Low FPS no matter what

[ForecastingStone]

Hi guys,

I am new to the world of VR and IL-2 Sturmovik series. Once I tried IL2 in VR i was totally hooked. Best VR experiance. Though I am faced with a challenge which I cannot resolve.

Every setting I try I always get low fps, bad tearing image, wobbly screen etc. Fps range is between 25-45 FPS and of course every single frame is dropped. Looking at CPU and GPU graph it seems none of them is fully, 100%, utilised. I left nVidia drivers at default. Tried setting SS 0 and 1,5 only in Oculus debug. Than tried in SteamVR - 100%, 130%, 150%. Set settings to High and balanced ingame. SSAO off, HDR off, range 40km or 100km. No matter what I see no difference in FPS. Quality of the VR image ingame is more or less always the same. It is good, sharp, but when I look at the wings image is tearing, wing mounted cannons wobble like rubber antenna, the wing itself is jagged. I tried what people are suggesting but I am lost :)

 

Can someone explain to how ingame resolution (not the ome set in SteamVR) affects game and/or perfomance. This question goes for all VR games. Why there is option to set resolution if that resolution is overridden by Oculus or SteamVR?

Also, why would someone use ingame AA if this effect is done by SS in SteamVR. What is with anisotropic filtering, ... etc?

So much settings that affect one antoher differently.

 

Help would be greatly appreciated :) Oh, and my rig - I5 2500K (stock freq.), 16GB DDR3, GeForce ROG 1070 (2.000 Mhz), Oculus Rift. Lastest nVidia drivers and last patch of IL2.

[ironk79]

for your system, the settings are quiete high i am afraid.

in game resolution is only for your monitor, the lower you set it, the less performance is drained from your oculus rendering.

Actual rendering resolution is the resolution that is set in SteamVR SS Settings.

what resolution does SteamVR show for 100%SS?

 

Are you aiming for 90fps? If so, you need to deaktivate ASW in Oculucs Tray Tool (cause of "... low fps, bad tearing image, wobbly screen ")

if i were you, i would try and go for balanced, 70% SS, Shadows low, Landscape distance normal, clouds medium.

Range doesnt really make a difference from my expirience.

Also you should try and overclock your 2500k to at least 4Gz. IL2 is very CPU dependend.

 

[A_radek]

Forecastingstone,

Your gpu is ok. Your cpu is the bottleneck. Windows does not show the correct cpu utilization.
Luckily the 2500k overclocks very well and 4ghz should be within your reach. If you have an ok cooler all you need is some time and you'll be rewarded with a significant boost in performance. Box is one of those few titles where cpu rather than gpu plays a very big role.

Edited November 21, 2018 by SvAF/F16_radek

[HunDread]

And don't forget to turn off the HUD

[Alonzo]

SteamVR is a piece of crap and will often set a too-high supersample. Here's what I would do on your system:

• Override SteamVR supersample to 100% both in general and for IL2 specifically (poke about in the SteamVR menu to do this)
• Run Oculus Tray Tool (OTT) and set Pixel Density to 1.0
• Run IL2 in VR, then in OTT set "visible HUD" to "pixel density". Check that the actual pixel density in the headset is 1.0 (or maybe 1.01 or something). If it is *not* 1.0 you are going to need to fiddle with SteamVR and OTT in order to get it down to 1.0.

Once you have the pixel density at 1.0, try the game again and see how it feels. You can use the "performance HUD" in OTT in order to see things like framerate, CPU time per frame, all that kind of thing. Seriously, this is a big issue and the first thing to check.

 

For your rig you are going to have to be comfortable with 45 FPS ASW, but plenty of people enjoy that mode. The Rift should basically do this automatically for you once you fix the pixel density issue. Then try Balanced settings, Medium shadows, 100km draw distance, 2x AA and see how it goes.

44 minutes ago, ironk79 said:

Are you aiming for 90fps? If so, you need to deaktivate ASW in Oculucs Tray Tool (cause of "... low fps, bad tearing image, wobbly screen ")

 

I think you provided good advice, except for this part. With that CPU he's never going to manage 90 FPS. My advice would be to keep ASW on (the default automatic mode) and deal with the artifacting. 45 FPS ASW is pretty decent for most people and will at least get him off the ground without it being a slide show, and he should be able to use slightly better settings for image quality.

[ForecastingStone]

Thanks for response.

@Ironk79: 100% resolution is 1344x1600. SteamVR is actually suggesting 132%. Funny, 'cos fram erate doesn't change 150%. I will try to post some photos, maybe a video.

@Alonzo I tried everything what you have written. Running IL2 with 1.0. Disabling HUD gives me roughly 10-15 FPS. 
I am getting new cooler to put my 2500K. Hoping for 4-4,4Ghz. I was actually expecting better performance from my rig. Graphic card is handling the graphics. Unless if IL2 is very CPU dependant (like DCS). Does IL2 utilise multiple cores and hyperthreading? I could shell out 700 EURo and get myself a i7 8700k or Ryzen 2700X, but would that give me a steady 90FPS in VR? I know there's an excel table somewhere around here with multiple tests. It seems outrageous that the latest CPU with GPU wouldn't be able to run 90 FPS in IL2 maxed out.

Let me check GPU and CPU percentage at my FPS. I wonder if they are 100% ....

[ironk79]

 

 

50 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

I think you provided good advice, except for this part. With that CPU he's never going to manage 90 FPS.

It depends, i was at first playing with an i3 with 3,5ghz and GTX 970 and managed to get solid 90fps on stalingrad winter map, 1vs1 QMB.

 But i had to sacrifice SS or SSAO settings, and go with overall balanced settings. On top i had dynamic resolution on full 0,5 for heavy smoking trails in Dogfighting or at start from airfield. Apart from these scenarios good enough resoution to enjoy flying.

I later upgraded to an i5 4690k, and 4vs4,PWCG at little higher settings (dynamic resolution 0,7) were managable.

 

If i were in his shoes i would first OC CPU, than determine a baseline at balanced settings (shadows low, no crazy settings, SS/Resolution close to native Resolution) that provides solid 90fps. From there i would crank up SS or other settings, until 90fps arent solid anymore.

For me 90fps was always 1st priority, eye candy and ss 2nd. When sitting in the cockpit i rather deal with a temprorarely slighty blurrier picture,  than massive stutter/ ghosting or low fps.

16 minutes ago, ForecastingStone said:

I could shell out 700 EURo and get myself a i7 8700k or Ryzen 2700X, but would that give me a steady 90FPS in VR?

 You can def. have 90fps most of the time (career being a seperate point), the only question is, what are you willing to sacrifice, SS or eye candy, ?

 

 

21 minutes ago, ForecastingStone said:

It seems outrageous that the latest CPU with GPU wouldn't be able to run 90 FPS in IL2 maxed out.

Unfortunatly, there is no HW setup at the moment, that allows 90fps and Utra settings at the same time.

[Alonzo]

46 minutes ago, ForecastingStone said:

@Alonzo I tried everything what you have written. Running IL2 with 1.0. Disabling HUD gives me roughly 10-15 FPS. 

 

You enabled pixel density HUD and checked inside the Rift headset? I say again, SteamVR is broken, you need to check that the Rift itself is actually running at the pixel density it thinks it is.

 

Once you're sure about that, run the game and enable the performance HUD. What is the CPU frame time in milliseconds, and what is the GPU frame time in milliseconds? That will tell us what to try next.

[ForecastingStone]

OK, will try that next. Meanwhile I give you these graphs. Top GPU, bottom CPU. First two cases: 22-40 FPS. Last one ~30 FPS

[Alonzo]

Do you really have two GPUs? Maybe integrated and the 1070? If so, ditch the graphs for the iGPU, it'll make it easier to read.

 

Either way though it looks like you are CPU limited. Check the CPU frame time using the performance HUD. For 90 FPS, you need < 11ms CPU frame time. For 45 FPS ASW you need < 22ms CPU frame time and a little bit of GPU% available for the Rift runtime to do the warp.

 

The CPU graph is basically a big fat liar. The CPU isn't at 100% on my rig either (it's an 8086K at 5.0ghz) but I can measure the effects of adding 100mhz or improving RAM timings. As the other poster suggested, if you can overclock your 2500K you will get much better VR performance. Here's an OC guide for your chip:

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/265056-29-2600k-2500k-overclocking-guide

 

Default setting on a 2500K is 3.7ghz, that guide suggests you might be able to get 4.5ghz with good cooling. That would be a 20% performance boost. You might also be able to overclock your RAM, which helps IL2 in VR as well.

 

What in-game settings are you using? It's much easier to switch everything down to barebones graphics, try to get an acceptable experience, then start increasing the settings. So go Low settings and switch everything else down to potato graphics. With potato graphics you might get 90, but I still think you're more likely to get 45. But if you can get a constant 45 FPS + ASW you might find that's a "smooth enough" experience. Then start increasing settings until you no longer get that smoothness.

[A_radek]

48 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

Default setting on a 2500K is 3.7ghz

Isn't that a 1 core turbo? I thought a stock 2500 is at 3.3 and Forecasting probably running 1600mhz ddr3 on top of that,
 

[Alonzo]

6 minutes ago, SvAF/F16_radek said:

Isn't that a 1 core turbo? I thought a stock 2500 is at 3.3 and Forecasting probably running 1600mhz ddr3 on top of that,

 

Yes, you're probably right. So even a simple all-core 4.0 ghz would be a significant boost. Need to unlock power limits for the CPU as well.

[ForecastingStone]

I haven't removed GPU2 bar. Overlooked it. GPU2 is there for SLI/XFire options. Disregard flat line.

Default freq. for 2500K really is 3.3Ghz, base. 3.7 Ghz is single core Turbo Boost. Ram - 4 banks full. Not same timings though, but I think I have good quality rams, that can be overclocked. I have 2x PC3-12800 (800Mhz) Kingston and 2x PC3 10700 (667 Mhz), that can go up to 800 Mhz (XMP-1600).

Next week I get Hyper 212X and will try too get 1 additional Ghz out of the CPU.

Edited November 21, 2018 by ForecastingStone

[ironk79]

did you disabled have both reprojections (interleaved and asynchr.) and the supersampling filter in Steam VR?

You run almost the same system as my brother, he also has an 2500k, OC to 4.2 i think, recently upgraded to a gtx1080 from my old gtx970.

Overall your system should manage 90fps on low/mid settings with reasonable SS.

As i stated before, and like Alonzo mentioned, find a bare minimum baseline. Find a SS setting that reflects Oculus Rift native resolution.

Then go for lowest settings possible. If you have turned all ASW off, you should see 90fps in a 1vs1 quick mission, i guarante it.

If not, there is something else going on, or the CPU really needs OC (but i doubt it at such an minimum scenario)

[ForecastingStone]

Ironk79: that were exactly my thoughts. Bellow are attached default settings, set by game, freshly installed.

 

@Alonzo actually you were right about the graph- I have integrated GPU. But it's not in use.

 

So, OTT shows pixel density 1.01 in game, playing.

 

I tried default, and LOW settings. Setting it to LOW basicly none of the tick boxes in game were changed (stayed like the ones in the photo bellow). Only thing that changed was the number of FPS in the corner went to 89 and menu navigating is much smoother.
If I click LOW, BALANCED, HIGH or ULTRA none of the tick boxes change on the right side of the screen. So I tried with LOW and manually unticked tick boxes.And I noticed with LOW setting CPU is actually hitting 100% more and more and even staying there.

 

In game FPS as follows:

default (HIGH) : 22-30

LOW: 22-30

manual LOW (unticked and set to min): 24-32

 

Don't know what this CPU frame times mean. But the difference between HIGH LOW and manual LOW.

HIGH settings: 22-30ms,

LOW settings: 18-22ms.

 

With HIGH even the in game menus are slower. And in game moving the head left and right is "stuttery" and I see slight black band on left and right - like curtain affect on the edge of FOV.

 

And I must admit, that this issue (the scale of issue) is only present in this game/SteamVR.

[ironk79]

The presets have parameters in the background, that are independent of the other options. You can select Ultra, and still go for low shadows.

 

What puzzles me:

default (HIGH) : 22-30

LOW: 22-30

manual LOW (unticked and set to min): 24-32

 

With HIGH even the in game menus are slower.

 

Seems like something else is seriously wrong. Althoug your CPU isnt OC and the fastest with 3,7 turbo, it should manage 90fps in low settings and QMB.

 

When did you install your OS? I would try a fresh reinstall, something seems very wrong, your HW is much better than theses numbers.

 

 

 

 

[A_radek]

Forecastingstone, Ironk’s brother is at 4.2ghz and your at 3.3, this is not comparable performance wise in il2. Games are typically not as cpu dependent as il2 and dcs. 

 

While waiting for that cooler I’d download cpu-z to check what actual speed your cpu/ram is running while in game. You could also measure your single thread performance as outlined in the first post of chili’s benchmark thread and by so check if your in line with fps expectations. (Though it would be somewhat off as we don’t have any benchmarks for current version)

 

As for the frametimes, alonzo explained this in his post, you want to stay below 22ms to reach 45fps. An oc will decrease your cpu frametimes.

 

Not excluding something else is wrong but making sure hardware is ok is a good start.

[ironk79]

10 minutes ago, SvAF/F16_radek said:

Forecastingstone, Ironk’s brother is at 4.2ghz and your at 3.3, this is not comparable performance wise in il2. Games are typically not as cpu dependent as il2 and dcs.

But even at 3,3Ghz (no turbo) he should see much better fps than 20-30 in low settings and no SS.

I could do dogfights @90fps on a old i3 4150 @3,5Ghz.

 

@Forecastingstone, how do other Games/Apps run? Do you run free flight at altitude or dogfighting scenario?

[ForecastingStone]

War Thunder which was my entry point until I wanted more and decided on IL2. War thunder in VR (that is run through Oculus not SteamVR) and test flight runs 90 FPS solid. Going to battles in VR - 45 FPS and up. Most of the graphic setting maxed out. Other games have no FPS problem. Although most of them are run on monitor and not VR. But I run all of them in 2k (1440p).

 

I am suspecting Steam VR. I also read that running MSI Afterburner app can cause issues performance wise. I haven's tried running IL2 without it ...

 

 

[ironk79]

Ok, your system itself seems healty. MSI Afterburner can cause microstutters as far as i know, but you suffer from heavy performance drop.

Trying IL2 on monitor without SteamVR is a good idea, at least you get a feeling for the games performance.

[ForecastingStone]

7 minutes ago, ironk79 said:

Ok, your system itself seems healty. MSI Afterburner can cause microstutters as far as i know, but you suffer from heavy performance drop.

Trying IL2 on monitor without SteamVR is a good idea, at least you get a feeling for the games performance.

I haven't actually tried that. Will do some more research and write it here.

[JonRedcorn]

I know for almost a fact that the polling msi afterburner does or any other monitoring software can cause major stutters in the my rift. Always have them off, you don't have to shut off afterbuner just shut off the polling.

[ForecastingStone]

OK, so finally check 2D-Monitor performance. I tried two missions: Stuka Attack (Bf 109) and Tank Hunter (Hs 129) at the start in the cockpit and fly-by camera. Settings were as follows:

 

LOW (2560x1440, UI scale: 100%, Shadows: LOW, Mirrors: SIMPLE, Distant detail: NORMAL, Horizon: 40km, landscape filter: 0, Grass: NORMAL, Clouds: HIGH, AA: 0, everything else un-ticked):

Stuka Escort: 60 FPS (target FPS set to 60)

Tank Hunter: 60 FPS (target FPS set to 60)

 

HIGH (2560x1440, UI scale: 100%, Shadows: MEDIUM, Mirrors: SIMPLE, Distant detail: NORMAL, Horizon: 40km, landscape filter: BLURRED, Grass: NORMAL, Clouds: HIGH, AA: 4x, HDR: ON, 4K textures: ON):

Stuka Escort: 85-105 FPS

Tank Hunter: 65-75 FPS

 

ULTRA (2560x1440, UI scale: 100%, Shadows: MEDIUM, Mirrors: SIMPLE, Distant detail: NORMAL, Horizon: 40km, landscape filter: BLURRED, Grass: NORMAL, Clouds: HIGH, AA: 4x, HDR: ON, 4K textures: ON):

Stuka Escort: 70-75 FPS

Tank Hunter: 60 FPS

 

Not really sure, but I think I left HUD on. Seems to be performing very good on monitor. And that is ground FPS, not in the air.

Edited November 22, 2018 by ForecastingStone

[ForecastingStone]

OK, tried VR again, just to sum up everything in two posts.

 

VR HIGH (PD 1.0, UI scale: 100%, Shadows: MEDIUM, Mirrors: SIMPLE, Distant detail: NORMAL, Horizon: 40km, landscape filter: OFF, Grass: NORMAL, Clouds: HIGH, AA: 0, HDR: ON, 4K textures: ON):

Stuka Escort: starts at 20, after 10 seconds around 30, taking off: I come to 40 FPS. But picture is teared and wing edges and antennas have artifacts.

It seems to gain few FPS, up to 5 FPS, with MSI Afterburner turned off.

 

System resources in game show:

CPU usage: 60-80% and 4 spikes to 100%

GPU usage: up 54%

GPU MEM usage: 3,5 GB

MEM clock: 2012 Mhz

CPU frame time from 15ms - 24ms

 

This is it ... only thing I'll fiddle about with is SteamVR.

 

[Alonzo]

CPU frame time > 22 is bad, maybe try Balanced preset with Medium shadows, and I think you will have a much better time once that new cooler arrives and you can overclock.

 

Also make sure ASW is enabled, at least until you are getting a solid 45 FPS. You can consider turning it off later but I would have it on to begin with while you’re trying to get the game playable.

[ForecastingStone]

Thanks. Will see how thing will go with new cooler.