Jump to content
chiliwili69

Measuring rig performance: Common Baseline (for IL-2 v3.010)

Recommended Posts

On 11/4/2018 at 12:10 AM, Virus* said:

i have the lenovo explorer what resolution i have to set in steamvr to be in the baseline?

 

That´s a very good question. This is not specified in the instructions.

In order to answer you correctly you will need to give a screenshoot of SteamVR settings when you use 100%, and another screenshoot when you set SS=130%.

 

Overall we want to render about 6.5 Million pixels, independently of the VR device.

 

Look at this table:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

That´s a very good question. This is not specified in the instructions.

In order to answer you correctly you will need to give a screenshoot of SteamVR settings when you use 100%, and another screenshoot when you set SS=130%.

 

Overall we want to render about 6.5 Million pixels, independently of the VR device.

 

Look at this table:

 

i already did this math if you see my post about the results as i used 1830x1830 per eye that are 6.697.800 pixels...so i think you could add my results to the excel...but now a question...should i have gotten more from my system or it is what expected? 

I mean...the passmark numbers are ok...but i saw that someone with a similar system to mine (8086k instead of 9900k) is having more then 70fps on average while i am at just above 50 average...also the clock speed is similar (he is at 5.1 while i am on 5)...

Edited by Virus*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys!

I have a problem with Fraps and IL2... If i run Fraps the Sim don´t start anymore... There is a solution for that?

Sorry my english...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2018 at 12:44 AM, Virus* said:

i already did this math if you see my post about the results as i used 1830x1830 per eye that are 6.697.800 pixels...so i think you could add my results to the excel...but now a question...should i have gotten more from my system or it is what expected? 

I mean...the passmark numbers are ok...but i saw that someone with a similar system to mine (8086k instead of 9900k) is having more then 70fps on average while i am at just above 50 average...also the clock speed is similar (he is at 5.1 while i am on 5)...

 

Just for correctness, if you could provide me with a screenshoot of SteamVR when you use 100 or 130% it would be fine.

 

Regarding your test, first at all many thanks for reporting it here. I have updated the spreadsheet with your data.

 

It is a bit surprising your performance. You should achieve not less than 8086K.

 

I produced a number of items to be reviewed if anyone has a lower performance than expected:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/34107-items-to-review-if-you-have-low-performance-in-il-2-vr-test/

 

Also, I was writing about the 9th gen CPU here:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/39115-intel-9th-generation-cpus-and-nvidia-rtx-20xx-gpus-should-increase-vr-performance/

 

But you should achieve more in your test. That´s one of the reason we have produced this benchmark, to detect flaws in the hardware/software/config.

 

One of the reasons could be that you are not at 5.0Ghz during all the test. You could verify that by running MSI Afternurner (it is a free monitoring tool which doesn´t impact performance) and produce a trend with the CPU clock frequency (sampling at 100ms) during the track. You will be able to produce trends like the one shown here:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/39799-2080-and-2080-ti/?do=findComment&comment=672490

 

Another reason could be the WMR devices. We have not many test of them. IF anyone owning a WMR device could run the test we will have more data to analyze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

It is a bit surprising your performance. You should achieve not less than 8086K.

I'm not surprised that this is the case with the 9900. It is much easier to get reliably higher FPS on fewer cores. You should know that Intel lets the thermal budget exceed for 28 seconds on all cores, but then starts to throttle the clocks. While 28 seconds are just enough to run the posterboy benchmarks, but for IL-2 it is just good enough for me in WoL. ;)

 

The current Intel architecture hits a limit at around 5 GHz, where you just cannot reasonably cool 8 cores anymore. The problem is, even though IL-2 is fine using 4 cores, as soon as Windows spawns new threads, kindly enough on other cores, it will be recognized as load on those cores and throttling will occur.

 

You can only get maximum constant performance on "many core" CPUs when you are disabling all turbowhatever and runn all cores at a fixed, common frequency. If you do that with an 9900K, you might run it at 4.8GHz or so, but your cooker will go at around 250 Watts all the time. And then look again what the TDP says of that processor and then think of what will happen to your parts on the mainboard feeding power to the CPU.

 

The point is, the current Intel "core" architecture has a power runaway at roughly around 4.7 GHz, depending on the bin and stepping. There s literally no change since the 2700K. Now the problem is whether this power runaway happens before you actually reached the maximum clocks that the core in fact could achieve. With 4 cores, you can cool them pretty well to a degree where max. frequency itself caps your OC. 6 cores make it already hard, 8 cores is very difficult and 10+ cores is a mess to cool and you have heat issues long before you have reached theoretical max frequencies on each core. Besides, the more cores you have, the more uneven they are in terms of OC potential, yet they ideally shoudl reach the same clocks.

 

The 9900K will have for sure slightly higher and more consistent FPS if you deactivate 2 cores, deactivate turbowhatever and nail it to the highest frequency you can get it to boot windows and run the game.

 

You cannot expect that to change within the next 2, 3 years. Intels current 10 mn prcoess node they put in the bin now, as it draws the same energy as the 14 mn +/++/++++++++ process node, but at abyssmal yields. So Intel indeed did the right thing by canceling that node while now setting up a more realistic 10 nm that is more like a 12 nm when compared to the competition. But if the arcitecture itself doesn't change, that future process node will not really change things.

 

Besides, when it becomes common practise dishing out an averaged  10% performance penalty with "security fixes" on the CPU, you shouldn't give too much hope in 5% gains for each now CPU stepping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a 360 aio cooler and both in il2 and dcs i have never had temperatures higher then 50 degrees...using passmark benchmark no higher then 68 degrees...i already use msi afterburner and i never saw the indicator below 5000MHz i also managed to get the CPU to 5100MHz (single thread passmark 3150) i think that also 5200MHz should be fine as my temps really are good.

I tried to disable hyper threading but nothing changed...both in temps and performance...so i really don’t know...bext week end i will do more tests and then report back

Edited by Virus*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Virus* said:

i have a 360 aio cooler and both in il2 and dcs i have never had temperatures higher then 50 degrees...using passmark benchmark no higher then 68 degrees...i already use msi afterburner and i never saw the indicator below 5000MHz i also managed to get the CPU to 5100MHz (single thread passmark 3150) i think that also 5200MHz should be fine as my temps really are good.

I tried to disable hyper threading but nothing changed...both in temps and performance...so i really don’t know...bext week end i will do more tests and then report back

Yeah that chip is barely being used with either sim, it's maybe around 50%, try running a heavy AVX load on it and it will shoot into the 90's and probably crash. I got mine up to 5 ghz right now at 1.34 volts but I am running a massive 280mm radiator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 4:30 AM, ZachariasX said:

I'm not surprised that this is the case with the 9900. It is much easier to get reliably higher FPS on fewer cores. You should know that Intel lets the thermal budget exceed for 28 seconds on all cores, but then starts to throttle the clocks. While 28 seconds are just enough to run the posterboy benchmarks, but for IL-2 it is just good enough for me in WoL. ;)

 

The current Intel architecture hits a limit at around 5 GHz, where you just cannot reasonably cool 8 cores anymore. The problem is, even though IL-2 is fine using 4 cores, as soon as Windows spawns new threads, kindly enough on other cores, it will be recognized as load on those cores and throttling will occur.

 

You can only get maximum constant performance on "many core" CPUs when you are disabling all turbowhatever and runn all cores at a fixed, common frequency. If you do that with an 9900K, you might run it at 4.8GHz or so, but your cooker will go at around 250 Watts all the time. And then look again what the TDP says of that processor and then think of what will happen to your parts on the mainboard feeding power to the CPU.

 

The point is, the current Intel "core" architecture has a power runaway at roughly around 4.7 GHz, depending on the bin and stepping. There s literally no change since the 2700K. Now the problem is whether this power runaway happens before you actually reached the maximum clocks that the core in fact could achieve. With 4 cores, you can cool them pretty well to a degree where max. frequency itself caps your OC. 6 cores make it already hard, 8 cores is very difficult and 10+ cores is a mess to cool and you have heat issues long before you have reached theoretical max frequencies on each core. Besides, the more cores you have, the more uneven they are in terms of OC potential, yet they ideally shoudl reach the same clocks.

 

Dude, please stop spreading misinformation. There's loads of nuance to overclocking, but with good 280mm AIO cooling you can do 5ghz on all eight 9900K cores with no problem. Professional reviewers have done this around the world and are all getting as high as 5.2ghz without issue. Setting your motherboard correctly allows the power limit to stay high and still allows power saving C-states and all that. Most of what you said above is just plain wrong.

 

I do agree that you don't need more than 6 cores for good IL2 performance, and you don't need hyper threading, and that cooling a CPU with fewer cores and no hyper threading is easier. That's true. The best CPU for IL2 is probably the 9600K or 9700K. But to say "you can't cool a 9900K" is not correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alonzo said:

Dude, please stop spreading misinformation. There's loads of nuance to overclocking, but with good 280mm AIO cooling you can do 5ghz on all eight 9900K cores with no problem. Professional reviewers have done this around the world and are all getting as high as 5.2ghz without issue.

Misinformation? When I was talking about limits of the core architecture, then this applies to most things x64 that Intel gets of a wafer to make a product they can do business with. And there are no 5GHz parts to speak of that I can find.

 

Going to the very top bins, then you can see where you really can push the enveloppe until things go south. You're saying the "profesional reviewers" (you think the average punter has the same skill?) can get 4% over stated maximum, that is actually very sobering and I would have expected more. And you really think that those reviewers do have the same sourcing for their parts as the average punter?

 

5 hours ago, Alonzo said:

But to say "you can't cool a 9900K" is not correct.

As such, I agree this is not true. Then again, it is a question of effort required. For a pure gaming box, ludicrus installations are sometimes acceptable. But I have yet to see such a reviever running a 9900K on all cores at that speed and running Prime95 over night, logging temperatures, proving the clocks remaining up there. And you know what ittakes for a reviewer to receive a really, really good bin of a CPU.

 

In the game, a fliped bit might give you a graphic artifact or might not even being noticed. But you sould be aware what it can mean to your Bitcoin wallet. If your rig has to do just one thing, many things get acceptable what otherwise yould disqualify the setup.

 

I do like being wrong, as it generally means good news. Before just waiting for Chlilis spreadsheed getting more entries with that CPU, I want to conclude on the great news that

5 hours ago, Alonzo said:

Setting your motherboard correctly allows the power limit to stay high and still allows power saving C-states and all that. Most of what you said above is just plain wrong.

what is a mainboard issue rather than a CPU issue is finally mended, as mainboard manufacturers now obviously build the mainboards such that they easily can supply power significanlty above stated spec power levels. That's awesome. Before they saved every Cent they could on any part.

 

So let's leave it at that and look for scores on Chilis spreadsheet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Misinformation?

 

9700K at 5.3ghz, 9900K at 5.0ghz:

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/22

 

And another article, 9900K 5.1ghz @ 1.30 volts:

 

https://www.overclockers.com/intel-core-i9-9900k-cpu-review-more-cores-speed-and-higher-price/

 

Complete testing methodology included in those reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

Complete testing methodology included in those reports.

Thnx!

 

About the 9900K:

„... Even 4.8 GHz and 4.9 GHz was reasonable, but the temperatures at 5.0 GHz might not be for everyone. When all cores and threads are loaded, this is one warm chip. ...“

 

It does just as I said. But if you are good at building such rigs... That heat starts to get a limiting factor you can see by the higher clocking margin when HT is fused off (aka 9700K). Same chip, almost same bin, higher frequencies. I would expect the 9700K to perform better in IL2 than the 9900K. It is also of note that both 9700K and 9900K die at about the same net power draw, the 9700K clocking higher then of course.

 

It appears that the best IL-2 CPU is not really the „best“ general purpose CPU, but one that is more lean for highest frequencies. HT seems to be a burden in this case. If you have 6 real cores (or more).

 

In the table posted by Anand, you can see the power draw runaway starting at 4.9 GHz, then killing the run at around 200 Watts power draw for the CPU. Thats a lot for a 95 Watt CPU. In my prevoius experiences, mobo makers not often supply parts such that a  mobo can supply 200% power over extended time. 

 

We have some talented rig bilders in here, so I‘m really looking forward for the numbers in Chilis spreadsheet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

I would expect the 9700K to perform better in IL2 than the 9900K. It is also of note that both 9700K and 9900K die at about the same net power draw, the 9700K clocking higher then of course.

 

It appears that the best IL-2 CPU is not really the „best“ general purpose CPU, but one that is more lean for highest frequencies. HT seems to be a burden in this case. If you have 6 real cores (or more).

 

I agree 100%. The best CPU right now for IL2 is a highly overclocked 9700K, and the best price/performance is probably the 9600K. Neither of those have the wasteful (for IL2) hyperthreading, and if you can keep them cool and get them to 5.2 or 5.3 ghz (save money for the 280mm AIO!) they will be very nice for IL2.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i got a 360 as well...and as written before for now i tried at 5.1GHz without surpassing 50 degrees both in dcs and il2...when i will have time i will try 5.2 and maybe 5.3 disabling HT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Virus* said:

i got a 360 as well...and as written before for now i tried at 5.1GHz without surpassing 50 degrees both in dcs and il2...when i will have time i will try 5.2 and maybe 5.3 disabling HT

 

:good:

 

Sounds promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2018 at 1:44 PM, ZachariasX said:

Thnx!

 

About the 9900K:

„... Even 4.8 GHz and 4.9 GHz was reasonable, but the temperatures at 5.0 GHz might not be for everyone. When all cores and threads are loaded, this is one warm chip. ...“

 

It does just as I said. But if you are good at building such rigs... That heat starts to get a limiting factor you can see by the higher clocking margin when HT is fused off (aka 9700K). Same chip, almost same bin, higher frequencies. I would expect the 9700K to perform better in IL2 than the 9900K. It is also of note that both 9700K and 9900K die at about the same net power draw, the 9700K clocking higher then of course.

 

It appears that the best IL-2 CPU is not really the „best“ general purpose CPU, but one that is more lean for highest frequencies. HT seems to be a burden in this case. If you have 6 real cores (or more).

 

In the table posted by Anand, you can see the power draw runaway starting at 4.9 GHz, then killing the run at around 200 Watts power draw for the CPU. Thats a lot for a 95 Watt CPU. In my prevoius experiences, mobo makers not often supply parts such that a  mobo can supply 200% power over extended time. 

 

We have some talented rig bilders in here, so I‘m really looking forward for the numbers in Chilis spreadsheet.

 

If you are doing serious overclocking you need to be buying serious motherboards, that's why I bought a Maximus X Code with massive 50 amp caps and plenty of VRM cooling to run high power draw overclocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

If you are doing serious overclocking you need to be buying serious motherboards,

If you are doing that, then it is fair to assume that you know what you are doing. But if someone without that experience thinks he can crank up frequencies like that „cos they can do it on the interweb“ then he‘ll be in for a bad surprise.

 

I hope mobo makers learned from the skylake-x debacle, where even mild OC would burn the parts through quickly. The so called 140 Watt parts easily hit 300 Watts and up in smoke went your mainboard. The 2nd generation of those mainboards now are made rather differently now. Now it‘s up to you to install a cooler like no cooler cooled before.

 

Overclocking 8+ cores turns into a different sport than with good old quads. That‘s all. But if you know what you are doing and obscene cooling arrangements are ok, all well. But just don‘t assume it will just work out like that because someone else did it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that more tests with 9th-gen CPU and 20xx GPUs will arrive soon.

Here I kindly ask for people with 6th-gen 7th-gen or 8th-gen CPU and 10xx GPUs to run also the benchmark and report, so we will have more data points to compare within the IL-2 v3.005.

 

The tests done with previous versions are not comparable.

On 11/12/2018 at 12:48 PM, Virus* said:

bext week end i will do more tests and then report back

 

You can try to run the test just with monitor and compare with other monitor tests, so we can see if the problem is related to the VR thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 9:17 AM, chiliwili69 said:

 

 

I produced a number of items to be reviewed if anyone has a lower performance than expected:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/34107-items-to-review-if-you-have-low-performance-in-il-2-vr-test/

 

Also, I was writing about the 9th gen CPU here:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/39115-intel-9th-generation-cpus-and-nvidia-rtx-20xx-gpus-should-increase-vr-performance/

 

But you should achieve more in your test. That´s one of the reason we have produced this benchmark, to detect flaws in the hardware/software/config.

 

 

 

regarding the bolded items....

I saw this:

 

7.- Remember to not use "Advanced Supersampling Filtering" settings in SteamVR

 

I will not be at home until Friday (last weekend I couldn't try anything) but can you tell me if the performance will improve using this?

Because I didn't know and probably I have it ON.

 

Anyway I will do also this one as soon as I can

 

6.- Try to run the test with the monitor. If you have a good fps then the problem is with the Rift/Vive

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My result for 3.005 was:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  7766,    120000,  43,  82, 64.717


I didn't benchmark my rig for 3.006, but Chili did and reported a 7fps drop in performance from 3.005.

My result for 3.007 with no changes to rig or setup whatsoever.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  8624,    120000,  44,  90, 71.867

 

Edited by SvAF/F16_radek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 9:23 PM, SvAF/F16_radek said:

My result for 3.007 with no changes to rig or setup whatsoever.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  8624,    120000,  44,  90, 71.867

 

Thanks Radek for reporting your test with the new 3.007.  This is a nice surprise!, overall is like a 14fps bump. Perhaps due to the new tree rendering!

 

I can do the test myself since I still have my PC at the storage room (for the whole november). Maybe this weekend I can try it.

 

Let´s see if other people can verify the performance increase as well:drinks::drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be cool if you could verify my result once you can, as your rig is comparable in performance. I'm still somewhat uncertain if my last benchmark was affected by migoto mod remains. This one was a fresh reinstall of il2. I don't use any other mods or extras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just run the test twice with version 3.007:

 

 

2018-12-02 20:53:51 - Il-2
Frames: 9627 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 80.225 - Min: 43 - Max: 91
 
2018-12-02 21:00:55 - Il-2
Frames: 9628 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 80.233 - Min: 43 - Max: 91
 
This is +25fps with respect to the previous 3.006!!! It is like having a new full PC!  The Dev team made indeed a very good optimization in this new release.
I still don´t understand how can I have more fps than radek. In theory the 1070 is not a bottleneck with just 150% SteamVR_supersampling
 
It would be good if more people could run the test to verify all this nice improvement.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

I have just run the test twice with version 3.007:

 

 

2018-12-02 20:53:51 - Il-2
Frames: 9627 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 80.225 - Min: 43 - Max: 91
 
2018-12-02 21:00:55 - Il-2
Frames: 9628 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 80.233 - Min: 43 - Max: 91
 
This is +25fps with respect to the previous 3.006!!! It is like having a new full PC!  The Dev team made indeed a very good optimization in this new release.
I still don´t understand how can I have more fps than radek. In theory the 1070 is not a bottleneck with just 150% SteamVR_supersampling
 
It would be good if more people could run the test to verify all this nice improvement.

 

 

That’s Great chili, but strange. I’ll have to do some tinkering to figure out where that 10fps went. Will keep an eye on gpu load but haven’t noticed it approaching 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, I./JG68_Sperber said:

WaCo I9-9900K and WaCo RTX 2080TI

 

STMark 3055 at 5.0GHz is a nice mark. It would be good if you could run the test as well.

 

Hey, I have just run the track twice with the new v3.008 version and it still works. These are the results:

 

2018-12-06 07:29:10 - Il-2
Frames: 10077 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 83.975 - Min: 44 - Max: 91
 
2018-12-06 07:40:52 - Il-2
Frames: 10090 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 84.083 - Min: 44 - Max: 91
 
This is another +4fps increase over the previous v3.007!  Having the fact that the closer it is to 90 the more difficult is to obtain a gain, it is a nice gain again.
Seems that this improvements in the damage model and AI have not a cost in performance, but a gain. Thanks again for the dev team for continuing improving the performance in VR. We are getting closer to the nirvana...:drinks:
 
Edited by chiliwili69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, ok done.

With 4,97 Ghz

 

2018-12-06 14:12:33 - Il-2
Frames: 10592 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 88.267 - Min: 69 - Max: 90

 

with 5,05 Ghz

 

2018-12-06 14:27:00 - Il-2
Frames: 10621 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 88.508 - Min: 67 - Max: 90

 

CPU max Temp. 65°C, TaskManager CPU Power 20%

Edited by I./JG68_Sperber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, I./JG68_Sperber said:

with 5,05 Ghz

 

2018-12-06 14:27:00 - Il-2
Frames: 10621 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 88.508 - Min: 67 - Max: 90

 

Wow! That´s almost Nirvana. Enjoy it!

It is good to have the benchmark with the top CPU and the top GPU, so we can investigate if other 8th or 9th gen CPUs can reach that mark.

 

Just two questions, what is your RAM speed and what device did you used Rift or Vive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I test it with the Vive. 

For RAM speed I look tomorrow.... 

The Vive have the better Tracking. 

With the Rift i play only games if I have to stand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello guys, i am sorry for the delay,

but finally i had the time to repeat scientifically the test.

First of all differences from my previous one (with 3.006) obviously the game updated to the last patch (3.008 i think) then i upgraded from 16gb to 32gb of Ram (8x4 sticks) using XMP profile i have no difficulties to take it to the advertised frequency (3200 Mhz). Also i tried and had no difficulty to bring my 9900k to 5100Mhz...Wow impressive as impressive is the work that 777 has made on Il2....what difference is the new patch (i don't think the additional 100Mhz on the CPU and the additional 16gb of ram do something here...as in DCS performarces are the same as always).

Then as Chiliwili69 requested i made more screens of my steamvr environment for showing how i am running it

 

Here are the results of the test...repeated 4 times they speak for themselves

 

2018-12-06 22:58:37 - Il-2
Frames: 10537 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 87.808 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

2018-12-06 23:02:08 - Il-2
Frames: 10515 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 87.625 - Min: 41 - Max: 92

2018-12-06 23:05:15 - Il-2
Frames: 10551 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 87.925 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

2018-12-06 23:08:01 - Il-2
Frames: 10529 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 87.742 - Min: 44 - Max: 91
 

 

New CPU mark

single thread 3090

Multi 21991

 

image.png.504ab0851aa2c466551be17c7035ea45.png

 

Steam Vr default settings and Steam Vr settings used for the test (to match the 6 millions pixel...and as you can see i am still higher that the pixel count reported in the first page of the topic)

 

image.thumb.png.de59d485ef134e2daded38059717805b.png

 

 

image.thumb.png.3588d0048dbfa3ca5b6619ffe927eb87.png

 

Il2 settings used as for first topic

 

image.thumb.png.4885c4e4a697764353cdec96a645d352.png

 

i am speechless...i don't know if it is only the patch or something that i made wrong for the last test...but here the results are impressive...i tried an 8 vs 8 dogfight in the kuban map (109k4 vs Spit Mk IX) and the results were the same (never under 90 fps) i see something in the money i spent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, I./JG68_Sperber said:

Upps.. 3Dmigoto Mod is included... 

 

 Are you referring to me?Is it a question?

Anyway i don't use 3dmigoto mod....i have to try it for the labels but i never used it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to try then.....have to find the time to read how it works....download it configure...modify my warthog profile for the zoom commands....i will :)

 

Anyway also your result are impressive but they show that a 2080ti gives no gain over a 1080ti...well you can use an higher supersampling but i can read the instruments quite well with mine...i don't think going higher will bring more improvements in clarity....

But our i9 is really a cool chip...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...