Request to push for VR improvements

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Hey guys,

 

the current implementation of VR in IL-2 suprised us in early 2017, and the hardware demands were incredibly high. Most pilots here refound their love for IL-2 in VR and cannot imagine playing the game without it anymore. Some people had to upgrade their systems for it, invested into new hardware, some had to change their hardware to adapt to IL-2's terrifingly high CPU requirements.

 

Times move on, and here we are now with technologies available, technologies that could improve performance considerably and let you play on High or Ultra settings at 90 FPS. Among these are Lens Matched Shading, which has recently been integrated into even Oculus' SDK, and Single Pass Stereo. And Single Pass Stereo would solve the undeniable issues IL-2 has in VR on how the engine handles the CPU load. If you have an NVidia card like 74% of the Steam Users playing in VR, or plan to get one, this could almost half the requirement on single core clocks and bring it into line with the monitor version of IL-2. It could make VR playable to Ryzen users as well, those who don't possess a CPU going faster than 4.6GHz, and improve performance considerably for anyone else - so that you can enjoy IL-2 in its real beauty.

 

We could move with time, by asking the developers to check and implement, and at least comment on these technologies. They just announced the third parallel product in development in a devblog.

 

Personally, I'll hold off with any WW1 purchases until VR gets improved. There's lots of room for that. ?

 

Once they promise they'll put such APIs, I'll buy their stuff - even if I was not interested in the timeframe.

 

 

Here is the link to my post

 

Maybe you can help pushing for a better VR implementation. If I was doing that alone, some of the more toxic 2D crowds may bury this quite quickly. Have a heart for progress, for VR, and post.

 

Best regards!

 

Fenris ?

 

 

Sources

Hardware Surveys SteamVR

Single Pass Stereo

Lens Matched Shading

Edited July 6, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[JimmySolarium_VR]

i completely agree with you on this.

[Barnacles]

1 hour ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Hey guys,

 

the current implementation of VR in IL-2 suprised us in early 2017, and the hardware demands were incredibly high. Most pilots here refound their love for IL-2 in VR and cannot imagine playing the game without it anymore. Some people had to upgrade their systems for it, invested into new hardware, some had to change their hardware to adapt to IL-2's terrifingly high CPU requirements.

 

Times move on, and here we are now with technologies available, technologies that could improve performance considerably and let you play on High or Ultra settings at 90 FPS. Among these are Lens Matched Shading, which has recently been integrated into even Oculus' SDK, and Single Pass Stereo. And Single Pass Stereo would solve the undeniable issues IL-2 has in VR on how the engine handles the CPU load. If you have an NVidia card like 74% of the Steam Users playing in VR, or plan to get one, this could almost half the requirement on single core clocks and bring it into line with the monitor version of IL-2. It could make VR playable to Ryzen users as well, those who don't possess a CPU going faster than 4.6GHz, and improve performance considerably for anyone else - so that you can enjoy IL-2 in its real beauty.

 

We could move with time, by asking the developers to check and implement, and at least comment on these technologies. They just announced the third parallel product in development in a devblog.

 

Personally, I'll hold off with any WW1 purchases until VR gets improved. There's lots of room for that. ?

 

Once they promise they'll put such APIs, I'll buy their stuff - even if I was not interested in the timeframe.

 

 

Here is the link to my post

 

Maybe you can help pushing for a better VR implementation. If I was doing that alone, some of the more toxic 2D crowds may bury this quite quickly. Have a heart for progress, for VR, and post.

 

Best regards!

 

Fenris ?

 

 

Sources

Hardware Surveys SteamVR

Single Pass Stereo

Lens Matched Shading

Excellent post Fenris. It may well be a lot of work for the Dev's but when the higher resolution VR sets come out, the system demands are only going to go up. I think VR in this game is amazing but an extra few FPS or graphical improvements will be ,personally, very important and I guess very important for higher resolution VR sets. I gecognise that it is for the developers to decide where they get the best economy of effort with regards implemeting new features, I just want to articulate how for me it will increase the likelihood of me buying FC vol. 1

[J2_Trupobaw]

I could not agree less. This is a flight sim, it needs planes, not gimmicks.

[dburne]

While I would certainly welcome anything that improves performance in VR, I will not abstain from supporting and purchasing the upcoming products as I want to continue supporting this great franchise. Heck I will even buy Tank Crew even though at this time I really have no interest in tanks. I want these guys to continue to be successful and will continue to show my support for them.  If they aren't successful well then VR certainly would not be discussed.

 

While there are shortcomings (don't think there is a VR sim that does not have them), I have confidence in them and also have confidence in the mainstream VR companies continuing to do develop with these same performance issues in mind ( As Oculus has already previewed with Half Dome). And IMHO il-2 Great Battles did a very good job for their first run at their VR implementation.

 

I think it's good to share feelings on new technologies we would like to see implemented at some point in the future, but I want there to be a future as well so I will do my part in supporting them. And currently IMHO IL-2 Great Battles does the best job in this genre of VR support.  Now if they would only offer native Oculus support...

 

 

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

I don't have VR yet but this doesn't mean I am not interested in the support for it.  I am looking forward to my first experience in VR with IL-2.  Although I agree that new tech may help IL-2 in general,  I will never hold my purchase of an IL-2 product for ransom for something I demand be implemented.  I have more faith in the dev team that they are just as dedicated to improving the product as anything I come up with.  No support equals no products, period.

Edited July 6, 2018 by VBF-12_Stick-95

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Thanks for the quality feedback guys, that you gave reasons for whatever you decide is appreciated. By the way, I didn't ask to not buy the next installment - I was hoping you guys would support an ongoing push for implementing APIs which improve the game's quality by posting only ?. I am sorry if I summoned any other implication than that. May I also add that modelling aircraft and implementing new VR APIs are done by different developers, so we can have both.

 

I am sad to see that not many have decided to post there in favor of such improvements yet, but appreciate those who did. The way of discourse in the thread - ad hominems from random people instead of discussing the topics themselves - I'd rather not comment. The franchise could really use continuous development of its technologies, so it can stand the test of time better, and compete with other Sims.

 

 

I guess I went there with the wrong expectations... I'll continue watching how the discourse develops, as well as the game.

 

Anyway, thanks for the responses so far! ?

Edited July 6, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[JonRedcorn]

On 7/6/2018 at 9:54 AM, LsV_Trupobaw said:

I could not agree less. This is a flight sim, it needs planes, not gimmicks.

I couldn't disagree further with you myself. VR is the future of flight sims, period.

 

[Edited]

 

Do not get personal.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Bearcat

[ICDP]

Single pass stereo only supports Pascal GPUs and as such only a very small number of existing GPUs will support it (Pascal 1060 or above required).  In fact the vast majority of Nvidia GPUs according to his steam survey numbers are older gen 7xx and 9xx series.

 

As demonstrated time and again (the OP even alludes to this) IL2 is CPU limited, not GPU limited.  Thus the answer to better VR performance is not through using tricks exclusive to a very small subset of GPUs, it is by upgrading the game engine to support multiple simultaneous CPU threads.  Thus allowing any decent GPU to actually utilise all it's potential.  This would be a benefit to all IL2 users, not just a tiny minority with higher end Pascal GPUs.

Edited July 6, 2018 by ICDP

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Among 2D Monitor users it may be a minority, and it was less in '17. But we are a year ahead now. If you regard VR users though - and the tech is for VR - then it's the majority. Those with 7xx and 9xx you mentioned are a minority, and many are waiting for 11xx to get released to upgrade after a year of high prices on GPUs due to the mining boom. That together with the steam survey of '18 I quoted shows that it's not a "tiny minority" now among VR users - quite the opposite. 

 

You know just as I do that they're not going to rewrite their engine to support multicore on CPUs. And this tech still halves the calculations on geometry, you need one instance not two, thus also lowering CPU demand. Titles that have included these techs show that. It also allows users to push higher SS. So why spread outdated information? Please take a look at what recent data indicates and consider that before your next post on the issue...

 

Best regards! 

[SCG_motoadve]

Probably will buy FC to support , but I know I will not fly it much, I am more interested in WWII.

I get excited when a see a developer diary about BOB or new BOS features, not so much about WWI.

 

I read many times there were not enough resources and time  to implement this or that into BOS, hope BOS gets fixed specially AI and radio commands, and  BOB does not get delayed or the does not get the detail it deserves.

 

As for VR optimization , yes hope the team looks into this too to make it better.

 

[ICDP]

10 hours ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Among 2D Monitor users it may be a minority, and it was less in '17. But we are a year ahead now. If you regard VR users though - and the tech is for VR - then it's the majority. Those with 7xx and 9xx you mentioned are a minority, and many are waiting for 11xx to get released to upgrade after a year of high prices on GPUs due to the mining boom. That together with the steam survey of '18 I quoted shows that it's not a "tiny minority" now among VR users - quite the opposite. 

 

You know just as I do that they're not going to rewrite their engine to support multicore on CPUs. And this tech still halves the calculations on geometry, you need one instance not two, thus also lowering CPU demand. Titles that have included these techs show that. It also allows users to push higher SS. So why spread outdated information? Please take a look at what recent data indicates and consider that before your next post on the issue...

 

Best regards! 

 

You miss the point entirely.  The devs are a small team and tasking them to improve only VR by implementing Nvidia specific VR code is a waste of time.  Time that is much better spent improving the game for everyone who uses it, even for the very tiny minority that use VR in BoX.

 

Using Vulkan API would make a big improvement for every BoX user.  It works on any OS and would open up potential sales for non Windows 7 SP1 + users.  The latest version includes direct multi-GPU support.

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/vulkan-1-1-adds-multi-gpu-directx-compatibility-as-khronos-looks-to-the-future/

Edited July 7, 2018 by ICDP

[dburne]

7 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

You miss the point entirely.  The devs are a small team and tasking them to improve only VR by implementing Nvidia specific VR code is a waste of time.  Time that is much better spent improving the game for everyone who uses it, even for the very tiny minority that use VR in BoX.

 

Using Vulkan API would make a big improvement for every BoX user.  It works on any OS and would open up potential sales for non Windows 7 SP1 + users.  The latest version includes direct multi-GPU support.

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/vulkan-1-1-adds-multi-gpu-directx-compatibility-as-khronos-looks-to-the-future/

 

 

Yes this...

VR is awesome, but man talk about a niche in a niche. Combat flight sims are already a very small niche. VR  has to be still very small within that niche.

Edited July 7, 2018 by dburne

[ICDP]

1 minute ago, dburne said:

 

 

Yes this...

VR is awesome, but man talk about a niche in a niche. Combat flight sims are already a very small niche. VR  has to be still very small within that niche.

 

Exactly, don't waste limited resources catering to a niche within a niche who must have expensive Pascal GPUs and expensive VR Headsets.  Make improvements that keeps Il2 BoX relevant for everyone.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

1 hour ago, ICDP said:

 

You miss the point entirely.  The devs are a small team and tasking them to improve only VR by implementing Nvidia specific VR code is a waste of time.  Time that is much better spent improving the game for everyone who uses it, even for the very tiny minority that use VR in BoX.

 

Using Vulkan API would make a big improvement for every BoX user.  It works on any OS and would open up potential sales for non Windows 7 SP1 + users.  The latest version includes direct multi-GPU support.

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/vulkan-1-1-adds-multi-gpu-directx-compatibility-as-khronos-looks-to-the-future/

 

Absolutely. NVIDIA-specific code would be a risky path to take. 

 

Look at last year's D3D11 upgrade for an example of an improvement that benefits all users. 

 

Several other sims have new graphics APIs on their roadmaps. Il-2 will have to follow sooner or later.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[katdog5]

Agree. This sim is great. looking forward to improvements 

[JonRedcorn]

Noticed while flying the IL2 1942 with the cockpit open I am unable to move my head outside of the cockpit. Which is a bummer. Need to find Jason's paypal and send him a couple hundred bucks to fix this stuff.

[chiliwili69]

On 7/7/2018 at 12:06 AM, ICDP said:

Single pass stereo only supports Pascal GPUs and as such only a very small number of existing GPUs will support it (Pascal 1060 or above required).  In fact the vast majority of Nvidia GPUs according to his steam survey numbers are older gen 7xx and 9xx series.

 

It would be good to know the GPUs used by our IL-2 community (VR and 2D). So, we could have more arguments to claim a development.

I have just created a poll for that:

 

It one of those links it is said that 92.2% of Rift users have NVIDIA, and 65.8% of them are Pascal based, so it is no a bad number.

On 7/7/2018 at 12:06 AM, ICDP said:

As demonstrated time and again (the OP even alludes to this) IL2 is CPU limited, not GPU limited.  Thus the answer to better VR performance is not through using tricks exclusive to a very small subset of GPUs, it is by upgrading the game engine to support multiple simultaneous CPU threads

 

Exactly that. 

We are not currently limited in the render side with 1070 or above.

The real bottleneck to address is CPU.

I believe the two VRworks techniques you allude are to reduce the rendering load, I don´t know how this will help to CPU load (calculating scene, AI, flying model, etc).

On 7/7/2018 at 7:29 AM, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

And this tech still halves the calculations on geometry, you need one instance not two, thus also lowering CPU demand

 

I don´t know exactly how you are sure about this.

The geometry is just calculated once by CPU, but the current two renders is performed by GPU which is not bottlenecked.

 

I believe the development team are the only one people who are in the position to know if these new NVIDIA technologies will help to reduce CPU load. I believe Jason and the team are alos very much concerned about every effort that can be done to improve performance and allow more people to enjoy VR.

 

But the real fact is that today, with just a i5-8600K and a 1070 you can have a very pleasant experience in IL-2 VR. I would say 90% satisfactory. It is perfect? NO, but quite enough good and rewarding.

 

The great things about Flying Circus, Tanks and WW2 is that they share the same game engine. So, every development in the game engine is returned in the three channels. So, I am sure that Jason and team will really take care of VR more and more, specially with better and cheaper devices that will arrive every year.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

I hope so 

[Wolf8312]

On 7/8/2018 at 12:03 AM, ICDP said:

 

Exactly, don't waste limited resources catering to a niche within a niche who must have expensive Pascal GPUs and expensive VR Headsets.  Make improvements that keeps Il2 BoX relevant for everyone.

 

They are okay for now as there is no competition. However if more people get turned onto VR (and they will) and one day a flight sim arrives on the market as good as BOX but with the ability to hold a constant 90 then they might begin to lose customers. Constant 90 is really what alot of us dream of right now, esepcially because BOX can hold 90 for so long and so has given us the taste! 

 

I play happily even with reprojection and am not one to let it worry me, in a weird way its kind of worse with BOX than it is DCS because its actually better! DCS one just accepts it because its always there however BOX can provide 90 for such long distances, it kinda makes it more noticible when reprojection kicks in. But this might be because its best not to flick in and out of 90 and reprojection all the time...

 

I aint too fussed about BOX getting a major reworking for VR, I'm very happy for the most part.

 

I will say however that since the 3.002 update on the VIVE (I think it was the black bar removal) the campaign mode still has nasty FPS drops (stutters/flasehes) in certain missions (and always around takeoff) and it still hasnt been fixed which sadly means I just don't fly the campaign anymore and stick to PWCG or scripted missions. All the other missions outside of the campaign (even heavy activity) including MP are fine and never have this problem. I just keep waiting for an update that will fix this problem but alas...

 

Also the clouds have still not, as far as I am aware, been brought up the standard of coconuts mod which also enables better performance (can use balanced without clouds looking terrible). The zoom and HUD can too also still cause stutters/flashes especially in campaign mode.

 

So not asking for a major overhaul, but it would be nice if there could be a patch that would adress some still existing VR performance issues.   

[katdog5]

12 minutes ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

They are okay for now as there is no competition. However if more people get turned onto VR (and they will) and one day a flight sim arrives on the market as good as BOX but with the ability to hold a constant 90 then they might begin to lose customers. Constant 90 is really what alot of us dream of right now, esepcially because BOX can hold 90 for so long and so has given us the taste! 

 

I play happily even with reprojection and am not one to let it worry me, in a weird way its kind of worse with BOX than it is DCS because its actually better! DCS one just accepts it because its always there however BOX can provide 90 for such long distances, it kinda makes it more noticible when reprojection kicks in. But this might be because its best not to flick in and out of 90 and reprojection all the time...

 

I aint too fussed about BOX getting a major reworking for VR, I'm very happy for the most part.

 

I will say however that since the 3.002 update on the VIVE (I think it was the black bar removal) the campaign mode still has nasty FPS drops (stutters/flasehes) in certain missions (and always around takeoff) and it still hasnt been fixed which sadly means I just don't fly the campaign anymore and stick to PWCG or scripted missions. All the other missions outside of the campaign (even heavy activity) including MP are fine and never have this problem. I just keep waiting for an update that will fix this problem but alas...

 

Also the clouds have still not, as far as I am aware, been brought up the standard of coconuts mod which also enables better performance (can use balanced without clouds looking terrible). The zoom and HUD can too also still cause stutters/flashes especially in campaign mode.

 

So not asking for a major overhaul, but it would be nice if there could be a patch that would adress some still existing VR performance issues.   

 

Agree. Ive had plenty of time in VR in the steady 90 fps before the update and it was brilliant. Must be a real delicate balance Id imagine as all the new eye candy is pretty cool.  Ive never had the flat screen experience with this sim, but it must be pretty nice.  The VR at 90 fps..albeit with just a handful of bombers over Stalingrad was absolutely brilliant. Same for Coconuts server. Pretty much at 90fps in VR. Im using that mod as well. Helps a bit, but no where close 

 

I hope they do stay on it because hardware will continue to fall in price, as will the american market with more american planes. I dont think most realize how phenomenal the p51 will sell over here.

[Wolf8312]

52 minutes ago, katdog5 said:

 

Agree. Ive had plenty of time in VR in the steady 90 fps before the update and it was brilliant. Must be a real delicate balance Id imagine as all the new eye candy is pretty cool.  Ive never had the flat screen experience with this sim, but it must be pretty nice.  The VR at 90 fps..albeit with just a handful of bombers over Stalingrad was absolutely brilliant. Same for Coconuts server. Pretty much at 90fps in VR. Im using that mod as well. Helps a bit, but no where close 

 

I hope they do stay on it because hardware will continue to fall in price, as will the american market with more american planes. I dont think most realize how phenomenal the p51 will sell over here.

 

Have you tried the P-51 with DCS dude? Hoo man, in terms of feel and physics that and the spitfire are incredibly well made modules! Highly recommended! The german planes are my personal go to (weaponry) but in terms of how they feel and fly, (especially the spit) I dont think I've ever flown any better in VR. Of course it does help too that my Jetseat works in DCS!

Edited July 13, 2018 by Wolf8312

[katdog5]

11 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Have you tried the P-51 with DCS dude? Hoo man, in terms of feel and physics that and the spitfire are incredibly well made modules! Highly recommended! The german planes are my personal go to (weaponry) but in terms of how they feel and fly, (especially the spit) I dont think I've ever flown any better in VR. Of course it does help too that my Jetseat works in DCS!

 

Yep I sure have, clickable cockpit and all. Dont quote me on it, but I thought I read the P51 was their top seller of all time and by a hefty margin. 

[JonRedcorn]

19 hours ago, katdog5 said:

 

Yep I sure have, clickable cockpit and all. Dont quote me on it, but I thought I read the P51 was their top seller of all time and by a hefty margin. 

This makes me want to fire up the trainer that you get for free, I only have FC3 and it's pretty fun in VR, but prop planes are where it's at.

[Guest deleted@134347]

On 7/14/2018 at 6:06 PM, JonRedcorn said:

This makes me want to fire up the trainer that you get for free, I only have FC3 and it's pretty fun in VR, but prop planes are where it's at.

 

the challenge with DCS for me became apparent after 1 month when I finally learned how to start up, take off, land the p51, spit and do some quick missions. There was simply nothing to do.   I replayed all of the the quick missions 100's of times... then I discovered Il2 VR in haven't been to DCS since then...

 

DCS does teach you all of the proper aviator skills though. The engine management is very complicated in a dog fight, then dog fights themselves don't last long, 1-2 bullets and your engine dies. .. Il2 is awesome because it's all guns guns guns! It offers a superb balance of technicality and gameplay!

 

DCS is just technicals. A whole lot of technicals, which is cool in its own regard. It made me pick up an actual manual for P51 and Spit, learn about the aircraft, its systems, their reliability, specs of major components... and that's all BEFORE I even learned how to start the damn engines. But once you get through all of that there's nothing to do in DCS.

[Wolf8312]

On 7/18/2018 at 3:28 AM, moosya said:

 

the challenge with DCS for me became apparent after 1 month when I finally learned how to start up, take off, land the p51, spit and do some quick missions. There was simply nothing to do.   I replayed all of the the quick missions 100's of times... then I discovered Il2 VR in haven't been to DCS since then...

 

DCS does teach you all of the proper aviator skills though. The engine management is very complicated in a dog fight, then dog fights themselves don't last long, 1-2 bullets and your engine dies. .. Il2 is awesome because it's all guns guns guns! It offers a superb balance of technicality and gameplay!

 

DCS is just technicals. A whole lot of technicals, which is cool in its own regard. It made me pick up an actual manual for P51 and Spit, learn about the aircraft, its systems, their reliability, specs of major components... and that's all BEFORE I even learned how to start the damn engines. But once you get through all of that there's nothing to do in DCS.

 

Have you tried the Epsom campaign for the spitfire or the other campaigns for the BF109?

[Guest deleted@134347]

2 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Have you tried the Epsom campaign for the spitfire or the other campaigns for the BF109?

 

nope, haven't touched DCS since May of last year..

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

DCS will release Flaming Cliffs 4 in autumn '18. They dub it "Modern Air Combat". 

 

I'll stick to IL-2, but they really need to fix the issues that plague VR right now. Too tiny cockpit hitboxes are one of the biggest issues. 

 

Becomes especially apparent when playing open cockpit aircrafts like I-16 (and maybe those new FC aircrafts) then going back to steadily bumping your head over and over and over and over again by simply raising your head upwards or to the side towards the glass or towards the front towards the gunsight or.... damnit, you get the idea! ?

[Wolf8312]

53 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

DCS will release Flaming Cliffs 4 in autumn '18. They dub it "Modern Air Combat". 

 

I'll stick to IL-2, but they really need to fix the issues that plague VR right now. Too tiny cockpit hitboxes are one of the biggest issues. 

 

Becomes especially apparent when playing open cockpit aircrafts like I-16 (and maybe those new FC aircrafts) then going back to steadily bumping your head over and over and over and over again by simply raising your head upwards or to the side towards the glass or towards the front towards the gunsight or.... damnit, you get the idea! ?

 

I really wish they would fix the crazy VR clouds! It's been fixed in a mod so I don't know why it hasnt been fixed by now. I sometimes get the feeling that once the gavel has come down...

 

I also wish that sometimes there would be more attention paid to the little niggling VR performance problems that resulted from the update to 3.002. New planes, new maps I would say are of secondary importance to improving all round VR performance, but alas we are a tiny minority. Dont get me wrong performance is great by and large but there are issues especially with the campaign, on the VIVE anyhow. It's a shame that unlike the game itself the VR side of things is not in a constant state of development and improvement.

 

14 hours ago, moosya said:

 

nope, haven't touched DCS since May of last year..

 

Well give them a try buddy. They are pretty good, from what I have seen. I am not yet at the proficiency that makes me bored enough to move away from individual missions!

 

I find DCS much harder AI wise than IL-2 but this is good for me as it means individual missions are challenging enough to keep me trying/dying. I do agree though theres a lack of campaign content.

Check on valantines label mod as well, it makes things so much better in VR, as without spotting is just plain ridiculous!

[Guest deleted@134347]

2 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

I find DCS much harder AI wise than IL-2 but this is good for me as it means individual missions are challenging enough to keep me trying/dying. I do agree though theres a lack of campaign content.

 

 

their AI is really good at keeping the top speed so it was always very difficult to catch them. Also, the lack of fat tracers like in Il2 made hitting the target very hard. Also, the ground targets are soo tiny, like tanks/apc's, that hitting them was a work-out. Model scaling in DCS is completely different.

[OrLoK]

my one wish would be to remove any limits/bound (deliberare and bug)in VR.

 

Box still has the best VR though.

 

 

[Wolf8312]

23 minutes ago, moosya said:

 

their AI is really good at keeping the top speed so it was always very difficult to catch them. Also, the lack of fat tracers like in Il2 made hitting the target very hard. Also, the ground targets are soo tiny, like tanks/apc's, that hitting them was a work-out. Model scaling in DCS is completely different.

 

Yeah only noticed the cannon on the BF109 lacks tracers, the rest  all have tracer (the AA doesent which is very annoying). That cannon is so monstrous though its almost only fair to nerf it a little. Model scaling is awful I agree especially for ground targets, even with the valentine label mod I can lose them again. I do think terrain scaling and the scale of the cockpits themselves is more realistic in DCS though. Hard to say why but I find the vastness of the caucasus more convincing scale wise.

 

 

[ECV56_Lubermatz]

It is incredible how much the HUD affects (destroy) the performance in VR, and how necessary it is when playing online for reading the chat.

 

I pray for 1C to do something about this.

 

 

[dburne]

3 hours ago, Lubermatz said:

It is incredible how much the HUD affects (destroy) the performance in VR, and how necessary it is when playing online for reading the chat.

 

I pray for 1C to do something about this.

 

 

 

It helps some to turn the moving map off. Still a bit of a hit though.

[JonRedcorn]

4 hours ago, Lubermatz said:

It is incredible how much the HUD affects (destroy) the performance in VR, and how necessary it is when playing online for reading the chat.

 

I pray for 1C to do something about this.

 

 

How badly is it impacting your frame rate? I didn't notice much of a drop turning it on/off. I know it does affect performance but I don't know by how much.

[ECV56_Lubermatz]

On 7/24/2018 at 7:32 PM, JonRedcorn said:

How badly is it impacting your frame rate? I didn't notice much of a drop turning it on/off. I know it does affect performance but I don't know by how much.

 

Between 10 - 15 fps. Specially when in combat. No map, only chat, compass and aircraft info messages.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

The higher your SuperSampling setting, the more progressively the HUD impacts your fps. I have done 10 testruns on this. While it is a small number of tests, it already showed a strong correlation.

Edited July 28, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[Clyde_McCloud]

On 7/6/2018 at 8:19 AM, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Thanks for the quality feedback guys, that you gave reasons for whatever you decide is appreciated. By the way, I didn't ask to not buy the next installment - I was hoping you guys would support an ongoing push for implementing APIs which improve the game's quality by posting only ?. I am sorry if I summoned any other implication than that. May I also add that modelling aircraft and implementing new VR APIs are done by different developers, so we can have both.

 

I am sad to see that not many have decided to post there in favor of such improvements yet, but appreciate those who did. The way of discourse in the thread - ad hominems from random people instead of discussing the topics themselves - I'd rather not comment. The franchise could really use continuous development of its technologies, so it can stand the test of time better, and compete with other Sims.

 

 

I guess I went there with the wrong expectations... I'll continue watching how the discourse develops, as well as the game.

 

Anyway, thanks for the responses so far! ?

I realize that this is an older post now, but I am in total agreement with you!

I only got back into il2 because of VR! I had to upgrade my video card, and went with NVidia's GTX 1660 Ti.  In part due to budget restraints, and as I was installing it in my Dell XPS 8900,  space was very limited as well.   

My system specs are i7-6700, 16gb memory, 2tb ssd and a same fir mechanical drive which was original so my Samsung 860evo ssd was added after.

I ended up buying the Rift S after i helped a friend set up his cv1 Rift and installed a gtx 1660ti for him so he could fly IL2 with another friend and I was blown away by it in vr. But then they stopped selling the Rift so I waited until the S came out.

I get lower fps with my S and I think that's in part at least in how the Rift S is designed, but I still get some jitters from time to time even though my CPU is a later model than my friends.

Now I've heard about Vulkan for some time now because i originally got into XPlane11 and it was unplayable to me in VR.

I dont know if vulkan will ever be able top be used with il2 but I sure hope so!

As it stands now I'm looking into my ability touse it for any other VR titles as I've seen it recommended to be used in anothertitle i have that just washes the color out so bad that settings are almost unreadable and I was told to select vulkan api in settings, but as I havent installed it yet it sounds like I really need to.  As long as it does not affect my ability to run other games in vr that require DirectX.

[CalaveraLoco]

Not sure if I understood it correctly, but Vulkan won't interfere with any of your other games since it's just an API supported by members of the Khronos group. Meaning it provides a different (and more complicated) way for devs to utilize any GPU coming from said members. It usually comes with development cost. First at least you have to implement your current render pipeline in a more involved way, second you have to tweak it and optimize it so it was actually worth the effort in the first place.

So unfortunately it's not a magic turbo switch and requires expert 'graphics developers'.

 

[whitav8]

Just for interest sake, Prepar3D implemented single-pass stereo a year ago. It seems to be supported even by AMD perhaps with some limitations. The text below is from the Prepar3d user manual:

 

Headset Display Modes
Stereo uses two views (one per-eye) to provide depth perception. This can be performance intensive, but provides the most immersive 3D visual effect.
Single-Pass Stereo is a stereo mode that draws two views in a single rendering pass. For high-end CPUs and GPUs, this should be faster in most cases. On AMD GPUs, MSAA and SSAA will be disabled when in this mode.
Mono uses a single view which provides a performance increase, but no depth perception. Some headsets do not support this setting including Varjo VR-1.Headset Display Modes

 

I use it on my 9700K@5Ghz/ RTX2070 and it provides approximately a 30% improvement in FPS over just plain stereo VR.

Edited February 7, 2020 by whitav8
TYPO - I have a RTX2070