VR - Wow.

[von-Luck]

What are the specs of your rig? have you tried to run the BoS VR performance test?

I run with this:

GPU: 1080

CPU: 6700k (not overclocked atm)

32 gigs of RAM

 

All settings are low with super sampling set to 1.5. Steam VR settings I have tinkered with but I'll need to get back with you on that.

Now I will add that frame rate in this game is pretty mercurial. I largely don't mind dips in FPS until it hinders my ability to identify targets of shoot effectively.

 

von Luck

Edited August 11, 2017 by von-Luck

[chiliwili69]

 

 

Now I will add that frame rate in this game is pretty mercurial

 

If you OC your CPU to 4.6 or 4.7 (you should have a nice CPU cooler) you could increase your average fps by 10. Your 6700K is very similar to my 4790K, and I gained a nice amount of fps by a moderate OC. Yous dips will be less severe.

 

This is reported in this thread:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29322-measuring-rig-performance-common-baseline

 

What RAM speed do you have?  it is also an determining factor for the fps you obtain.

[von-Luck]

Ripjaw 4 series DDR4 15-15-15-35 timing - again I haven't bothered with OC.

 

von Luck

[chiliwili69]

 

 

Ripjaw 4 series DDR4 15-15-15-35 timing

 

I was referring to the MHz, is it 2133MHz, or 2600MHz, 3000MHz, etc? 

[von-Luck]

Sorry - 2400. Final answer keep needing to reference the sale lol.

 

von Luck

Edited August 11, 2017 by von-Luck

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Guys, when comparing SS rates, please remember: In the Oculus Tray Tool 1.5 translates to 2.2 in SteamVR.

Btw, even on a gtx 1080, 90fps is not achievable at full details/no grass/2.2 in SteamVR. And in the ground, fps go down to 40 (frames drop sometimes).

Edited August 13, 2017 by 1CAG_Fenris_Wolf

[Jason_Williams]

Let me be clear. We NEVER intended VR to be run with full settings on graphics at 90fps nor did we promise it. When hardware gets faster so will your frames. Everything has a cost and we've spent one full year optimizing and improving our engine. We have the best VR and best VR performance in flight-simming. Some of you want something that is simply not achievable at the moment without reducing some settings.

 

Jason

[The_GhostRider]

I am extremly happy with the VR in IL-2. It is a fantastic experience far more fluid and imersive than a few other sims. In fact my VR experience has exclusivly in IL-2 and other sims have been relegated to meh category. What the dev team has accomplished is truely amazing and I'm glad to be able to experince it.

[usrrku]

Let me be clear. We NEVER intended VR to be run with full settings on graphics at 90fps nor did we promise it. When hardware gets faster so will your frames. Everything has a cost and we've spent one full year optimizing and improving our engine. We have the best VR and best VR performance in flight-simming. Some of you want something that is simply not achievable at the moment without reducing some settings.

 

Jason

 

The best flight sim VR experience available as far as I am concerned.  VERY appreciated.  Thank you for putting in the extra work.

 

Cheers!

[TG-55Panthercules]

The best flight sim VR experience available as far as I am concerned.  VERY appreciated.  Thank you for putting in the extra work.

 

Cheers!

 

Indeed - I hope Jason and the devs don't misinterpret our natural desire to squeeze the best possible FPS/performance for BoS in VR out of our machines as any sort of knock on what the devs have achieved here.  Based on what I've seen so far, BoS in VR is pretty amazing at this point, especially if you can throw some heavy hardware at it (it wasn't bad with my old PC and GTX 980, but it's way better with my new rig and GTX 1080TI), even if it's not quite reaching 90 FPS all the time.  I'm sure it was a big gamble devoting all those resources to adding VR support to BoS at this early stage in the VR adoption curve, but I hope it will pay off handsomely as people realize what a great job they've done with it and more people jump on the VR bandwagon.

Edited August 12, 2017 by TG-55Panthercules

[chiliwili69]

 

 

All settings are low with super sampling set to 1.5.

 

When you say 1.5, are you referring to 1.5 in Oculus Tray Tool or to  SteamVR?

 

As Fenris_Wolf indicated above, 1.5 Oculus Pixel Density is equal to 2.25 supersampling in SteamVR (in new versions of SteamVR)

 

All these PD<-->SS correspondences are documented here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30436-pixel-density-supersampling-steamvr-oculustraytool-and-oculu

 

2.25 supersampling could be at bit high for your system,causing your fps to drop in certain complex scenes, I would reduce it to 1.7  (1.3 PD) which I think is a good compromise

[chiliwili69]

even on a gtx 1080

 

In VR GPU is important, but CPU/RAM is more important.

 

I have seen many people in this forum that when they have a low performance in VR,  just go to the top GPUs expecting to boost the performance, but obtain mixing results.

 

Based on the test we have done in the BoS VR performance test (https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29322-measuring-rig-performance-common-baseline/), the CPU/RAM is the most determining factor to obtain a good rate in fps.

 

People with a 1070 obtain similar results to people with a 1080Ti.

We would love to have more testing from people with 970, 980, 980Ti, 1050Ti and 1060. So, people can spend their money in the right bottleneck.

 

 

 

And in the ground, GPS go down to 40 (frames drop sometimes).

 

Going to 40fps in hte ground is not normal in VR. I normally have 90fps at ground.

 

What are your rig specs and settings? 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by chiliwili69

[chiliwili69]

Sorry - 2400. Final answer keep needing to reference the sale lol.

 

If you OC your CPU to 4.6 or 4.7 and procure a faster speed (with DRR4 going to 3200 is an easy step) you will reduce most of your dips in complex scenes.

If you upgrade your RAM you will not need 32Gb, 16Gb is more than enough for BOS.

 

Another comment on the HUD. I don´t use HUD except for looking the map.

Pilots in WWI didn´t have a HUD to know the flap positions (or any info from HUD), they were looking to the corresponding indicator in the cockpit of every plane.

Edited August 12, 2017 by chiliwili69

[chiliwili69]

 

 

We have the best VR and best VR performance in flight-simming. Some of you want something that is simply not achievable at the moment without reducing some settings.

 

Totally agree.

Personally, IL-2 is so far my best VR flight-sim experience and the work done optimizing the engine and supporting VR through openVR is impressive.

 

VR is cheaper now (that´s is great!), but VR is not for every rig. People need to understand that they will need to make some upgrades to their hardware AND/OR adjust some setting to have a pleasant experience.

 

Future VR devices will require more powerful hardware, the compromise between setting and hardware will be always there.

 

IL-2 offer a very good equilibrium between hardware/versus setting. The proof is that with my 4 years old microATX rig (with some recent upgrades) I am able to obtain 90fps most of the time with High settings and 1.7 SS (new SteamVR)

[dburne]

Let me be clear. We NEVER intended VR to be run with full settings on graphics at 90fps nor did we promise it. When hardware gets faster so will your frames. Everything has a cost and we've spent one full year optimizing and improving our engine. We have the best VR and best VR performance in flight-simming. Some of you want something that is simply not achievable at the moment without reducing some settings.

 

Jason

 

You guys truly knocked it out of the park with your VR implementation!

 

There is no comparison in flight sims to what yours does in VR, yes yours is the best looking and best performing.  I never dreamed I could have run BoS at the settings I currently am and still get very good performance in VR, and have it look so dang good.

[Herne]

speaking of settings I tend to run with graphics set to high, sharpen enabled, ssao and hdr checked, grass normal, mirrors simple, terrain detail X2, and I get a comfortably playable experience on most of the online servers I enjoy. I do sometimes notice the gun sight flickering a little, but I am used to it and it doesn't bother me. 

 

I havent tweaked the oculus tools to enable supersampling or anything else, I know it may make things look even better, but TBH I think it looks pretty damn good as it is, also I can play for many hours at a time without ever feeling ill. There's not many VR games I've played that I can say the same for. 

[Hate130]

Let me be clear. We NEVER intended VR to be run with full settings on graphics at 90fps nor did we promise it. When hardware gets faster so will your frames. Everything has a cost and we've spent one full year optimizing and improving our engine. We have the best VR and best VR performance in flight-simming. Some of you want something that is simply not achievable at the moment without reducing some settings.

 

Jason

 

A game that uses ScaleForm for its UI can't really make this claim when games like DCS 2.x and Elite Dangerous exist. It's good, but I wouldn't call it "the best".

[A_radek]

A game that uses ScaleForm for its UI can't really make this claim when games like DCS 2.x and Elite Dangerous exist. It's good, but I wouldn't call it "the best".

Lots of games use scaleForm. What's so wrong with it?

[Hate130]

Lots of games use scaleForm. What's so wrong with it?

 

ScaleForm is an aggressive performance drag.

[chiliwili69]

 

 

can't really make this claim when games like DCS 2.x and Elite Dangerous exist

 

I wouln´t call ED a flight-sim, it is in the space-sim genre.

ED was a reference project in VR, I bought it from the very beginning and play it around. About a year ago I uninstalled from my hard drive since I really didn´t enjoy it too much. Flying in the empty space is like a fake thing, barrels and lopping are all the same in any direction, no land/sky sensation.

I also installed DCS when they supported VR and spend sometime with it, but as soon as the BoS Vr was implemented I removed it from my hard drive.

Both, DCS and ED are good examples of VR, but I prefer BoS. Just a personal like.

[von-Luck]

The point here being that the game runs poorly in VR.  Do I still enjoy the game?  Yes - but I put forth the question because I love this game despite it's map refresh delays, terrible frame rate drops, HUD toggling, 250+ Ping Euro servers, and mandatory low GFX Settings.  I keep coming back to this because I enjoy it so - I ask the hard questions not because I want to irritate people but because I like this game so much I want to see it grow beyond what it is even now.  That said it saddens me to know that there is no intended follow on efforts to streamline this integration.  So be it - I understood before I even uttered the question that this outcome was most likely but I wanted my discontent heard for the betterment of the game.  

 

von Luck

[Nibbio]

The point here being that the game runs poorly in VR.  Do I still enjoy the game?  Yes - but I put forth the question because I love this game despite it's map refresh delays, terrible frame rate drops, HUD toggling, 250+ Ping Euro servers, and mandatory low GFX Settings.  I keep coming back to this because I enjoy it so - I ask the hard questions not because I want to irritate people but because I like this game so much I want to see it grow beyond what it is even now.  That said it saddens me to know that there is no intended follow on efforts to streamline this integration.  So be it - I understood before I even uttered the question that this outcome was most likely but I wanted my discontent heard for the betterment of the game.  

 

von Luck

 

No, it doesn't "run poorly in VR". With low graphics even my 2012 PC is holding 90 fps most of the time, and the low graphics are perfectly acceptable for me in VR.

I suppose there's still quite a way to go to optimize further, but judging from the work the team has done in the last 12 months, I'm sure there will be more progress.  

[von-Luck]

No, it doesn't "run poorly in VR". With low graphics even my 2012 PC is holding 90 fps most of the time, and the low graphics are perfectly acceptable for me in VR.

I suppose there's still quite a way to go to optimize further, but judging from the work the team has done in the last 12 months, I'm sure there will be more progress.  

 

Yes - yes it does.  the frame rate plummets as soon as anything is going on around you.  Oh and you'd better turn off your HUD or the frame rate will never reach optimal for stretches longer than 5 seconds.  Ask me how I know.  If it helps I will record a video of my machine, my settings, and the frame rate drops.  

 

von Luck

Edited August 13, 2017 by von-Luck

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Yes, I agree with von Luck. Let's rephrase this into "it could run better in VR". It's not about my system, it's a clean setup running a watercooled i5 OCed@4.4GHz, brand 16GB DDR3@xmp1.3, properly maintained SSDs only, Fresco USB3.0 internal hub for VR, and a Phoenix GS GTX1080 on 384.94. 

 

Now if we compare this to EVE Valkyrie (which runs incredibly smoothly) and other competitors, yes, it could run better/get better optimization in several regards. Some things could be optimized, let's be constructive about it and not just say "hurdur my pudding is cold":

 

1) Ingame AA blurs a lot in VR. Would MSGAA be implementable like in EVE Valkyrie?

2) Disconnect ground texture resolution from rendering range of ground objects. VR users could use the new extended range for tree rendering that gets enabled with Ultra+4xTerrain - but do not need the very high bump-mapping/texture-resolutions that come with it.

3) The ability to set grass to 0.

4) Some HUD optimization please. Current HUD eats 20-30fps, people in VR fly without HUD, thus without chat.

5) The rendering propellers interfere strongly with Oculus' ASW technology. What fix could there be - maybe disabling prop rendering in VR at anything >1000rpm?

6) A release of IL-2 BoX in the Oculus Home store if possible?

7) Nvidia VRworks new Lens Matched Shading technology would be great! Dx11 compatible, would that be possible? https://developer.nvidia.com/vrworks/graphics/lensmatchedshading

 

Let me add that any critique is meant to improve the game. It does not mean the Devs did not put a lot of work into it, nor degrade anything of what has been implemented so far. We all love this game. You want to see improvement to what you love, and intend to stick with. That is only natural. I bought everything BoX offers, except for the tree-bomber P-40, because the Devs released VR.

Edited August 13, 2017 by 1CAG_Fenris_Wolf

[A_radek]

A game that uses ScaleForm for its UI can't really make this claim when games like DCS 2.x and Elite Dangerous exist. It's good, but I wouldn't call it "the best".

ScaleForm is an aggressive performance drag.

I should but can't resist.

 

Elite dangerous also uses scaleForm. So considering the reason you critique il2, you might want to remove ED from your examples of proper VR implementations. Dcs remains and if you consider performance there better. I guess that's great.

Edited August 13, 2017 by a_radek

[dburne]

No, it doesn't "run poorly in VR". With low graphics even my 2012 PC is holding 90 fps most of the time, and the low graphics are perfectly acceptable for me in VR.

I suppose there's still quite a way to go to optimize further, but judging from the work the team has done in the last 12 months, I'm sure there will be more progress.  

 

In my opinion 1CGS has done an incredible job with their VR implementation in BoS, especially compared to other combat flight sims.

I was quite amazed at how good it actually ran and how high I could run the graphics settings in VR. It far exceeded any expectations I had for it.

I have a big smile on my face every time I start another mission.

 

Yes, there is an issue when using the HUD , it severely drops the fps. They told us it would from the start. Not sure if there is anything they can do to improve that or not, would be nice if they could. But for me I am just getting used to flying without it. But even with the lower fps when it is active, my experience is still very smooth. 

[Hate130]

No, it doesn't "run poorly in VR". With low graphics even my 2012 PC is holding 90 fps most of the time, and the low graphics are perfectly acceptable for me in VR.

I suppose there's still quite a way to go to optimize further, but judging from the work the team has done in the last 12 months, I'm sure there will be more progress.  

 

Multiplayer or singleplayer? I find it extremely unlikely that your 2012 pc outmatches my 6700k @ 4.7ghz and oc'd 1080ti...

 

I should but can't resist.

 

Elite dangerous also uses scaleForm. So considering the reason you critique il2, you might want to remove ED from your examples of proper VR implementations. Dcs remains and if you consider performance there better. I guess that's great.

 

Strange that I don't need to turn off the HUD in Elite Dangerous to keep performance manageable. Must be a better implementation.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Hate130, some people just get the kicks about lying about their performance, or they just do not know better. But it doesn't matter. What matters is that there are quite a few technologies released lately that could be implemented to radically improve VR performance in IL-2 (point 7 in my previous post), or quality of picture (point 2 and 5 in my previous post). 

[Nibbio]

Multiplayer or singleplayer? I find it extremely unlikely that your 2012 pc outmatches my 6700k @ 4.7ghz and oc'd 1080ti...

 

 

Multiplayer, of course with HUD off.

CPU is i7-3820 OC'ed to 4.3 Ghz, and GPU is a GTX 1060 3Mb. It's a 2012 vintage Alienware Aurora R4, I just changed the old GPU with the cheapest modern GPU I could find. Graphics low, AA 2x, PD/SS 1.0, terrain normal, grass 0 (edited startup.cfg).

If you want acceptable performance in VR you just have to let go some of the eye candy. The resolution in VR is so low that it makes little difference anyway

 

I say again, they still have a ways to go to optimize the game, but one really can't say it "runs poorly in VR". In another thread I also suggested fixed foveated rendering, which, with current HMD tech and coupled with dynamic resolution, could be a huge step forward, but I wouldn't hold my breath

 

If I may I'd suggest you all stop playing around with pixel density/supersampling which, while offering a very limited advantage over ingame 2xAA (if any) can bring to its knees any powerful CPU/GPU combo. The resolution in the current VR sets sucks, there's no trick that can improve it. Accept it and move on...

Edited August 13, 2017 by Nibbio

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Nibbio, don't you think "your measurement" is kind of off when comparing it to other players, if you are using the lowest possible settings available that make it look worse than 1946?

[coconut]

 

 

you are using the lowest possible settings available that make it look worse than 1946

 

Let me be clear. We NEVER intended VR to be run with full settings on graphics at 90fps nor did we promise it

 

I don't play IL-2 1946, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't have VR, and you are comparing apples to oranges. I also suspect you are exaggerating. Even in VR low you can still control terrain texture quality and set it to high, and it's the setting that affects visuals the most.

 

My advice would be the following: if you like dogfighting, go for low settings. If you like bombing and ground attack, go for balanced or high. The object draw distance restrictions in low can be problematic.

[Nibbio]

My advice would be the following: if you like dogfighting, go for low settings. If you like bombing and ground attack, go for balanced or high. The object draw distance restrictions in low can be problematic.

 

Do we have a clear idea of the object draw distance restrictions in low graphics? I went on a ground attack mission yesterday on a convoy and could easily distinguish the AA vehicles; apparently there were no trucks, but then after landing I was credited with one.

Is it possible that the viewing distance of ground vehicles is differentiated? One thing the team really could do is do away with the silly graphics presets and let us choose our settings...

Edited August 14, 2017 by Nibbio

[Herne]

Regarding Elite Dangerous and Eve Valkyrie. Remember that these games were built from the ground up with VR in mind. Eve Valkyrie makes use of VRWorks, which I can tell you the performance is most impressive with SLI 1080 GPU's

 

BoX on the other hand has done a remarkable job considering that VR has been introduced to the game after the fact. From what I am told VRWorks can not be integrated, because it needs dx12 to make use of most of the features. In game on the MP servers I play with the HUD on I hold 45 FPS, with high settings. 

 

I have a 4970k not overclocked, 32gb ram, and sli 1080's, although only one GPU is used for VR so far as I know

Edited August 14, 2017 by herne6210

[HagarTheHorrible]

I thought BoX actually ran very well in VR, certainly better than DCS.  I was very pleasantly surprised at how good it was and, having spent a lot of time in DCS, because of VR, BoX exceeded what I thought was possible.  That said, if there was one unexpected disappointment it's obviously the UI performance but given that it's hardly crucial to playing the game it's not really a deal breaker, is it ?

 

Everyone is chasing the same thing but, BoX is not the limitation, it's the VR HMD's that are the bottle neck.  Pushing the envelope ultimately sacrifices performance for only modest gains.  There is no holy grail and all we can do, even with new, more powerful, GPU's around the corner, make the most of and enjoy what we have now until the next generation of goggles arrives rather than wish our lives away hankering after tomorrow rather than enjoying today.

Edited August 14, 2017 by HagarTheHorrible

[Nibbio]

Everyone is chasing the same thing but, BoX is not the limitation, it's the VR HMD's that are the bottle neck.  Pushing the envelope ultimately sacrifices performance for only modest gains.  There is no holy grail and all we can do, even with new, more powerful, GPU's around the corner, make the most of and enjoy what we have now until the next generation of goggles arrives rather than wish our lives away hankering after tomorrow rather than enjoying today.

 

My sentiments exactly

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

I am amazed by how much constructive posts are ignored on these forums, and just swallowed up in a grand whirlwind of meaningless pudding.

 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/28782-vr-wow/page-5?do=findComment&comment=498313

 

How about a constructive discussion about such suggestions, or others, or bringing in new ones. For integrating VRworks you even get assistance by NVIDIA afaik, and they constantly add new features. All the future functions like eye tracked rendering and more will come through this as well.

 

VRworks' key techniques require DX11 only by the way. No DX12 needed. Team Fusion even got VR working with Cliffs of Dover, so why would the devs not be able to include this in a Kuban patch? I bet they would be. 

 

We are only at the start of things anyway. But saying "It's all awesome in IL-2's VR implementation, we are the best" is just repeating the same phrase in this echo-chamber here. Sentiments don't beat facts though. The implementation is quite good, but I fear that kind of thinking leads to progress being stopped regarding VR development in my favourite game.

Edited August 14, 2017 by 1CAG_Fenris_Wolf

[blitze]

All for continued development as long as API's used are kept to open standards so that users of other tech benefit.  If Nvidia's VRworks is open to users of AMD hardware then go for it, if not, then other solutions should be looked into.

 

Other thing I have learned with at least AMD is to use AMD AA as opposed to in game AA for decent results.  Not sure if this could help Nvidia users too.  The HUD needs to be better developed or maybe separation of comms and other info.  It drags down performance in general not just for VR users.

 

Also not getting to detailed in Graphics Options to the point people can tune settings to give them advantage in MP over standard settings.  It also kills the flavour of the game.

[dburne]

I am amazed by how much constructive posts are ignored on these forums, and just swallowed up in a grand whirlwind of meaningless pudding.

 

 

 

Well consider you are posting your thoughts/critics of the current VR implementation of this sim in a thread the OP started more as an appreciation thread of the work the devs have done for the VR community. After all the topic is "VR-Wow".

 

You might have a better chance of a good discussion  by starting a thread more in tune with your thoughts, rather than critiquing the thoughts of folks that are very happy with the current VR in BoS referring to these comments as " meaningless pudding". 

 

I would also encourage to perhaps post the same critiques you have in the " Suggestions" sub-forum.

 https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/12-suggestions/

 

I only suggest this as it may help in getting your desires more visibility with the devs.

Edited August 14, 2017 by dburne

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Good point

[von-Luck]

I'm just happy to see some good discussion going on in here. I both appreciate the work that went into implementing VR and hope to see continued if limited efforts taken to improve an already solid framework. Seems I ruffled more than a few feathers but I think there is value in this kind of feedback even if it is less than popular. As for there being different places to discuss this sure but I doubt you'd get more than a post or two and no real community feedback. First post I made here in this forum drew a response from a dev. Call it what you will but praise and concern can be carried in either hand.

 

von Luck