see displaced pixels means the resolution appears far higher once you're rendering in 3D. Even if you don't use geometric 3D and just go straight off the z-buffer. The resolution is not enough to spot planes like you can on a normal monitor. In DCS I use tags, so an aircraft has a dot drawn around it that changes to a colour once it's in identifiable range. Not the gimmicky "aircraft-team-distance" tags, just a coloured square to make the aircraft as noticeable as it would be in reality. So far this has been more than adequate.

 

Is it worth flying in flight sims with the DK2 and all it's drawbacks? Yes! The immersion of actually being in the cockpit is incredible, looking around and... just being there. It's awesome. Dogfights feel a lot more engaging in DCS, even with the coloured squares aforementioned. And I'd say dogfights are where it doesn't shine, it's simply incredible for maneuvering and landing because of the spatial awareness you get. It's absolutely fantastic. 

 

 

CV1 is rumoured to be 2160*1440 at 90hz. This will be more than adequate for plane spotting, though still not close to the visual quality of the human eye.

Edited February 2, 2015 by peregrine7

[SOSUS]

Oh dear. This is the reply I got when I asked about a refund:

 

 

I understand perfectly now!

[BzKBravoZulu]

Isn't DX12 about to be launched - the one that really lets pc's use mulitple cores properly (am a bit dumb on this subject) ?

 

And, if so... anyone who understands this well, can you please tell us (plebs who don't understand) what is required (Technically and timewise) to drag DX9 engine sims like BOS and ROF kicking and screaming into modern technical standard.

 

I'd much appreciate it, as I am sure all other muggles will too.

[Toxin1]

+1000

 

 

Is it worth flying in flight sims with the DK2 and all it's drawbacks? Yes! The immersion of actually being in the cockpit is incredible, looking around and... just being there. It's awesome. Dogfights feel a lot more engaging in DCS, even with the coloured squares aforementioned. And I'd say dogfights are where it doesn't shine, it's simply incredible for maneuvering and landing because of the spatial awareness you get. It's absolutely fantastic.

 

Dear Devs, please release the alpha implementation of OR support for your customers.  None of us with OR units are using 32bit systems. Give us what you have already achieved last January!

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/page-2?do=findComment&comment=80215

 

S~

[VR-DriftaholiC]

Isn't DX12 about to be launched - the one that really lets pc's use mulitple cores properly (am a bit dumb on this subject) ?

 

And, if so... anyone who understands this well, can you please tell us (plebs who don't understand) what is required (Technically and timewise) to drag DX9 engine sims like BOS and ROF kicking and screaming into modern technical standard.

 

I'd much appreciate it, as I am sure all other muggles will too.

 

DX12 would actually allow flight sims to leverage the GPU horsepower to do do things they would normally have to use a CPU core for. 

[Herne]

Jason, How do I go about requesting a refund ? I bought this game because the most cursory of searches said this sim would support OR. I've been waiting patiently for it's implementation and now it appears it's not going to happen. I spent a significant amount of money for what I believed was going to be a rift game.

 

I have been misled.

[Georgio]

I might be missing something here, but apart from the obvious problems of which DX is supported surely instead of expecting the owners machine to have all the necessary grunt to push pixels, the Rift unit should have a dedicated internal GPU which can take any input, buffer it for say 5 seconds and then catch up in real time, this way you could get a high frame-rate in theory as it's only dependant on the power of the onboard GPU and buffer?

[VR-DriftaholiC]

You can't buffer and display things in real time at the same time

 

The trick to good VR isn't frame rate as much as it's input lag. The reason frame rate is discussed so much is it helps reduce input lag substantially but things like vsync and frame buffering add to the lag.

Edited February 18, 2015 by driftaholic

[tempered]

I think the real question is why was 777 treated this way by oculus?

 

They demanded a body in cockpit for vr? Yet dcs supports oculus and doesn't have a body.

 

They demanded 100fps? Yet pr3pared supports oculus and uses a frame interpolator to hit the target fps even though it runs at far below 100fps. Ditto for plenty of other titles.

 

They don't want to work with small devs who use custom graphic engines? Yet outerra, no man's sky, asseto corsa and plenty of other small devs with their own engines have oculus support. And they have expanded indie dev outreach in a big way since being bought by facebook.

 

Everything I've read paints the impression that they are very proactive about supporting vr in games both big and small.

 

777s treatment by oculus appears to be something of an anomaly. I wonder if it has something to do with them being a russian company and facebook wanting to avoid business dealings with them because of the sanctions and political situation. If it is not that then why else would they be treated so differently?

 

Just wondering aloud here.

 

 

 I swear that I recall this exact same reason given about SLI support for ROF and how nvidia wouldn't help them.

Edited February 28, 2015 by tempered

[FuriousMeow]

 I swear that I recall this exact same reason given about SLI support for ROF and how nvidia wouldn't help them.

 

Really? Because that is not how it went at all. I know, I communicated with nVidia a lot on my own behalf to get SLI support for BoS. Which, is really just a profile. RoF already had SLI support and lots of help from nVidia's behalf to get it in place and the most optimized not just for SLI but for nVidia in general. AMD/ATI, on the other hand, weren't helpful at all during the initial development of RoF. I communicated with nVidia and have the information to prove it that it was entirely on their end to not get a profile in place. So, if it is the exact same - then we'll agree on that that it is the hardware vendor that totally is at fault. Again, I have the emails with nVidia so try as some might to shit on 777 - no, it is the peripheral's systems fault in every single case.

 

But, sure, lets re-write history. Let's even buy games because of potential support from a product that is still at least 8 months away from an actual consumer release. The CV of OR is anticipated for end of 2015.

 

Let's also talk about DX10/11/12 engines and how DCS is the poster child for Rift support with their DX11 engine that was supposed to be released by end of 2014? Still unreleased. There is no instant change of DX engines, it takes a long time because it is a literal re-write of the engine. Money doesn't matter, kickstart for the change all you want - it isn't money, it is a re-write and takes so much work and effort that it will be a long time to see a new DX engine for BoS (and RoF was NEVER promised to have a new engine). And lets go back to DCS, let me know when their new engine actually gets released. It is long past its original release date.

 

But why in the hell would anyone purchase a game in anticipation of support of a peripheral that is still at least 3/4's of a year away from a consumer release? That is just mind boggling. "I bought a game for a peripheral that has no hopes of a consumer release for at least a year." That is the buyer's fault. 777 hoped to support it, but there was no concrete information it would be - but again, it is still a long way from a consumer version. Also, screen res is poor on it. But that is only one part of it, there is also pixel density and pixel size, and the DK2 was still inadequate. From what I've seen, I prefer my Swift monitor at 2560x1440 with TrackIr5 and nVidia 3D vision (even though it has terrible issues, its still better than what I've seen with the OR's pixel density, size and resolution).

 

So let's do this - wait to see how DCS' DX11 engine supports OR, when it finally gets released after a very long development time frame long past its supposed release date, let's see how OR's res and pixel density/size pan out because from what I've seen it is insufficient and not nearly as nice as my Swift + nVidia 3D vision + TiR5 despite the ghosting issues and other lack luster nVidia 3D vision issues which I will freely admit aren't awesome but tons better than the results I've seen from the OR due to its inadequate res and pixel density/size.

 

And I'm focusing on DCS because it also uses a custom engine, not off-the-shelf engine literally every other title uses (except for Aces High II, which uses their own engine that is currently DX9 and OR did work with it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q51xXnLgj4, but notice the date on when it did work), so let's see how their new engine works with the new requirements. Previously titles did work with OR, including DCS' DX9 engine, but now with their drop of DX9 I bet it ain't so good.

 

And again, who the hell buys something for anticipated support of a new technology that is absolutely a tech demo in its current form? That's like buying a game that promises support for Rendition Redline and ends up supporting OpenGL only. If that is confusing, then just wait until a consumer purchasable product is ready to go and buy, and buy it, THEN buy the games that support it.

 

Do NOT purchase a game because of anticipated support of a technology that is NOT consumer released - that should be common sense. It will change requirements a million times before it is commercially available.

 

777/RoF devs/BoS devs/same devs but still - get way too much BS from way too many uninformed individuals and it is just disgusting. OR might be neato, but it is still an unreleased product and there is absolutely no grounds to complain about a company not doing their all to support a technology that is still in development and completely unreleased to the general public/consumer. ANd the DKs are NOT consumer releases, the DEVELOPER part of that should be evident. It is NOT a consumer product now, and it won't be for at least another 6 months but most likely longer. Until it is a CONSUMER product, there are no grounds to complain about support for it.

 

There is also no ground to argue that last statement, none. If you think there is, then I have a spaceship to sell you that will get you to Mars to establish a community and a device to make a million dollars out of nothing.

 

And again, money doesn't make a new graphics engine - time and dedication do. As per DCS' new engine, that has been delayed several times, a new DX engine just won't happen anytime soon as has been evidenced by DCS' engine that hasn't happened even in the time frame they set - a year late so far. And the Nevada map that is, what, 3 years late?

Edited March 1, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Albino]

Hi everyone

 

Here's some good news regarding VR and BOS

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/valves-vr-headset-is-named-vive-and-htc-are-making-it/

 

In short, Valve (the highly successful game company responsible for Steam, Half Life, Counter Strike, DOTA etc) is partnering with HTC to produce a VR headset to be released at the end of this year. Check out the PC Gamer article for details. Valve are very good at supporting old products, and most of their games run in DX9, so hopefully this means we'll see support for BOS. 

 

The headset will feature two 1200 x 1080 displays capable of refreshing at 90 fps. I run a 1920 x 1200 display, so some rough calcs show that (ignoring 3D rendering and FPS) that resolution will take about 13% more GPU power to render and a little more for those of you on 1080p. In short I see no performance reason for BOS not to run on this product. 

 

If anyone has experience with 3D displays, please chip in with what you know!

 

Regards

Albino

[VRnoorbeast]

Really? Because that is not how it went at all. I know, I communicated with nVidia a lot on my own behalf to get SLI support for BoS. Which, is really just a profile. RoF already had SLI support and lots of help from nVidia's behalf to get it in place and the most optimized not just for SLI but for nVidia in general. AMD/ATI, on the other hand, weren't helpful at all during the initial development of RoF. I communicated with nVidia and have the information to prove it that it was entirely on their end to not get a profile in place. So, if it is the exact same - then we'll agree on that that it is the hardware vendor that totally is at fault. Again, I have the emails with nVidia so try as some might to shit on 777 - no, it is the peripheral's systems fault in every single case.

 

But, sure, lets re-write history. Let's even buy games because of potential support from a product that is still at least 8 months away from an actual consumer release. The CV of OR is anticipated for end of 2015.

 

Let's also talk about DX10/11/12 engines and how DCS is the poster child for Rift support with their DX11 engine that was supposed to be released by end of 2014? Still unreleased. There is no instant change of DX engines, it takes a long time because it is a literal re-write of the engine. Money doesn't matter, kickstart for the change all you want - it isn't money, it is a re-write and takes so much work and effort that it will be a long time to see a new DX engine for BoS (and RoF was NEVER promised to have a new engine). And lets go back to DCS, let me know when their new engine actually gets released. It is long past its original release date.

 

But why in the hell would anyone purchase a game in anticipation of support of a peripheral that is still at least 3/4's of a year away from a consumer release? That is just mind boggling. "I bought a game for a peripheral that has no hopes of a consumer release for at least a year." That is the buyer's fault. 777 hoped to support it, but there was no concrete information it would be - but again, it is still a long way from a consumer version. Also, screen res is poor on it. But that is only one part of it, there is also pixel density and pixel size, and the DK2 was still inadequate. From what I've seen, I prefer my Swift monitor at 2560x1440 with TrackIr5 and nVidia 3D vision (even though it has terrible issues, its still better than what I've seen with the OR's pixel density, size and resolution).

 

So let's do this - wait to see how DCS' DX11 engine supports OR, when it finally gets released after a very long development time frame long past its supposed release date, let's see how OR's res and pixel density/size pan out because from what I've seen it is insufficient and not nearly as nice as my Swift + nVidia 3D vision + TiR5 despite the ghosting issues and other lack luster nVidia 3D vision issues which I will freely admit aren't awesome but tons better than the results I've seen from the OR due to its inadequate res and pixel density/size.

 

And I'm focusing on DCS because it also uses a custom engine, not off-the-shelf engine literally every other title uses (except for Aces High II, which uses their own engine that is currently DX9 and OR did work with it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q51xXnLgj4, but notice the date on when it did work), so let's see how their new engine works with the new requirements. Previously titles did work with OR, including DCS' DX9 engine, but now with their drop of DX9 I bet it ain't so good.

 

And again, who the hell buys something for anticipated support of a new technology that is absolutely a tech demo in its current form? That's like buying a game that promises support for Rendition Redline and ends up supporting OpenGL only. If that is confusing, then just wait until a consumer purchasable product is ready to go and buy, and buy it, THEN buy the games that support it.

 

Do NOT purchase a game because of anticipated support of a technology that is NOT consumer released - that should be common sense. It will change requirements a million times before it is commercially available.

 

777/RoF devs/BoS devs/same devs but still - get way too much BS from way too many uninformed individuals and it is just disgusting. OR might be neato, but it is still an unreleased product and there is absolutely no grounds to complain about a company not doing their all to support a technology that is still in development and completely unreleased to the general public/consumer. ANd the DKs are NOT consumer releases, the DEVELOPER part of that should be evident. It is NOT a consumer product now, and it won't be for at least another 6 months but most likely longer. Until it is a CONSUMER product, there are no grounds to complain about support for it.

 

There is also no ground to argue that last statement, none. If you think there is, then I have a spaceship to sell you that will get you to Mars to establish a community and a device to make a million dollars out of nothing.

 

And again, money doesn't make a new graphics engine - time and dedication do. As per DCS' new engine, that has been delayed several times, a new DX engine just won't happen anytime soon as has been evidenced by DCS' engine that hasn't happened even in the time frame they set - a year late so far. And the Nevada map that is, what, 3 years late?

You seem to ignore the fact that it has been the BOS developers that have consistently talked up VR support from the very begining and have now pulled it. It is the devs who have been misleading and BOS consumers have the right to feel agrieved for being deliberately duped. Such consumers are not 'uninformed' they are deliberately 'misinformed',and there is a big difference between the two, by the people who actually decide and control the development process!

[VRnoorbeast]

Isn't DX12 about to be launched - the one that really lets pc's use mulitple cores properly (am a bit dumb on this subject) ?

 

And, if so... anyone who understands this well, can you please tell us (plebs who don't understand) what is required (Technically and timewise) to drag DX9 engine sims like BOS and ROF kicking and screaming into modern technical standard.

 

I'd much appreciate it, as I am sure all other muggles will too.

A basic port is not that hard but optimisation and implementation of the new rendering features is. I suspect that there may be some wrap around ways of getting DX9 to work in extended mode post the removal of DX9 and DX10 support, but that really misses the point. Such shenanigans will not take full advantage of VR rendering opportunities and optimisation. It would also be somewhat complicated to get going and as such will not really be not part of the future of VR.

 

Better just to accept that BOS is likely the last of the old school breed of monitor bound flight sims, built on decade old technology.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Riftnoorbeast

[Scott_Steiner]

You bought something that wasn't even complete yet in hopes of using it on something that didn't even have it implemented yet.

 

If you thought that was a good idea, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

 

Sell your prototype Oculus Rift to someone else that is dumb enough to buy it before everyone gets wise and wait for the HTC Vive to come out along with someone giving it a good review in IL-2.

[VRnoorbeast]

You bought something that wasn't even complete yet in hopes of using it on something that didn't even have it implemented yet.

 

If you thought that was a good idea, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

 

Sell your prototype Oculus Rift to someone else that is dumb enough to buy it before everyone gets wise and wait for the HTC Vive to come out along with someone giving it a good review in IL-2.

Interesting twisted logic. Here is the developer page: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/

 

Note everything on it, inlcuding Rift support (Part 13 March 29th, 2013) was something that was a some point not implemented. By your logic everyone who was part of the pre-release BOS backing is a fool.

 

If you truely believe the Vive has a lower bar for implementation of quality VR than the Rift then I have a bunch of bridges I would like to sell to you.

[Scott_Steiner]

Sorry my post upset you.

 

I am simply saying that the Vive will have proper support because it is being developed by one of the best game and software development companies in the business, not some group that sold out to facebook.

 

It is absolutely silly that Oculus isn't supporting DX9, it is essentially one monitor shoved into your face, it's implementation should have very little to do with what version of direct x you run. Once the facebook crew took over, they changed the game on software comanies such as 777/1C.. You can't hate on them for unexpected foolish design choices that were completely out of their hands and out of their control.

 

I wouldn't buy any of these before they come out offically and proper support was shown, including the Vive. The history of the developers page doesn't change the fact that a retail Oculus might never see the light of day, something that is completely out of IL-2 BOS's hands and just because they plan to support it doesn't mean unforeseen problems might arise.

[VRnoorbeast]

I am not upset, I am trying to point out the technical realities of quality VR.

 

DX9 and poor optimisation does not and can not provide the sort of implementation supporting the top end VR that is already possible, let alone where VR is headed, irrespective of who makes the headset. DX9 was created for XP. DX12 is on the way. Does windows use DX9 as its core environment, of couse not, hence the evolution!

 

Cutting edge VR technology is going to push and take advantage of current technology, not cater to something that has already had its day.

 

If BOS remains rooted in DX9 then that is the devs choice, but is not an excuse for the BOS developers to blame Oculus or anyone else for that choice.

[Covert_Death]

I am not upset, I am trying to point out the technical realities of quality VR.

 

DX9 and poor optimisation does not and can not provide the sort of implementation supporting the top end VR that is already possible, let alone where VR is headed, irrespective of who makes the headset. DX9 was created for XP. DX12 is on the way. Does windows use DX9 as its core environment, of couse not, hence the evolution!

 

Cutting edge VR technology is going to push and take advantage of current technology, not cater to something that has already had its day.

 

If BOS remains rooted in DX9 then that is the devs choice, but is not an excuse for the BOS developers to blame Oculus or anyone else for that choice.

I couldn't agree more. Its time for 1CG/777 to take responsibility. I mean how long do they hope to ride the DX9 bandwagon anyway? its a dead engine, no new games should be released on it. Get with the times and develop on a semi modern DX version. Its very convenient to blame someone else because you were to lazy to keep up with technology and how you would have to sprint to catch up.

 

If ford kept making cars that used the same engines from 100 years ago and the US department of transportation or whatever told ford that their vehicles would no longer be street legal because they are too slow, whos fault is that? Thats all on ford for using dead tech and not moving with the times. 

 

777 has DECIDED to continue to use DX9 even though it came out in 2002 and there have been major updates since then. Hell, they don't even give DX9 a main section on the wiki page for DX anymore lol. I mean at some point you have to upgrade your backbone. 

 

To summarize, OR made a bad call IMHO by dropping DX9 which they originally supported. but the blame for a promise not coming to BoS is entirely on 777 for being outdated and not even TRYING to stay with the times. I'm sorry but you have sucked about as much as you can out of DX9 and all of the other problems with your games (optimization issues) mostly stem from you using DX9 as well. Customers would get better preformance, better support, and better peripherals if you just upgraded your stuff. I sincerely hope your next game does not rely on 13 year old software as well. Since then our computers have DRASTICALLY changed. multi-core (not just dual-core) is COMPLETELY common, (single core is unheard of now), everyone is running a x64 bit flavor of windows and we could REALLY use the power that modern GPU are offering, yet you waste our resources by building on 13 year old tech.

 

end rant: 

[Dakpilot]

If BoS runs on a single core (which is what you guys are saying..) why does it run like crap on dual cores (even high Ghz) but better on 4 core CPU's....?

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[xedoc]

AFAIK there few threads in the game: physics(most resource heavy), network and sound. If two threads will run on a single core it will lag. Thats why 4 cores is recommended.

[Urra]

AFAIK there few threads in the game: physics(most resource heavy), network and sound. If two threads will run on a single core it will lag. Thats why 4 cores is recommended.

AFAIK ive read Windows10 is supposed to offload sound processing to video cards. This might help a little bit, don't know for sure.