Rift S - does it pay off replace 1080Ti for 2080Ti?

[Tapi]

I have been using Rift S for 1 month with my 1080Ti. I use SS 1.1 and Il-2 with 4AA for compromise between performance and nice graphics but especially mid range distance landscape is not very clear and looks jagged so I am not very satisfied with it.  Peformance itself also is not very shiny: render timing shows GPU over 11 ms frequently (that is why I use ASW), but my CPU (i7-77000K@4,8 GHz) is under 11 ms most of the time.

 

I have read various threads here about Rift S performance but still not sure what is better: buy 2080Ti or not to buy? 

 

I can afford 2080Ti now but I'm not sure if it pays off for the money. 2080Ti is here for quite a time now, so may be waiting for the new generation 3xxx would be more wise?

What do you think guys?

 

Note: as for the headset I plan to wait till the introduction of the new generation with foveated rendering (hopefuly within 1-2 years)... It seems that even the best PC HW do not allow some spectacular graphic/performance with this sim now even on the lower resolution headsets like Rift S....

Edited August 20, 2019 by Tapi

[dburne]

It just depends on your taste.

To some yeah it is worth it, to others probably not so much for the marginal gains going from 1080 Ti to 2080 Ti especially considering the price.

Edited August 20, 2019 by dburne

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

I have the RTX2080ti. In my opinion, for the Rift S @80Hz it's not worth it - under the assumption that you play IL-2 only. It's usually bottlenecked and spikes by the CPU, even on your fast one - IL-2's engine is responsible for this, and there's nothing you can do about it. It would however benefit your supersampling performance massively.

 

I haven't gotten to test the new features in today's released driver for RTX2xxx cards yet, which includes dynamic ultra-low latency settings as well as a native sharpening filter (which theoretically should work together with supersampling much better/accurately). Don't know yet though.

[-332FG-Gordon200]

30 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

I haven't gotten to test the new features in today's released driver for RTX2xxx cards yet,

Seems there's a problem with the new driver and they have suspended it until repaired.

Quote

NVIDIA has found a bug in our recent 436.02 driver posting, causing it to install GeForce Experience even if the user selects not to install it. We are pausing the driver download from the NVIDIA website while we fix the issue. Users attempting to download the driver from the NVIDIA website will receive a “404 – Not Found” message when attempting to download. If you have installed the driver and wish to uninstall GeForce Experience, you can do so from the ‘Window System Settings: Add or Remove programs’. We apologize for the error and hope to have the fixed driver re-posted soon.

 

[chiliwili69]

3 hours ago, Tapi said:

 I use SS 1.1 and Il-2 with 4AA for compromise between performance and nice graphics but especially mid range distance landscape is not very clear and looks jagged so I am not very satisfied with it.  Peformance itself also is not very shiny: render timing shows GPU over 11 ms frequently (that is why I use ASW), but my CPU (i7-77000K@4,8 GHz) is under 11 ms most of the time

 

At 1.1 SS (I understand 1.1 in OTT, so SteamVR SS=120%) your 1080Ti will never be the bottleneck.

 

To verify that assertion you only need to trend the GPU load using the MSI Afterburner free tool. It will be at 60% o less. You can easily increase your OTT SS to 1.2 or 1.3.

 

You talk about the 11ms limit, but this is for 90Hz (ie 1/90 is 11ms), but your Rift-S works at 80Hz , so it means the limit is 12.5ms.

 

In any case, if your CPU frametime is most of the time below 11ms, let´s assume it is at 10ms, then you only have 2.5 ms left for the GPU to do its work, so the guilty guy is the CPU and a faster GPU will really not help too much here.

 

With a 1200$ budget (the price of the 2080Ti) you can better go for a faster CPU (a 9600K at 5.1Ghz with liquid cooling) and perhaps faster RAM (don´t know your RAM speed).

Or just decrease a bit your graphics settings. (Clouds are a big eater of CPU time)

 

But after all, if you use ASW with IL-2 and you are happy with that, there is absolutely no reason to go to a higher GPU.

[Alonzo]

I have a Rift S with an RTX 2080, which is about the same performance as the 1080ti. I also use 1.1 pixel density. Depending on the map I do still find the GPU can be the bottleneck, even with an 8086K at 5.0ghz. 

 

The 2080ti is going to give you is a 30% improvement over the 1080ti. That’s enough to bump up to 1.25 pixel density and (in theory) get the same performance as you currently see with 1.1. So for an experiment, you can bump up to 1.25 or even 1.3 PD, ignore the frame rates, and see if the visual improvement is worth $1200 to you. I suspect it won’t be worth it.

 

For what it’s worth I’ve always been a bit surprised by the performance others are apparently getting from their rigs. I find if I go above 1.1 PD on my Rift S and 2080, I start to get drops to ASW fairly regularly. I don’t know if I’ve done something wrong on my setup or what, because people who know what they’re doing (Chili, Fenris, dburne) seem to be able to push a lot more pixels than I can.

[Tapi]

Thanks very much to all of you for your comments and tips. I really appreciate the friendly and supporting community here!

 

Well, I tried to do some more testing:

 

My settings:

OTT: ASW set to AUTO (if framerates drop below 75 there is an instant drop to 40 - for me it is the best solution for playing and it is also very helpful while using OTT visual head up display to clearly identify the instant my system is under pressure)

          PD (Pixel Density): 1.1

 

IL-2 settings: Shadows: High (lower setting is too jagged for my taste)

                         Distant landscape details: x4

                         Horizontal distance: 70 km

                         Clouds quality: high   (because planes are barely visible in front of clouds set to middle)

                         AA: 4x

                         SSAO, HDR: OFF

                         Sharpen: OFF (I hate shimmering caused by this postprocessing filter)

 

1. Graphics quality test (ignoring the framerates): OTT PD set higher to 1.3 and even to 1.5.

       Subjectively I think there is difference but not too much for the price of 2080Ti.  Most annoying thing to me is a shimmering of mid distant landscape while flying relatively low (lets say about alt to 1 km) and this is still present even with higher PD. I guess it is caused mainly by too small resolution of the headset. To get rid of that I probably should use much higher PD than any graphic card is capable nowadays... 

 

2. Performance (OTT PD 1.1, QMB 4 vs 8,  some clouds rendered, Kuban map)

    a) flying alt 2 km with NO a/c in sight I have steady 80 FPS, GPU slightly under 12 ms, CPU cca 7 ms

    b) with 4 a/c in sight - still the same 80 FPS

    c) with 8 a/c in sight - drop under 75 FPS, GPU rise over 12 ms (cca 13-14), CPU cca 10 ms (but not over 12 ms)

    d) flying low over settlement (i.e. a lot of objects on the ground) , again drop under 75 FPS, GPU rise over 12 ms, CPU well under 10 ms

    e) sitting on the runway - always under 75 FPS, GPU over 12 ms

 

So my conslusions: my CPU is not the bottleneck in most cases. GPU goes under pressure while in heavy combat or while there is a lot of objects around me. With ASW OFF the drops in FPS are distracting but with ASW set to AUTO acceptable, because cca 70-80% of my flying time ASW is OFF.

If 2080Ti was at least 1/3 cheaper I should go for it but with the current prices I decided to wait... 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Tapi

[LLv24_Zami]

Very interesting.

We have a local store offering 50 days to test Rift S, so I ordered one. I'm eager to compare Rift S to the original Rift, which I owned before for a few months. 

 

My gpu is 1080, I don't plan to upgrade atm. I hope it's enough for try Rift S. 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

11 hours ago, Gordon200 said:

Seems there's a problem with the new driver and they have suspended it until repaired.

 

No worries, they have just suspended one of its downloads (via their website). You can still install it via GFE. I am using it just fine.

[E69_chopo]

2 hours ago, Tapi said:

 Horizontal distance: 70 km

150 km., is better.

[Tapi]

2 hours ago, E69_chopo_VR said:

150 km., is better.

You are right (I have already tried 150 km). But I lowered it to get better performance but honestly I am not sure if this setting has some ímpact to the performance...

 

EDIT: set distance back to 150 km and performance seems to be unchanged. THX for tip.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Tapi

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Hey,

 

you might have read over chiliwili's post. Honestly, it's the one post you should read and listen to. What he says is right, and can correct your conclusions. Your CPU is indeed the bottleneck, but the cause is in the engine's thread management.

Quote

In any case, if your CPU frametime is most of the time below 11ms, let´s assume it is at 10ms, then you only have 2.5 ms left for the GPU to do its work, so the guilty guy is the CPU and a faster GPU will really not help too much here.

That's what he wrote.

 

I upgraded to RTX2080ti with the same system as you have. i7 7700K OCed to 4.9GHz (liquid cooled) and 3200MHz DDR4 RAM. It enabled me to go for more SS, but it didn't fix the performance issues, they're in the game's pipeline.

 

P.S. Even dburne with his 5.1GHz i9 9900K had stated iirc that around complex scenes the game slows down. That's the way it is.. He has a top notch system, and is very competent, keeping the setup clean and sleek. You can increase graphical quality, but those furballs, low altitude grass, and other things will torture themselves through the main threads.

 

The devs have constantly been improving the game's engine though, especially regarding VR over the last 2 years, so there's hope.

 

 

As I said, I can run my i7 up to 4.9GHz stable on AVX, but only by using modern liquid cooling and a steady airflow over the VRM (located north west of the CPU) as well. The voltage is up scratching 1.4V, but that's fine.

Edited August 21, 2019 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf
Added non-German politeness

[von_Tom]

 

My experience suggests that you do get an improvement on fps.  I went from a 1080 to a 2080Ti and noticed a 25-35 fps increase without changing any settings.

 

But like others have said, if you're happy with it don't change things.

 

von Tom

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Interesting, what's your system and VR headset ? ?

[Tapi]

3 hours ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Hey,

 

you might have read over chiliwili's post. Honestly, it's the one post you should read and listen to. What he says is right, and can correct your conclusions. Your CPU is indeed the bottleneck, but the cause is in the engine's thread management.

That's what he wrote.

 

I upgraded to RTX2080ti with the same system as you have. i7 7700K OCed to 4.9GHz (liquid cooled) and 3200MHz DDR4 RAM. It enabled me to go for more SS, but it didn't fix the performance issues, they're in the game's pipeline.

 

P.S. Even dburne with his 5.1GHz i9 9900K had stated iirc that around complex scenes the game slows down. That's the way it is.. He has a top notch system, and is very competent, keeping the setup clean and sleek. You can increase graphical quality, but those furballs, low altitude grass, and other things will torture themselves through the main threads.

 

The devs have constantly been improving the game's engine though, especially regarding VR over the last 2 years, so there's hope.

 

 

As I said, I can run my i7 up to 4.9GHz stable on AVX, but only by using modern liquid cooling and a steady airflow over the VRM (located north west of the CPU) as well. The voltage is up scratching 1.4V, but that's fine.

 

Thx for the further explanation Fenris-Wolf. If I understanad the argument correctly, the CPU timing  showed in the OTT visual HUD is the average timing for all 8 cores. And that mean that one core (the main one used by the game) is probably overloaded while others not or even idle. 

 

If so, well, I may try to delid my CPU to get better cooling capability and be able to OC closer to 5.0 GHz (to add little more power to the one critical core...).

 

But while I agree that my CPU is probably the bottleneck, I have to admin that I still do not fully understand Chillis' math: he says that GPU timing+ CPU timing must be below 12 ms to achieve 80 FPS. But I get steady 80 FPS with e.g. 11 ms GPU and 8 ms CPU. But as soon as the GPU timing rise above cca 12 ms and while there is no CPU timing change, FPS immediately drops below 80.

 

BTW: I am not able to see MSI Afterburner overlay in VR (but no problem on LCD).  What am I missing?

Edited August 21, 2019 by Tapi

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Hi, no problem.

 

The CPU timing in your example is 8ms. The GPU timing is 3ms, added to CPU timing of 8ms, and reaching 11ms in total.

 

Use Software "fpsVR" to find accurate timing/stress information from the compositor, based on the heaviest load on any threads. Cutting a median won't give you the information you would like to have. You can buy that software in the Steam Store.

 

P.S. My 7700K is delidded as well. Used Thermal Grizzly liquid metal from die to head, it has 73W/mk as a base value and is thus more than enough. Temp delta at 30°C or larger.

Edited August 21, 2019 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[Tapi]

 

So App Render GPU Time  = GPU timing + CPU timing (i.e. total render timing)

but App Render CPU Time = CPU timing only

OK?

 

Well I bought fpsVR but I cannot run it under OpenComposite though the app is in the list

(may be the app si running in the background but I cannot see the ovelay window)

 

I can only run fpsVR if I switch to SteamVR.

Is there any secret how run this Steam app under OpenComposite?

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Ah, you're using OpenComposite. Afaik it's SteamVR only. If you haven't used it for more than 2hrs yet, and bought it today, you can give it back. Simply check your order history, there you can apply for a refund. ?

[Tapi]

No problem, super cheap app. And it may be useful in future (hope Rift S is not my last headset ? )

[Alonzo]

The CPU and GPU times shown are elapsed time between frames submitted to the VR API. So whether the CPU is being used single threaded by the game or not doesn’t come into play, except to improve that number. The Oculus runtime is just reporting how often the app finishes its work and says “go ahead and show that frame to the user”.

 

I was under the impression there’s some pipelining going on, so it’s not actually true that if your CPU eats 8ms of the 11ms budget your GPU only has 3ms left. I think it still has 11 due to cleverness of the pipeline. I’ve certainly seen the HUD report 7ms CPU and 10ms GPU and still had 90fps on my old CV1.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

You may be right as well, afaik it depends on the DirectX version. IL-2 is on DirectX11? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no expert on the matter, but it's super interesting in my opinion. Anyway - I was under the impression that spikes in my CPU frametime led to similar spikes in the GPU frametime - in IL-2. If I understood correctly, you described that the CPU would prepare the next frame before the GPU had done the old one. That was one of DirectX12's distinct advantages though, which IL-2 cannot do right now?

 

 

Taken from Ars Technica Article on Dx12

 

That's why I want DX12 all the time. Keep bugging everyone with it. It's the key. We'd get the asyncronous pipeline. We could get proper variable rate shading too, which would allow us to enable Foveated Rendering, eventually the ten times more immersive realistic looking RayTracing as well, solve the framerate and performance issues, among other new features.

 

P.S. All these yummy APIs... if they'd just even make a kickstarter to check the interest in that, for IL-2's coders, mountain of work. Staying ahead of DCS and having a custom engine that's competitive and benefiting from modern tech for years to come would be a nice ROCI too. Let me dream. ??

 

Interesting bit on it by MS

Edited August 21, 2019 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[dburne]

42 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

You may be right as well, afaik it depends on the DirectX version. IL-2 is on DirectX11? oo. Let me dream. ??

 

 

 

Yes IL-2 is DX11. It was originally DX9 like ROF was, they made the move to DX11 in the Fall of 2016 IIRC.

[chiliwili69]

19 hours ago, Alonzo said:

I find if I go above 1.1 PD on my Rift S and 2080, I start to get drops to ASW fairly regularly. I don’t know if I’ve done something wrong on my setup or what, because people who know what they’re doing (Chili, Fenris, dburne) seem to be able to push a lot more pixels than I can.

 

Here we miss a lot a common track or something that Dev could develop to verify that our hardware work correctly and performing as expected compared with our peers.

 

First at all, I use just High Settings and medium shadows and medium clouds.

I frequently run just QMB when short of time(just quick action!), so I can put no clouds. This really helps a lot.

17 hours ago, Tapi said:

2. Performance (OTT PD 1.1, QMB 4 vs 8,  some clouds rendered, Kuban map)

    a) flying alt 2 km with NO a/c in sight I have steady 80 FPS, GPU slightly under 12 ms, CPU cca 7 ms

    b) with 4 a/c in sight - still the same 80 FPS

    c) with 8 a/c in sight - drop under 75 FPS, GPU rise over 12 ms (cca 13-14), CPU cca 10 ms (but not over 12 ms)

    d) flying low over settlement (i.e. a lot of objects on the ground) , again drop under 75 FPS, GPU rise over 12 ms, CPU well under 10 ms

    e) sitting on the runway - always under 75 FPS, GPU over 12 ms

 

This demostrates that when the CPU is capable of doing his work (ie being at 7ms), then the GPU has at least 5.5 ms to do the render and you get perfect 80fps. This is case a)

 

But,

When the CPU is not powerfull enough and it is in the 8 to 11 ms, then it leaves no margin for GPU to complete his task. But the problem is CPU.

In other games, CPU times use to be in 2 to 6 ms time. It is only in heavy flight sims where the CPU times are in 7 to 12 ms range.

14 hours ago, Tapi said:

You are right (I have already tried 150 km). But I lowered it to get better performance but honestly I am not sure if this setting has some ímpact to the performance...

 

EDIT: set distance back to 150 km and performance seems to be unchanged. THX for tip.

 

We run some tests for the horizon distance and the impact was about 10 fps from 40km to 150Km. So, almost not noticeable when you go from 70 to 150Km

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/35266-horizon-draw-distance-performance-hit-40km-100km-150km/

 

Here also measured influence of shadows and grass:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/40047-fps-impact-of-grass-quality-and-shadows/

 

So, Shadows has a bigger impact.

[chiliwili69]

11 hours ago, Tapi said:

I am not able to see MSI Afterburner overlay in VR (but no problem on LCD).  What am I missing?

 

MSI afterburner just run on monitor (no VR overlay as far as I know).

 

But you can leave MSI afterburner running while you play or run a recorded track, it almost doesn´t eat CPU time for IL-2 (it run in another core).

9 hours ago, Tapi said:

And it may be useful in future

 

I also bought fpsVR in the past and used it the VR overlay to see the GPU and CPU timing while I was playing IL-2. It is a worth exercise since it allows you clearly see when the CPU is taking too much time. Specially in these scenarios:

- dense villages (CPU has to draw scene)

- flying with clouds (the Clouds tech of IL-2 is very much dependent on CPU)

- Damage Model (calculate how planes breaks take time)

- Fire&Smoke (I am not sure how much this loads GPU and CPU, but both are affected).

 

 

[Tapi]

THX Chili very much! Tons of useful info in your last two posts.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Tapi

[JonRedcorn]

On 8/21/2019 at 5:32 AM, von_Tom said:

 

My experience suggests that you do get an improvement on fps.  I went from a 1080 to a 2080Ti and noticed a 25-35 fps increase without changing any settings.

 

But like others have said, if you're happy with it don't change things.

 

von Tom

The regular 1080 is substantially slower than either the 1080ti and especially the 2080ti. The 2080ti is probably in the order of 100%+ faster than a 1080.

[adler_1]

hello

i am about to receive my first HTC VIVE  VR set  any day now , my set up 1060 GTX  6 gb Nvidia and 3.4  I.7 CPU passed the test as well as the Steam test as high . My question is is there a big difference between 1060 GTX and 1080 ti  for this simulator in VR ? the price is 3 times higher . Will it fit on the same motherboard ? more  free RAM's required ?  will the FPS be higher , stutering in dogfights ? 

 

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1060-6GB-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1080/3639vs3603

Edited September 20, 2019 by dog1

[dburne]

On 8/21/2019 at 6:51 PM, chiliwili69 said:

 

MSI afterburner just run on monitor (no VR overlay as far as I know).

 

 

Actually with Rift or Rift S you can have Afterburner showing in the VR screen, or most any other application. I have done so with Precision X1.

IL-2 supports Depth Buffering, and with that it supports Oculus Dash Panels displayed in the headset whilst in game. It also requires Windows 10. You can even minimize and maximize them when needed. You can also resize them, or move them around in your view area. From the checking out I did with it, I do not see any noticeable performance hit with them on either.

 

Couple of drawbacks though currently with doing this with Oculus Dash:

 

1:  The Oculus Dash Belt is always displayed. Currently no way to hide this - hopefully they will correct that at some point in future. It can moved around,  up and down a little, but can not put it like behind you where you do not see it. For my testing I moved it down low into the bottom of the cockpit so it was not so much in my face. It would be nice if the Dash Belt could be minimized and/or moved around like the applications inserted into Dash.

 

2: For me, when running a Dash Panel in IL-2, the game image gets a bit of a tint to it - like wearing sunglasses. I was not crazy about that, and I hope

at some point they can address that also.

For me and my tastes, I am not using it currently but if they get the above addressed I certainly will.

 

I sent feedback to them on these and hopefully others are also. But technically it can currently be done, albeit with some shortcomings. It was kind of neat playing around with it.

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by dburne

[kestrel79]

I'm kinda waiting on the next gen GPUs to come out, whenever that will be. Maybe they will make big strides in VR performance.

[JonRedcorn]

4 hours ago, kestrel79 said:

I'm kinda waiting on the next gen GPUs to come out, whenever that will be. Maybe they will make big strides in VR performance.

We need "next gen" CPU's really. The gpu's are sitting around using half their power.

[Hartigan]

Does new announcement about building distance rendering means 4 core CPU should be replaced with 6 or 8 core? VR seems to need fast ram and good CPU. We will see after new patch ...maybe game engine will use more CPU resources. At the moment I can see something like 40-60% 4 core use with 7600k 4.8GHz 

[dburne]

2 hours ago, Hartigan said:

Does new announcement about building distance rendering means 4 core CPU should be replaced with 6 or 8 core? VR seems to need fast ram and good CPU. We will see after new patch ...maybe game engine will use more CPU resources. At the moment I can see something like 40-60% 4 core use with 7600k 4.8GHz 

 

For that reason alone I would not think so, but when using VR certainly later gen CPU combined with later gen Video Card will be a big help.

With the later gen CPU would come a motherboard /ram change, which means likely DDR3-DDR4 ram and faster ram. Also in ram you want to get as low a latency

that you can for the speed selected.

 

So overall, yes a newer system would be beneficial to VR. For the CPU improvements coming as stated alone, not so much.

[adler_1]

i just upgraded to 1080 TI , doubled the RAMS to 32 gig , a 3.6 to 4'9 CPU 9700 K and in VR mode my FPS is an erratic 40-80 , in game i can hardly see other aircrafts and airbases , just a distant blur . plus i have to reboot every time i exit the game if i wish to play again in VR mode  . Leave VR and my FPS goes to 150 + in game . All set ups in default mode . To me having read all the threads here i am convinced VR is not ready for the game not to mention any health issues if any that could arise from all the effects on our nervous system long term . 

[chiliwili69]

5 hours ago, dog1 said:

i just upgraded to 1080 TI , doubled the RAMS to 32 gig , a 3.6 to 4'9 CPU 9700 K and in VR mode my FPS is an erratic 40-80 , in game i can hardly see other aircrafts and airbases , just a distant blur . plus i have to reboot every time i exit the game if i wish to play again in VR mode 

 

VR in IL-2 is superfun and clarity is as never before. Fully playable in all senses. Period.

 

I think you have an HTC Vive. With your current rig it should run at 90 fps in 90% of the time. Something is wrong in your system or setup.

If your avg fps are lower than expected, you can go through this check list:

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

 

To decrease bluriness you can apply a supersampling in STeamVR. Try with 150% to start with. 

 

If after solving your fps issues you still want more resolution then sell your Vive and buy the Reverb. It has a superb resolution.

[adler_1]

chiliwilly

thanks link , i will take all the info to my PC expert and show him and let him go through all the check list and adjust then try again . thank you for support and encouraging comments .

[dburne]

 

8 hours ago, dog1 said:

i just upgraded to 1080 TI , doubled the RAMS to 32 gig , a 3.6 to 4'9 CPU 9700 K and in VR mode my FPS is an erratic 40-80 , in game i can hardly see other aircrafts and airbases , just a distant blur . plus i have to reboot every time i exit the game if i wish to play again in VR mode  . Leave VR and my FPS goes to 150 + in game . All set ups in default mode . To me having read all the threads here i am convinced VR is not ready for the game not to mention any health issues if any that could arise from all the effects on our nervous system long term . 

 

  Can you clarify exactly which VR headset you are running? You have stated fps of 40 or 80 a couple of times which would be odd if you have a Vive?

Vive would typically be 45/90 fps.

Edited September 26, 2019 by dburne

[adler_1]

dBurne

 Hello

I am using the HTC VIVE set . Since our last chat i upgraded to I7 9700k 3.6 boost to 4.9 , from 16 GIG RAMS  i  doubled to 32 GIG RAMS ' the fast ones" power unit cooler master 1000 , motherboard Gygabyte Z series , the graphic card NVidia 1080TI .  If i am alone i have 88-89 FPS , as soon as an object appears such as airplane on the runway it drops tp 44 . In the air the airplanes are unrecognizable. Land marks such as airbases are also unrecognizable unless you are almost over them even at 88 FPS . I made a copy of this link and i am taking it to the technician to see what he can make out of it . When not in VR i now have 150 FPS . Heat is around 50-60 C so the new cooler seems to be managing . Nvidia settings i have only added maximum performance . in graphics in game going to VR i have set the set up as per the link i just gave here and adjusted the Steam resolution as per the link images for VIVE  72 . i am unable to reset the refresh rate , it wont open ,  its set at 90 , i was told to try 70 . 

 

 

 

[dburne]

9 minutes ago, dog1 said:

dBurne

 Hello

I am using the HTC VIVE set . Since our last chat i upgraded to I7 9700k 3.6 boost to 4.9 , from 16 GIG RAMS  i  doubled to 32 GIG RAMS ' the fast ones" power unit cooler master 1000 , motherboard Gygabyte Z series , the graphic card NVidia 1080TI .  If i am alone i have 88-89 FPS , as soon as an object appears such as airplane on the runway it drops tp 44 . In the air the airplanes are unrecognizable. Land marks such as airbases are also unrecognizable unless you are almost over them even at 88 FPS . I made a copy of this link and i am taking it to the technician to see what he can make out of it . When not in VR i now have 150 FPS . Heat is around 50-60 C so the new cooler seems to be managing . Nvidia settings i have only added maximum performance . in graphics in game going to VR i have set the set up as per the link i just gave here and adjusted the Steam resolution as per the link images for VIVE  72 . i am unable to reset the refresh rate , it wont open ,  its set at 90 , i was told to try 70 . 

 

 

Ok thanks.

No the refresh rate on Vive you can not change, it is fixed at 90 Hz.

The Vive is very much first generation VR headset, and there are newer ones that certainly improve on image clarity. Higher FPS is not so much going to improve the clarity, only higher resolution and AA to some extent. But yeah with your rig you should be getting more like 90 the bulk of the time. Also make sure in Windows 10 game mode is not enabled.

 

Also I would try a clean driver install of the Nvidia drivers for your GPU, installing only the driver itself and PhysX. I recommend not installing GeForce Experience.

This is not hard to do and you should be able to do this yourself, if you need help let me know. But again, this might help performance but not so much on the image clarity.

 

I would try 2x AA in the game, and upping the resolution in Steam VR as Chili described. You can also help some by turning sharpen on in IL-2 graphics settings.

 

While currently VR is not going to be like a monitor in image clarity, for most folks after some tweaking they get it to what is acceptable for them and the immersion kind of takes over.  More recent VR headsets certainly improve on that department, like Rift S, or better even Valve Index or HP Reverb. Reverb would be a good choice at some point as it is 

a fairly simple device, Index has a lot more to it.

 

 

[HunDread]

I don't think any rigs, even the most latest and powerful and even with Gen 1 headsets, can run IL-2 with constant 90 FPS all scenarios if the in-game settings are cranked up to max. I would try to reduce preset / shadows / clouds / AA and see how that goes. And of course check SS if it's not accidentally set to some crazy high values.

[Wolf8312]

If it is really blurry, just wondering what dynamic resolution setting you are playing the game on?