Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
IdahoBookworm

Smearing Aircraft in VR, with ASW off

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I just upgraded my GPU and I’m still having a very bad experience in IL-2 in VR. I’ve looked over all the threads about VR performance I could find, and implemented what I could, but I still cannot hold a stable 80 FPS in the Rift S, no matter what settings I apply. Low settings with no supersampling or antialiasing, and balanced settings 1.3 OTT supersampling, yield similarly unstable results. I get a 76-80 when looking at the sky. In the merge with another aircraft my FPS drops to the 60s. With multiple aircraft it drops to the 40s. Lower graphics and no SS run up to ten FPS better, but the dips in framerate go just as deep.

 

My hardware:

Intel Core i5 8400 (no overclocking possible)

RTX 2080 Super (mildly overclocked)

16 GB DDR4-2666 RAM

256 GB M2 PCIe NVMe, used as OS drive and IL-2 drive

Rift S

 

Software I run with IL-2:

OpenComposite (I suppose it’s pointless to ask the devs to support the Rift natively . . . sigh. But OpenComposite gives a huge FPS boost over SteamVR, at least)

Oculus Tray Tool: ASW off, Oculus Home suppressed

3DMigoto VR mod

 

In-game settings:

HUD off

Prop disc turned off in 3DMigoto

 

I get that it’s probably my processor holding me back. I also get that there appears to be no one on the face of the earth who can run IL-2 at a locked 80 FPS in VR, given that there are people in this forum with 2080 TIs and 9700Ks who can’t hold it. (Note to devs: this means your engine needs work, NOT that there aren’t powerful enough rigs out there. Just FYI.) These are things I can deal with. What I can’t deal with is what happens when my FPS drops (and even when it doesn’t, to a lesser extent): the world around me feels unstable, and aircraft double up, so they no longer feel solid but appear elongated and ghostly, as if two aircraft were set to 50% opacity and overlaid on top of each other, with a slight offset in the direction of travel. It looks kind of like this representation I made in Photoshop:

690112686_IL-2Doubling.jpg.84dc91133a60a4222be5d962ec293f1a.jpg

This plane is identifiable as a 109 in a freeze frame, but it’s much harder to ID when it’s smearing past the canopy at high (if jerky) speed. It makes the game no fun to play, because the close-in knife fight is what I live for, and I want to fight planes, not smears of Vaseline. The motion is also stuttery and jerky, which translates to motion sickness pretty quickly.

 

I’m used to this kind of look when using ASW in other games, but this is with ASW off. Its more evident the lower the FPS drops, but even at 79-80 FPS there is a shimmer to the aircraft, and I can see the wings flickering. It looks like they’re not fully there.

 

I fired up Oculus Mirror and OBS (I don’t run these in IL-2 normally because they greatly impact framerate) to try to record this. This is what I got. It’s a recording of what one eye sees over four frames. Yuck, right?

1527311758_Il-2Smearing.thumb.jpg.01db065ccd4bf962ab171e4a78413754.jpg

I always fly with ASW forced off in the Oculus Tray Tool. With it on, I get an UNstable 40 FPS (still with dips and stutters) and the smearing is all the time and everywhere, even on the instrument panel when turning my head. It looks terrible.

 

I fly a lot of War Thunder, which ran great even on my previous GPU, the lowly 1060 6 GB. In War Thunder the FPS rarely dips below 80. Aircraft are solid, never doubling or smearing. And even when I pumped up the supersampling beyond what my previous card could do, and got dips into the 40s and 50s, I didn’t get the kind of smeary look that IL-2 gives me most of the time. Aircraft felt more solid in War Thunder even with a degraded framerate. Ditto DCS. I never expected to be able to run DCS tolerably even with this new GPU, but last night I fired it up as a comparison. I set it to VR graphics and tried fights over Nevada in the F-15 and Normandy in the P-51. I forgot that I’d left 1.2 supersampling on, and it still ran noticeably better than IL-2. Best of all, even when the framerate dropped (over Normandy and especially over Vegas) aircraft appeared stable and solid, not smeary. The motion degraded, but the image did not.

 

So my question is: is this smearing normal to IL-2, or is it just something afflicting me? Is it because IL-2 doesn't support the Rift natively, unlike WT and DCS? I was hoping to be able to fly in IL-2 with this new GPU. I love IL-2’s feeling of flight and its pilot physiology model, which negates the obnoxious continuous 12G maneuvering that you sometimes see in War Thunder. But if it always runs like this, I just can’t do it. I’m grateful for any ideas or suggestions.

Edited by IdahoBookworm
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Definitely not normal. Is it always every other frame messed up like that? Seems like a big clue. Asynchronous reprojection? Vsync or Target FPS enabled in-game? Maybe post your game graphics settings...

Edited by 69th_Bazzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes what you describe with your first photo is exactly what everyone is experiencing when the FPS goes under your screen refresh rate (so practically half of it if vsync is activated). That is perfectly expected. Sad but expected.

 

This is not a new problem, I remember having exactly the same issue on my Amiga in the 80s with small fast sprites that looked great at 60 FPS (screen refresh rate) but with an ugly double image at 30 FPS, exactly like today with IL2.

 

This is a well known phenomenon. Unfortunately you don't see one image per 40th of seconds, but one per 80th with two consecutive one being the same. With ATW (so even with ASW off), your oculus does a very good job at smoothing your head movements and adding the right frame to reach 80 FPS. But that does not work with enemy plane movements. With ASW on it should theoretically help but practically it does not work very well in this game. You can still try to see if you like it better with it.

 

This is one of the reason I want to change my CV1. Maintaining 90 FPS is still significantly harder than 80. With the Quest at 72 Hz and the Reverb potentially at 60 Hz it might be even better. The risk is that having half 72 or worst, half 60 when the scene is too busy and it's unplayable.

 

About your performances I am not that surprised. Your GPU is great but it is unfortunately not what matters here. Your CPU is just not powerful enough. I have a I5-9600k overclocked at 4.9 GHz and I maintain constant 90Hz (I have a CV1) only in ideal cases: one opponent, high altitude, low details. Practically I drop often under 90 FPS as well and I experience the same issue as yours, to some extent.

 

You just have to live with it or invest in a greater config, knowing that it will not fully solve your issue.

 

2 hours ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

Definitely not normal. Is it always every other frame messed up like that? Seems like a big clue. Asynchronous reprojection? Vsync or Target FPS enabled in-game? Maybe post your game graphics settings...

 

Yes everyone face it, except the ones with alien technology that run this game at 90 FPS full time. And in VR it is very noticeable and pretty annoying, but I guess some people are more annoyed than others. Good for you if you did not even notice it. 

Edited by haltux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, though, IL-2's performance at a dropped framerate is noticeably worse than DCS's. DCS gets some jitter when it drops into the 60s, but it doesn't smear like IL-2 does at the same framerate. It'll give me noticeable double images in the 40s, but it still looks better, like the doubled images aren't as offset, or like they persist for a shorter time, or something. It's hard to describe, but in DCS the lower FPS is tolerable. It's just not tolerable for me in IL-2. To get into a multi-aircraft dogfight in multiplayer only to find myself going, "Wait, which of these jerking smears is the bandit?" is just no fun.

 

I have to say, too, to everyone who is tolerating it: can't we expect better? Is VR just a low priority for the devs, or do they not have the expertise or staffing to tune their engine to better support it? Because brute force isn't the answer, not when no one can keep a steady native FPS even with the best graphics cards and processors out there for consumers. It sounds like I could spend $500 on a new CPU to complement my $700 GPU and still have a poor experience. I don't mind turning off all the bells and whistles if I can just get a good clear image at a native framerate, but even turning it all down doesn't give me that.

 

At the moment, I'd be embarrassed to list VR as a feature of this engine. It's more like an experimental alpha-state option: turn it on if you don't mind a very sub-par performance, so you can dream about what it could be like once it's done. "Here's a sneak peek at the future." The future that other engines are already accomplishing.

 

At the very least, couldn't we get native Oculus support? Pretty please? With a cherry on top? 

 

In the meantime, it's back to WT for me, with its horizon-stabilized laser cannon-toting zombers and 12G premium paper planes . . . :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not much of a DCS player so I'm not sure how to really compare it.

 

I think your last sentence reveals why people fly IL2 in VR and go to some lengths to tweak it or to get used to 40 ASW -- it's actually a good game with a decent community and a good flying experience.

 

If you're shooting for 80, consider disabling the Migoto mod. Yeah, you won't have a good zoom, but there are players who ID with the built-in zoom + a/c behavior, color, etc. Migoto mod is awesome, but it robs you of performance that on a marginal rig like yours you would need to hit 80. Then drop all your other settings until you get that mostly-80 experience. Then see if it's tolerable and worth a basic graphical experience in exchange for a better flight model, damage model and community.

 

I do agree that brute force or living with 40 ASW are not the right answers. Neither is needing to install a mod to get a tolerable VR zoom. But that's what we have right now. The developers do have VR headsets so they are able to do testing in VR and see if what they do has an improvement. But VR users are a niche within a niche. They're not Gaijin. They have to put their development effort into the areas where the payoff is greatest, and much as I wish it was VR (or heck, multiplayer and server tech) that's not the biggest moneymaker -- single player flatscreen is.

Share this post


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

Honestly, though, IL-2's performance at a dropped framerate is noticeably worse than DCS's. DCS gets some jitter when it drops into the 60s, but it doesn't smear like IL-2 does at the same framerate. It'll give me noticeable double images in the 40s, but it still looks better, like the doubled images aren't as offset, or like they persist for a shorter time, or something. It's hard to describe, but in DCS the lower FPS is tolerable. It's just not tolerable for me in IL-2. To get into a multi-aircraft dogfight in multiplayer only to find myself going, "Wait, which of these jerking smears is the bandit?" is just no fun.

 

40 FPS is 40 FPS. Double image does only depend on the relative speed of the object, and the screen, that's it. It does not depend on the game. Maybe it is more tolerable in DCS because the contrast is lower, something like that.

 

2 hours ago, IdahoBookworm said:

 

I have to say, too, to everyone who is tolerating it: can't we expect better? Is VR just a low priority for the devs, or do they not have the expertise or staffing to tune their engine to better support it?

 

 

Basically IL2 has been developed before the VR era and 30 FPS was just considered fine. Once the engine is complete and developed and optimized during years with this target in mind, it is very difficult, or even impossible, to double the performance even at some price in terms of graphic quality. It is too late.

 

Note that most pre-VR era flight simulator have the same issue: DCS and flight simulator in particular.

 

Bear also in mind that il2 is a niche product. A very advanced simulator with a limited number of buyers. Most probably, it is not very profitable. VR is a niche in the niche. You can't expect people to spend thousands of hours working on something for a couple of hundred users that pay just a little bit of cash each, and that would pay anyway even with no-so-good performance because there is no competition. It is not economically viable. 

 

 

2 hours ago, IdahoBookworm said:

 

Because brute force isn't the answer, not when no one can keep a steady native FPS even with the best graphics cards and processors out there for consumers. It sounds like I could spend $500 on a new CPU to complement my $700 GPU and still have a poor experience. I don't mind turning off all the bells and whistles if I can just get a good clear image at a native framerate, but even turning it all down doesn't give me that.

 

With a recent CPU (overclocked i5-9600k, 200$), with a single enemy plane on sight, possibly two, you stay over 80 FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IdahoBookworm said:

 

I have to say, too, to everyone who is tolerating it: can't we expect better? Is VR just a low priority for the devs, or do they not have the expertise or staffing to tune their engine to better support it?

Higher fidelity sims like this will probably never perform well in VR. They are intended to be complex and need all the system resources to create flight and damage modeling, AI etc. making them run well in VR would mean compromising the very thing that attracts players to this genre. The fidelity and realism. 
Laser cannon planes will run well in VR simply because there isn’t as much going on there. It’s not a lack or expertise on the part of the Devs or needing a better engine. VR just isn’t up to handling a sim like this. There is no “tuning” an engine to make it do everything. But players want everything. Specifically 3D demands that every scene be drawn twice and that puts the load on the CPU which is already taxed by flight models and large numbers of objects and draw distances. And CPUs aren’t getting much faster any time soon. 

5 hours ago, haltux said:

Basically IL2 has been developed before the VR era and 30 FPS was just considered fine.

30 FPS was really never considered “fine” in gaming. Maybe the minimum tolerable rate but not ideal. The game was not designed for 30 fps. 
lower frame rates are more tolerable in 2D and it’s again a reason sims like this aren’t suited to VR. Even a strong PC would have trouble getting a constant 90fps in 2D in this game. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Higher fidelity sims like this will probably never perform well in VR. [...] It’s not a lack or expertise on the part of the Devs or needing a better engine. [...] And CPUs aren’t getting much faster any time soon

 

IL2 is mostly single threaded and CPU bounded, so most of your hardware is idling while you play this game. There is no intrinsic reason why large parts of computation could not be offloaded to other cores or/and to the GPU. There is no doubt IL2 could run flawlessly at 90 FPS on modern hardware (and even more obviously on future hardware) if the engine were rewritten from scratch with this goal in mind. But this would be unreasonably time consuming and expensive so it won't happen anytime soon.

 

And really, never? I am kind of pessimistic when it comes to the upcoming progress of technology, but stating that having a given game running smoothly in VR will never happen? Seriously?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, haltux said:

 

IL2 is mostly single threaded and CPU bounded, so most of your hardware is idling while you play this game.

It’s not single threaded, it’s just very demanding on the single core performance of your CPU. Again this isn’t a flaw in the game, it’s because the game is very sophisticated for example it’s running the advanced flight model on every AI aircraft etc.
Its always going to me more demanding to run a game in 3D rather than 2D. So VR will always struggle for performance as those performance limits are intended for 2D

Share this post


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

And really, never? I am kind of pessimistic when it comes to the upcoming progress of technology, but stating that having a given game running smoothly in VR will never happen? 

 

Plus we keep moving the goalposts. If I run single player QMB on the Stalingrad map I've got a much better chance of maintaining VR framerates than on the Rhineland map with 72 players on a multiplayer server and all sorts of stuff going on. I think we'd all rather have a nicely detailed map like Rhineland or Kuban than the older, less detailed maps, but they require some oomph to run them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2020 at 7:28 PM, IdahoBookworm said:

Intel Core i5 8400 (no overclocking possible)

RTX 2080 Super (mildly overclocked)

16 GB DDR4-2666 RAM

 

This is the center of the problem here, the CPU.

Do you know the CL latency of your RAM?

Your GPU is at the top, you have a very unbalanced PC: CPU vs GPU.

 

Your CPU can reach 4.0 with Turboboost if there is no other CPU limits (Temps, amperage, power).

Please, run the free tool CPU-Z or MSI Afterbuner to monitorize your CPU frequency while you are gaming. And verify that your BIOS has the TurboBoost enabled.

 

You can also run the remagen benchmark just for all of us to know what it the performance delivered by a 8400 chip. I would be pleased to know that so we can compare what would be your performance if you upgrade to a 9600K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

This is the center of the problem here, the CPU.

The i5 8400 is actually a really decent CPU. Almost as good in single thread performance as the i7 4790K you and I are running. 

Share this post


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

The i5 8400 is actually a really decent CPU. Almost as good in single thread performance as the i7 4790K you and I are running. 

 

The i5-8400 is a decent CPU, but bad for IL-2 VR.

 

The bad thing is that you can not overclock it.

 

For single thread performance the 4790K is superior because you can overclock it. So it is better for IL-2 VR, although it is not the ideal CPU (currently the best is the 9900K or 9900KS).

 

The freq of the 8400 goes from 2.8 to 4.0 GHz. At stop there.

The freq of the 4790K goes from 4.0 to 4.4 GHz, and by overclock you can reach 4.8 with a quite moderate voltage. And 5.1 with more agressive voltage.

 

These are the single thread performance obtained by thousands of test of each CPU:

8400.png.662d8c1bba51b8d8899fc2cbd446390f.png

 

4790K.png.fc198e2a86cc6b1a825e1f3ab67a65ce.png

 

So 8400 at max turbo can deliver is around 2450, and my 4790K at 4.9GHz gives me 2950. And at 5.1 I got 3066.

 

In any case, the non-overclokable CPUs are not recommended for IL-2 VR. For almost the same price you can get the K version and a decent cooler.

If I would buy a CPU today I would go to the 9900KS, quite impressive SingleThread:

9900KS.png.227623307e0412d7485fb782363bc8c7.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2020 at 10:19 AM, Alonzo said:

it's actually a good game

It is! That's why I want to fly here. I had some great dogfights in Berloga last night after leaving War Thunder in frustration at being mouse-killed twice by super-paper-bombers, even with all the jitter (but Berloga runs better than any other map I've tried). I love IL-2's flight model and pilot physiology model. But I can't give up VR, and VR in IL-2 currently makes me sick in most situations. Nonetheless I am going to try jumping into Combat Box today, to see if I can tolerate it.

 

On 1/9/2020 at 12:05 PM, haltux said:

40 FPS is 40 FPS. Double image does only depend on the relative speed of the object, and the screen, that's it.

No, trust me, 40 FPS with no ASW looks better in DCS on my machine (haven't tried with ASW yet), and 60 FPS loooks waaaay better. Downright playable. So this issue is either unique to IL-2, or to my machine. I really hope the latter.

 

Does anyone else get the wing-blob effect shown in the screenshots above? Because I can see that in-game, with my eyes, and I think that's what makes IL-2 look so much worse for me than DCS. And wow, when I turn on ASW everything looks SO bad. It's like flying with double vision. Everything, from the landscape to the aircraft, looks like it is overlaid by another version of itself, at all times unless I hold my head perfectly still and don't look down. I'm really hoping it's something to do with my machine, and not what everyone suffers. I wish I had another rig to try it on . . .

 

On 1/9/2020 at 12:05 PM, haltux said:

With a recent CPU (overclocked i5-9600k, 200$), with a single enemy plane on sight, possibly two, you stay over 80 FPS.

Yeah . . . coming from WT's crystal-clear multi-aircraft battles, that's not much consolation. Some of my favorite fights have been sudden, unexpected furballs with my squadron mates, running egress strategies and surviving while landing kills through excellent teamwork in crowded airspace. Maybe if all I cared about was being a lone wolf bouncing lone aircraft . . . 

 

1 hour ago, chiliwili69 said:

The i5-8400 is a decent CPU, but bad for IL-2 VR.

 

Thanks for your info and graphs. This does look like I'm limited by my 8400. Wish I could afford an upgrade. Also wish I were confident it would make the experience substantially better. I keep hearing from people with far better CPUs whose advise boils down to "just tolerate the bad performance" (see above).

 

On 1/9/2020 at 12:05 PM, haltux said:

VR is a niche in the niche.

I hear this all the time, but for flight sims, it's becoming more than that, and arguably already is. Flight simmers are a dedicated bunch of hobbyists, with many spending thousands on peripherals or simpits. How many people here have a Warthog? You can get a good VR headset for cheaper than that already. And VR tends to be a conversion experience, once you experience it. I know several fellow simmers who tried it on a whim and now won't fly without it.

 

Also, look what happened when Microsoft said they weren't really thinking about VR for the new Flight Simulator. The community made enough of an uproar that they changed plans. I have no idea how they'll make such an advanced engine work well in VR, but they have stated they are dedicated to doing it. 

 

On 1/9/2020 at 10:19 AM, Alonzo said:

If you're shooting for 80, consider disabling the Migoto mod.

I've done this and see no difference. This makes me a tiny bit hopeful that my experience is unique to my machine and can be improved?

 

20 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Higher fidelity sims like this will probably never perform well in VR.

The fact that my rig can get very high FPS in 2D 1080p suggests to me that my CPU is running those calculations acceptably, but something happens on the way to translating the graphics into VR. That suggests engine issues, not "this sim is just too complex to calculate fast." And as others have noted in other threads, there are VR-specific optimization technologies that could be implemented to speed things up. But I did read in another thread that Jason has only a single graphics engine programmer, so . . . I can't expert miracles, I guess. :(

 

I love IL-2, what little of it I have experienced. I don't want anyone to think I'm just moaning because I'm bitter. But I can't give up VR, and right now I have a hard time enjoying flying IL-2 in VR, and from what I see, no one at all can really run it well, i.e. a stable native framerate all the time. I'm just melancholy about this.

 

Someone mentioned competition above. I thought I had no interest in DCS for WWII stuff, but . . . they mentioned in their update today that they are still plugging away at adding support for Vulkan, which they expect will lead to noticeable performance improvements. And they announced a brand new WWII Channel map in development. I quote: "In order to improve game performance, particularly in VR and take advantage of today’s hardware, we have been working on the integration of the Vulkan API into DCS World over the past year. This is an important undertaking, but we believe it will be well worth the end-results."

 

Don't get me wrong: I love what IL-2 offers, and I supported the game by preordering Bodenplatte before I had a rig that I even thought could run it. But if I were the devs, I would make mature VR support a priority for the not-too-distant future.

Edited by IdahoBookworm
added quote about Vulkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, IdahoBookworm said:

The fact that my rig can get very high FPS in 2D 1080p suggests to me that my CPU is running those calculations acceptably, 

2D performance has little to do with running well in VR. You do have a good CPU but even the strongest available today will still need to run the game constantly in ASW which causes all those artifacts. 
Realize that VR in 3D means drawing every scene twice and that load is on your CPU in addition to everything else this sim asks from it. And that’s already substantial. What you’re enjoying about the realistic flight models etc compared to War Thunder is a direct result of this CPU usage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Realize that VR in 3D means drawing every scene twice

Drawing a scene is primarily a 3D, GPU-bound requirement, no? At least, it is so for most engines. After all, the engine doesn't have to calculate the flight model twice, just because there are two viewports. So saying "you either get accurate flight models or good VR performance, but not both" seems like a false dichotomy to me.

 

I mean, I'm sure there are CPU-bound elements that get impacted by VR, but the flight model's not one of them. If it is . . . well, that would be a serious problem at the engine level, having the game calculate all the flight physics twice, needlessly. But hey, maybe that explains my wing blobs: two competing instances of the flight model running at the same time, and the game unsure which to go with at any given moment! lol

Edited by IdahoBookworm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

2D performance has little to do with running well in VR. You do have a good CPU but even the strongest available today will still need to run the game constantly in ASW which causes all those artifacts. 
Realize that VR in 3D means drawing every scene twice and that load is on your CPU in addition to everything else this sim asks from it. And that’s already substantial. What you’re enjoying about the realistic flight models etc compared to War Thunder is a direct result of this CPU usage. 

 

That statement in bold is blatantly false. Even though we have discussed this many times in the past, I will give you the benefit of a doubt seeing as how you have never 

experienced the game with a VR headset. 

In fact, in IL-2 with my Rift S I am at full 80 fps (no ASW) the vast bulk of the time, even in combat. I will get some occasional dips to ASW of 40 fps, but that is not often at all. And I run pretty darn high graphics settings.

And when it does, the experience is still quite good and I do not get much in the way of crazy artifacts.

 

Yes I have a higher end rig which I built for VR. Even in DCS my experience is very close to IL-2, still at full 80 fps with no ASW more often than at 40 fps with ASW.

And I have literally hundreds of hours in both sims in VR.

 

As far as 2d Performance sure it does. One can basically gauge fairly close what they will get in VR by halving the monitor FPS. As long as do not get

crazy with the super sampling.

 

 

Edited by dburne
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Drawing a scene is primarily a 3D, GPU-bound requirement, no?

The cpu draws objects. The GPU renders them. Flight sims like this have a very large number of objects compared to other games. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


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

 

In fact, in IL-2 with my Rift S I am at full 80 fps (no ASW) the vast bulk of the time, even in combat. I will get some occasional dips to ASW of 40 fps, but that is not often at all. And I run pretty darn high graphics settings.

Fair enough. My point is that there legitimate reasons why this sim is more challenging than War Thunder to run in VR. And it’s not because the developers lack expertise or that the game engine is flawed. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The cpu draws objects. The GPU renders them. Flight sims like this have a very large number of objects compared to other games. 

So . . . nothing to do with the flight model, then? :) And I'll just point out that War Thunder renders an awful lot of objects, too . . .

 

All engines need to be tuned and optimized. This is why pre-release games often run much worse than the final project: because the developers ultimately went in, identified the stuff impacting the framerate most, and made cost-cutting measures and tradeoffs to hit target framerates in common use situations on the lowest hardware they want to support. I can't imagine this would be impossible in IL-2. I understand if the developers don't have the manpower. But I don't think this engine is optimized for VR, and I do think it theoretically could be, if the devs had the resources to do so.

 

4 hours ago, dburne said:

In fact, in IL-2 with my Rift S I am at full 80 fps (no ASW) the vast bulk of the time, even in combat. I will get some occasional dips to ASW of 40 fps, but that is not often at all. And I run pretty darn high graphics settings.

I am very glad to hear this! I'm guessing you have a monster rig, but still, at least I know it's possible, if you throw enough power at it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, IdahoBookworm said:

I can't imagine this would be impossible in IL-2. I understand if the developers don't have the manpower. But I don't think this engine is optimized for VR, and I do think it theoretically could be, if the devs had the resources to do so.

There have indeed been improvements in how well this game runs. But those improvements in performance go towards things like allowing improved or larger maps and increasing the numbers of AI aircraft etc. The goal post keeps moving to the limit which is feasible in 2D. You’re imagining the game engine improving and yet holding back it’s potential so VR can catch up with 2D. That’s really not realistic. 
You keep citing War Thunder as performing so well and yet complaining about its laser gun planes. It performs well because it’s just not doing as much as IL-2 is. A sim with the fidelity that IL-2 has is by its very nature going to be difficult to run in VR. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You’re imagining the game engine improving and yet holding back it’s potential so VR can catch up with 2D. That’s really not realistic. 

No, I'm imagining the devs making certain features that are not essential to gameplay ("bells and whistles") toggle-able for those who would happily trade them for better performance, as well as doing other optimizations such as making use of VR-specific techniques such as instanced stereo rendering (which reduces CPU use).

 

58 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

A sim with the fidelity that IL-2 has is by its very nature going to be difficult to run in VR. 

You keep bringing up the flight model, but DCS is just as complex and runs noticeably better on my rig. I really don't think it's a choice between "have a high fidelity sim" and "have good performance in VR." Like I said: false dichotomy.

 

There is, however, a definite correlation between engine optimization and the manpower to accomplish it. It sounds like that is the limiting factor here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IdahoBookworm said:

The fact that my rig can get very high FPS in 2D 1080p suggests to me that my CPU is running those calculations acceptably, but something happens on the way to translating the graphics into VR. That suggests engine issues, not "this sim is just too complex to calculate fast." And as others have noted in other threads, there are VR-specific optimization technologies that could be implemented to speed things up. But I did read in another thread that Jason has only a single graphics engine programmer, so . . . I can't expert miracles, I guess. :(

 

Yes, definitely. People keep saying "the CPU has to do twice the work" but that's only in a naive VR implementation. Modern VR tech allows the CPU to process all the geometry once, then ask the GPU to draw the scene from the two camera angles in one pass. The CPU doesn't end up doing double the geometry calls for double camera angles. Similarly the VR libraries let you do variable rate shading either fixed and foveated (like the new NVidia VRSS feature) or by saying "this patch of texture is all the same color, I know that because I'm the game engine, so supersample this bit less than other bits". But all those are either VR-platform specific, since every platform is trying to lock people into it and be the "best" or at the very least requires development effort.

 

Is there any "force joystick" mode in War Thunder? Might get you out of mouse auto-stabilized aimbot hell.

 

By the way, I can't see what that other guy is typing because I have him on ignore because he's basically a troll. I would advise you to consider that too.

Share this post


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

So . . . nothing to do with the flight model, then? :) And I'll just point out that War Thunder renders an awful lot of objects, too . . .

 

All engines need to be tuned and optimized. This is why pre-release games often run much worse than the final project: because the developers ultimately went in, identified the stuff impacting the framerate most, and made cost-cutting measures and tradeoffs to hit target framerates in common use situations on the lowest hardware they want to support. I can't imagine this would be impossible in IL-2. I understand if the developers don't have the manpower. But I don't think this engine is optimized for VR, and I do think it theoretically could be, if the devs had the resources to do so.

 

I am very glad to hear this! I'm guessing you have a monster rig, but still, at least I know it's possible, if you throw enough power at it. 

 

Not sure if you have been with IL-2 GB since they implemented VR in 2017, but there have been some very nice improvements in VR with their sim from then to now.

It runs much better now in VR than it did then. 

One example is the HUD - at first there was a significant FPS hit when turning the HUD on, now it is hardly noticeable.

Share this post


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

You keep bringing up the flight model, but DCS is just as complex and runs noticeably better on my rig. I really don't think it's a choice between "have a high fidelity sim" and "have good performance in VR." Like I said: false dichotomy.

By most accounts DCS is even harder to run in VR than IL-2.

10 hours ago, IdahoBookworm said:

No, I'm imagining the devs making certain features that are not essential to gameplay ("bells and whistles") toggle-able for those who would happily trade them for better performance,

There are already many graphic settings you can choose to do this with already. 

Share this post


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

Yes, definitely. People keep saying "the CPU has to do twice the work" but that's only in a naive VR implementation. Modern VR tech allows the CPU to process all the geometry once, then ask the GPU to draw the scene from the two camera angles in one pass.

You’re talking about this

https://developer.nvidia.com/vrworks/graphics/singlepassstereo

or this

https://developer.nvidia.com/vrworks/graphics/multiview

AFAIK the engine has to support this and and IL-2 does not. I always read that these flight sim developers (this and DCS) are reluctant to support vendor specific features. That doesn’t mean they are “naive”. 

 

12 hours ago, IdahoBookworm said:

There is, however, a definite correlation between engine optimization and the manpower to accomplish it. It sounds like that is the limiting factor here.

Obviously that’s a factor. With VR only being used by 1-2% of PC gamers, putting manpower towards this kind of thing may not be cost effective. It’s been a consideration throughout the whole development of this series whether or not to put resources towards features which are not fully utilized by players or that actually help sell the game. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


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

By the way, I can't see what that other guy is typing because I have him on ignore because he's basically a troll. I would advise you to consider that too.

Okay, thanks. I'll just ignore him, then.

 

With your help, Alonzo, I found settings that make even Combat Box look and perform tolerably in basic flight. Adding 4X antialiasing on top of 1.2 supersampling didn't phase my GPU a bit, and it helps a lot with the double-vision in normal flight. Berloga runs great and fights there are a ton of fun, but Combat Box still defeats me when the actual combat starts. Jerky, smeary, and impossible to see what's going on. This morning I set myself up above some bombers and then when I dropped closer I couldn't see them because they doubled and so did the landscape, making everything look like an impressionist painting. I couldn't even control my aircraft well because the jerking was making me overcorrect all the time. I might try one more time when I can actually fly with squad mates, though I'm not sure how helpful I would be to the team.

 

12 hours ago, Alonzo said:

Is there any "force joystick" mode in War Thunder? Might get you out of mouse auto-stabilized aimbot hell.

 

Sim mode in War Thunder is mostly like this. It's actually pretty great in many areas. Reasonable flight models for most aircraft (though some are very bad), excellent time-to-combat (great for me, since I usually only have an hour to play every day), and the strategy of spotting and positioning works great. It's something in between the constant chaos of Berloga and the more measured and realistic strategy of Combat Box. And it is supposed to be joystick only.

 

The problem with War Thunder is that Gaijin pays a lot more attention to "realistic" and arcade players than sim, and there are loopholes that "realistic" pilots use to mine Gaijin's in-game currency in sim mode. Specifically, the bombers in sim mode have guns that are mouse-controlled and horizon-stabilized, meaning it doesn't matter what the bomber is doing, the gun sights stay where they are pointing them — even in a flat spin after you blow their wing off. So "realistic" players spawn bombers in Sim mode and make trucking runs, dropping bombs to earn in-game currency, while swatting away the poor joystick-using simmers who dare try to intercept them. Often there are more bomber pilots than fighter pilots in a room. Also, though the flight models are mostly reasonable, you can upgrade your pilot until they don't seem to feel G-forces even at 12G, so realism goes out the window there. 

 

I enjoy War Thunder, and I fly with a great squad there led by a couple real pilots including a former F-15E WSO, but I was hoping when I had the time to also be able to fly with the Red Devils in a more detailed and strategic arena that's less likely to make me tear my beard out because video game mechanics are contaminating my sim. I wish the devs had the manpower to make more VR-specific optimizations. I really do think the CPU usage in VR could be dramatically reduced.

Share this post


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

This morning I set myself up above some bombers and then when I dropped closer I couldn't see them because they doubled and so did the landscape, making everything look like an impressionist painting. I couldn't even control my aircraft well because the jerking was making me overcorrect all the time.

 

Hmm, this seems like it's worse than simply having ASW kick in. For me, ASW is only really noticeable when I'm using the 10x Migoto zoom (because that amplifies any ghosting) or when an enemy is moving 90 degrees to me and flashing across the canopy. Diving on bombers should look fine at 40 ASW, and the landscape shouldn't look bad at all (it's not moving very fast so ASW should do a good job with it).

 

I feel like there's something else going on with your system that is making things worse than the usual 40 ASW. Is it definitely still hitting 40? Have you tried using OTT to force 40? Are you sure the pixel density is set where you intended it to be set? (Check using OTT visual hud setting).

Share this post


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

By most accounts DCS is even harder to run in VR than IL-2.

 

and just as obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

21 hours ago, IdahoBookworm said:

 

You keep bringing up the flight model, but DCS is just as complex and runs noticeably better on my rig. I really don't think it's a choice between "have a high fidelity sim" and "have good performance in VR." Like I said: false dichotomy.

 

that is my experience also, currently VR works better on DCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

and just as obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

VR performance is apparently unpredictable and subjective then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2020 at 8:20 PM, IdahoBookworm said:

Jerky, smeary, and impossible to see what's going on.

 

Sounds to me that you don't reach 40 FPS. Did you actually check that? Backspace key displays the FPS value.

 

 

On 1/10/2020 at 11:45 PM, SharpeXB said:

2D performance has little to do with running well in VR. You do have a good CPU but even the strongest available today will still need to run the game constantly in ASW which causes all those artifacts. 

 

This is plain wrong as dburne said. The problem is that there is a threshold effect, under the threshold it's pretty bad, it looks like there is no way the game could run smoothly even on a significantly better machine, but over the threshold it's great. And the threshold is just slightly under the best machines available. I have just boosted the overclocking of my recently acquired i5-9600k from 4.6 to 5 Ghz, and the difference is massive. This is another level of satisfaction when playing in VR.

 

This is a bit upsetting for those who do not have the cash to update their machine, but the good news is that their is little doubt that in a couple of years it will run flawlessly on average machines, even without major breakthrough in CPU performances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPU is crucial, but that said, in the beginning of VR i was able to play 90fps in QMB (1vs1, Lapino winter even 4vs4) or PWCG with low/mid settings on a CV1 with an old i3 4150 dual core @3.5Ghz and  a GTX 970.

And that was before il2 VR optimization of the past years.

With my current setup i can play @90fps most of the time (QMB 8vs8) on high/ ultra settings,  except MP or mission (career mode) that involve bomber or bomber formations or heavy AI activity.

 

Of course all within the limitations of the current game engine. Thats the main problem here, i can dogfight in a 1vs3 @90fps, and sometimes when AI crashes, fps drop heavy, one minute after that with the next AI crashing into the ground - nothing - solid 90fps - why? I cant tell you.

I also encountered a phenomenon while building missions in ME. Airfields for some reason induce frequent (and changing) stutter because of heavy dips, although everything is rendered @90fps with enough headroom, even when standing in parking area. Maybe its just my install/setup, because i cant remember seeing this frequent pattern before, but so far i can only point it down to the airfields. Made a separate thread for this.

 

Long story short,  90fps are not an unachievable goal as many paint it to be.

Edited by ironk79

Share this post


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

This is plain wrong as dburne said. The problem is that there is a threshold effect, under the threshold it's pretty bad, it looks like there is no way the game could run smoothly even on a significantly better machine, but over the threshold it's great. And the threshold is just slightly under the best machines available.

Ok sure. Key point underlined...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...