G2 Resolution

[MarcAnton]

Hey guys, got my G2 yesterday - what settings do i have to use resolution wise ingame or in steam VR ?

Ingame i see my monitor resolution 3440x1440 - in SteamVR it says 3164x3092 - iam confused 

 

2080TI  and 10900K btw

[Panzerlang]

The VR resolution takes control over anything you've set in the game for what you see in the headset, though the in-game one does dictate what renders on the monitor. The SteamVR setting is correct at 100%, it super-samples (upscales or something) over the headset's native resolution to render a correct image. You can reduce the slider and it doesn't much degrade the image, for higher performance (FPS I believe).

(9) HP Reverb G2 SteamVR... Bug Or No Bug? - YouTube

Edited December 6, 2020 by J3Hetzer

[[CPT]Crunch]

You'll want to reduce steams settings to match as close for starters, the screen native res is high enough its not really necessary to push it.  There's too many different types of HMD with varied resolutions, so steam needs to be adjusted per headset.

[Panzerlang]

Just now, [CPT]Crunch said:

You'll want to reduce steams settings to match as close for starters, the screen native res is high enough its not really necessary to push it.  There's too many different types of HMD with varied resolutions, so steam needs to be adjusted per headset.

You can reduce the slider but 100% is the correct setting (see link above).

[dburne]

39 minutes ago, J3Hetzer said:

The VR resolution takes control over anything you've set in the game for what you see in the headset, though the in-game one does dictate what renders on the monitor. The SteamVR setting is correct at 100%, it super-samples (upscales or something) over the headset's native resolution to render a correct image. You can reduce the slider and it doesn't much degrade the image, for higher performance (FPS I believe).

(9) HP Reverb G2 SteamVR... Bug Or No Bug? - YouTube

 

That is certainly interesting...

[Panzerlang]

I've just tried IL2 with the slider set to match the G2's native rez as closely as possible, it put the slider at 48%. I saw not a whit of difference in the FPS. Nor in image quality.

As is often the case, shizzle don't make a lot of sense with this kind of stuff. You'd think a near 50% difference in such a setting would be obvious in effect.

[shirazjohn]

2 hours ago, J3Hetzer said:

The VR resolution takes control over anything you've set in the game for what you see in the headset, though the in-game one does dictate what renders on the monitor. The SteamVR setting is correct at 100%, it super-samples (upscales or something) over the headset's native resolution to render a correct image. You can reduce the slider and it doesn't much degrade the image, for higher performance (FPS I believe).

(9) HP Reverb G2 SteamVR... Bug Or No Bug? - YouTube

Hi i am a little confused with this video, why was my old g1 resolution in steam vr at 100% ss showing around the native 2160x2160 yet the g2 has this higher resolution and they are the same panels. Although i have just tried my g2 at 100% and it looks stunning but a bit sluggish to say the least. As James T Kirk would say "i need more power scotty".

[dburne]

1 hour ago, shirazjohn said:

Hi i am a little confused with this video, why was my old g1 resolution in steam vr at 100% ss showing around the native 2160x2160 yet the g2 has this higher resolution and they are the same panels. Although i have just tried my g2 at 100% and it looks stunning but a bit sluggish to say the least. As James T Kirk would say "i need more power scotty".

 

Yeah I was wondering the same thing myself as I had heard SteamVR resolution for the original Reverb did show 2160x4320 overall.

I too do not understand why the G2 resolution at 100% would show higher.

[shirazjohn]

3 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

Yeah I was wondering the same thing myself as I had heard SteamVR resolution for the original Reverb did show 2160x4320 overall.

I too do not understand why the G2 resolution at 100% would show higher.

After all the hype with the G2 i was a little disappointed that it didn't seem that much better than my G1 but afrer trying at 100% I'm blown away at how it looks ,just need better cpu/gpu ( my wallet never gets a rest.) I have found at 100% ss you can turn AA off it has little effect.

[dburne]

1 minute ago, shirazjohn said:

After all the hype with the G2 i was a little disappointed that it didn't seem that much better than my G1 but afrer trying at 100% I'm blown away at how it looks ,just need better cpu/gpu ( my wallet never gets a rest.) I have found at 100% ss you can turn AA off it has little effect.

 

I will be giving that a try hopefully sometime tomorrow.

However just as important is whether I can run it with good performance.

Edited December 6, 2020 by dburne

[shirazjohn]

9 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

I will be giving that a try hopefully sometime tomorrow.

However just as important is whether I can run it with good performance.

Yes i think this will be a problem. But maybe try reducing to 90 or 80 % with no AA.

Edited December 6, 2020 by shirazjohn

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Does anyone here have a 3090 and a G2?

[thermoregulator]

4 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Does anyone here have a 3090 and a G2?

I ordered g2 on 8th of june on bestware, so i should be in the first batch. But I am not from Germany, which disqualifies from cashback, and I will probably have to wait a little longer for the delivery. I have g1 though...

[NiiranenVR]

7 hours ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Does anyone here have a 3090 and a G2?

 

10 hours ago, dburne said:

 

I will be giving that a try hopefully sometime tomorrow

I guess Dburne have 

[I.JG3_CDRSEABEE]

 

Found this...Explains why it is what it is.....

[dburne]

2 hours ago, CDRSEABEE said:

 

Found this...Explains why it is what it is.....

 

 

Yeah I saw that earlier.

The only thing he does not explain - at least as far as I understand it, the Reverb G1 at 100% resolution in Steam VR shows 2160x2160.

Now I do not have the Reverb G1 so can not vouch for that, but I have seen others state that is what it shows.

[Stolle]

He explains the difference for the G1 in the comments below the video on youtube. 

[I.JG3_CDRSEABEE]

42 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

 

Yeah I saw that earlier.

The only thing he does not explain - at least as far as I understand it, the Reverb G1 at 100% resolution in Steam VR shows 2160x2160.

Now I do not have the Reverb G1 so can not vouch for that, but I have seen others state that is what it shows.

My global recommended setting is 150% using a 3080. So I have to put that at 100, then adjust application settings. Currently running about 75%.  He says this is the same a running 2.5 4K screens....?

 

I think the new lenses require (or allows) more clarity at higher settings.?

Edited December 7, 2020 by CDRSEABEE

[dburne]

40 minutes ago, Stolle said:

He explains the difference for the G1 in the comments below the video on youtube. 

 

Well in the comment I read that he posted he said he really has no idea why that is.

[TWC_NINja]

I've run my G1 on the 1080Ti as well as the 2080S. I found that Steam VR's default global resolution % setting is dependent on your GPU. 

 

When I had the 1080Ti, the default global % was 115% or so and the resolution was a little bit higher than the headset's 2160x2160. But when I got the 2080S, the default percentage bumped up to 143% and the resolution was closer 2500x2500 (approximate) 

 

So I set my global to 100% and then in the "pre application" tab, I adjust the slider to get the sweet spot of performance/visual quality I like.

 

 

[dburne]

5 minutes ago, TWC_NINja said:

I've run my G1 on the 1080Ti as well as the 2080S. I found that Steam VR's default global resolution % setting is dependent on your GPU. 

 

When I had the 1080Ti, the default global % was 115% or so and the resolution was a little bit higher than the headset's 2160x2160. But when I got the 2080S, the default percentage bumped up to 143% and the resolution was closer 2500x2500 (approximate) 

 

So I set my global to 100% and then in the "pre application" tab, I adjust the slider to get the sweet spot of performance/visual quality I like.

 

 

 

Makes some sense.

I guess I will change mine to 100% in global and then like you adjust it in the per application tab based on game performance.

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by dburne

[I.JG3_CDRSEABEE]

Wonder if its better to leave it at the recommended in global and adjust per app or put global at 100???

Edited December 7, 2020 by CDRSEABEE

[chiliwili69]

1 hour ago, dburne said:

Yeah I saw that earlier.

The only thing he does not explain - at least as far as I understand it, the Reverb G1 at 100% resolution in Steam VR shows 2160x2160.

Now I do not have the Reverb G1 so can not vouch for that, but I have seen others state that is what it shows.

 

G1 at 100% don´t shows 2160x2160. It shows 2205x2160.

 

What the video explain is shown here https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/66924-syn_vander-benchmark-v6-to-measure-il-2-performance-in-monitor-vr/?do=findComment&comment=1033416

 

 

And the answer to your question could be that G1 and G2 are using different lenses technology, with the G2 giving a better clarity on the edges.

 

Perhaps, like previous WMR devices with a bit smaller FOVs, they were not too much concerned about having a good sweet spot or making a good  barrel distorsions corrections. And that why the G1 have massive chromatic aberrations and blurrines in the edges.

 

If you want full clarity from edge to edge to have to pay the price of making a detailed lenses correction which require to render more pixels.

 

Of course, you can always subsample but the image quality will degrade, specially in the edges.

 

[I.JG3_CDRSEABEE]

 

This guy says adjust in WMR!!! Really confusing. 

 

Looks like someone could advise their customers which is best or "how to".

 

Dark arts I guess..lol

 

[dburne]

14 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

G1 at 100% don´t shows 2160x2160. It shows 2205x2160.

 

What the video explain is shown here https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/66924-syn_vander-benchmark-v6-to-measure-il-2-performance-in-monitor-vr/?do=findComment&comment=1033416

 

 

And the answer to your question could be that G1 and G2 are using different lenses technology, with the G2 giving a better clarity on the edges.

 

Perhaps, like previous WMR devices with a bit smaller FOVs, they were not too much concerned about having a good sweet spot or making a good  barrel distorsions corrections. And that why the G1 have massive chromatic aberrations and blurrines in the edges.

 

If you want full clarity from edge to edge to have to pay the price of making a detailed lenses correction which require to render more pixels.

 

Of course, you can always subsample but the image quality will degrade, specially in the edges.

 

 

Clear as mud...

[Stolle]

 

 

1 hour ago, dburne said:

 

Well in the comment I read that he posted he said he really has no idea why that is.

Per the guy s comments from the vid:

Lots of G1 owners wondering why their headsets showed 2160 x 2160 in SteamVR at 100%, a good question! My understanding is that the early high res WMR headsets like the G1 reported their resolutions differently to SteamVR, lower to ensure good performance on the hardware that was available at the time... you still benefited from the lesser screen door effect and sharpness (like running a G2 at 50%) but were actual able to run them!

 

 

Not sure if it really makes a diffenece if the game res shows at 2160x2160 @100%

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Stolle
addtional comments +edit rdundancy

[dburne]

3 minutes ago, Stolle said:

 

Lots of G1 owners wondering why their headsets showed 2160 x 2160 in SteamVR at 100%, a good question! My understanding is that the early high res WMR headsets like the G1 reported their resolutions differently to SteamVR, lower to ensure good performance on the hardware that was available at the time... you still benefited from the lesser screen door effect and sharpness (like running a G2 at 50%) but were actual able to run them!

REPLY

Per the guy s comments from the vid:

Lots of G1 owners wondering why their headsets showed 2160 x 2160 in SteamVR at 100%, a good question! My understanding is that the early high res WMR headsets like the G1 reported their resolutions differently to SteamVR, lower to ensure good performance on the hardware that was available at the time... you still benefited from the lesser screen door effect and sharpness (like running a G2 at 50%) but were actual able to run them!

 

 

REPLY

 

 

I will just throw my hands up on this one.

 

[Guest deleted@134347]

49 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

Clear as mud...

 

I did a quick test yesterday with my G2.

 

- 100-110% gets rid of the jaggies, other than that the center view (sweet spot) doesn't change.

- where it does visibly change is when you're trying to check your 6 twisting your neck 90 degrees and trying to make out the contact with the corners of your eyes. The picture seems marginally better.... less dispersed so-to-speak...

 

don't think the fps drop is worth of this additional clarity, at least not with my current config. I can always pan further with my body to get a clear image of the six.

[Charlo-VR]

2 hours ago, dburne said:

 

Makes some sense.

I guess I will change mine to 100% in global and then like you adjust it in the per application tab based on game performance.

 

 

This is what I have started doing. At this point these appear to be the settings best at reducing shimmering in multiplayer for me, running my G2 at 90Mhz:
SteamVR Settings -> General tab (and repeated on Video tab) "Resolution per eye" 100% SteamVR (3164 x 3092 x 2 = 19,566,176 pixels) 
SteamVR Settings -> Video -> Per-Application Video Settings -> "Custom Resolution Multiplier" for IL2 set at 50% (2236 x 2188)

 

  

1 hour ago, 69th_Didney_World said:

 

I did a quick test yesterday with my G2.

 

- 100-110% gets rid of the jaggies, other than that the center view (sweet spot) doesn't change.

- where it does visibly change is when you're trying to check your 6 twisting your neck 90 degrees and trying to make out the contact with the corners of your eyes. The picture seems marginally better.... less dispersed so-to-speak...

 

don't think the fps drop is worth of this additional clarity, at least not with my current config. I can always pan further with my body to get a clear image of the six.

 

For 110% (I assume on the General tab and repeated on the Video tab's "Resolution per eye"), what setting do you also have in SteamVR Settings -> Video -> Per-Application Video Settings -> "Custom Resolution Multiplier" for IL2?

I want to see if 110% "Resolution per eye" helps with the shimmer/jaggies in WWII, though I don't think anything can help with the wires in the FC aircraft!

 

 

And of course for all of us, our FPS also all depends upon the IL2 graphics settings we choose. As you can see in the attached, I won't go lower than "High" clouds quality, much prefer MSAA (2x is fine), and prefer 150km Horizon draw distance and I check Distant buildings. I'm also enjoying Ultra grass quality, especially in the Russian maps. But I currently fly with mirrors and shadows quality off.

[Guest deleted@134347]

1 minute ago, Charlo-VR said:

For 110% (I assume on the General tab and repeated on the Video tab's "Resolution per eye"), what setting do you also have in SteamVR Settings -> Video -> Per-Application Video Settings -> "Custom Resolution Multiplier" for IL2?

 

when I set the 100% in global video it set the per-application to the same 100% resolution, i.e. pixel count was the same.

 

my 8700k/2080ti can't pull your graphics settings, especially the grass.. it'd be lovely though, I bet.  Wondering why you turned off the shadows though? It makes the ground look at lot more believable, more than the grass.

 

 

[Charlo-VR]

30 minutes ago, 69th_Didney_World said:

 

when I set the 100% in global video it set the per-application to the same 100% resolution, i.e. pixel count was the same.

 

my 8700k/2080ti can't pull your graphics settings, especially the grass.. it'd be lovely though, I bet.  Wondering why you turned off the shadows though? It makes the ground look at lot more believable, more than the grass.

 

 

 

Up until a few weeks ago I was rocking a Titan X Hybrid, so I had the grass turned off. I found the shadows a bit much in VR, and since I was also looking to conserve settings for that aging Titan X, I had those turned off, too. 

 

Now that I have a 3090, I turned on the grass and realized how much I appreciate having it back on again. I'm also really appreciating 90 Mhz. I'm intrigued with what you wrote about shadows, so will play around with shadows again - it's fun having a card that can handle more eye candy! 

 

Like others who now have 30XX and 6800 cards, we're realizing that in VR IL2's max settings are still too much for modern hardware (and of course, my i7 10700K isn't the very fastest CPU, though still no slouch). 

[dburne]

34 minutes ago, Charlo-VR said:

 

Up until a few weeks ago I was rocking a Titan X Hybrid, so I had the grass turned off. I found the shadows a bit much in VR, and since I was also looking to conserve settings for that aging Titan X, I had those turned off, too. 

 

Now that I have a 3090, I turned on the grass and realized how much I appreciate having it back on again. I'm also really appreciating 90 Mhz. I'm intrigued with what you wrote about shadows, so will play around with shadows again - it's fun having a card that can handle more eye candy! 

 

Like others who now have 30XX and 6800 cards, we're realizing that in VR IL2's max settings are still too much for modern hardware (and of course, my i7 10700K isn't the very fastest CPU, though still no slouch). 

 

I too gots to have my shadows, either high or ultra.

[dburne]

So I went and changed my G2 resolution to the default showing for my system, which is 3172x3100.

I also set my IL-2 Steam VR Profile to the same resolution with Motion Smoothing enabled.

 

Loaded up my next PWCG Campaign mission. I did  not change any graphics settings, left them as they were which are pretty high.

Wow - it was simply gorgeous. Hardly any terrain shimmering, it all looked so nice! 

I never hit 90 FPS in this mission, it stayed a constant 45 fps. I was impressed though with the motion smoothing, it was really not bad at all. I think it is in fact a little

better than Oculus ASW. I could probably live with it like this, but going to play around a little more first.

 

Next I will try removing MSAA and setting to none and see how it looks. Might not be bad at this resolution and maybe I might hit 90 fps some.

Stay tuned...

[dburne]

Ok I changed to none on MSAA. All remaining settings the same.

It still looked quite good, only difference I saw is when low like on runway I start to see some terrain shimmering off at a distance.

Once I am in the air with some altitude it is really not noticeable.

 

I did hit 90 fps a couple of times however it was very brief and not enough to even say it did it really.

But still I am impressed with Motion Smoothing and running at this high resolution.

 

Only way to maybe get some more 90 fps action would be to reduce resolution, perhaps I will experiment with it but for the remainder of today think I am just

gonna leave it as is and enjoy the great image clarity and see if I feel any negative effects from running with Motion Smoothing on.

[wheeliemonsta]

Thanks Don. Good to know that your rig is capable of hitting 90 with high settings/resolution. Especially as I'm considering a 3090!

What do your actual FPS look like if you turn off Motion Smoothing (I assume it's locking to 45/90 in the same way as ASW did when it's turned on)?

[dburne]

4 minutes ago, wheeliemonsta said:

Thanks Don. Good to know that your rig is capable of hitting 90 with high settings/resolution. Especially as I'm considering a 3090!

What do your actual FPS look like if you turn off Motion Smoothing (I assume it's locking to 45/90 in the same way as ASW did when it's turned on)?

 

Yeah but again, I would not consider my system hitting 90 much running at this resolution. Only for a very brief instant.

I could disable Motion Smoothing but pretty sure I would get considerable stuttering which I can not have, can't stand stuttering.

I have flown two of my PWCG missions and both had heavy air combat, and I had no problems at all with Motion Smoothing. It ran 45 fps at all times.

Edited December 8, 2020 by dburne

[dburne]

Just had my first PWCG mission with clear skies, I did get 90 fps a good part of the time in it.

[Charlo-VR]

@69th_Didney_World and @dburne you are both certainly right about shadows!  Since I got back into IL2 when I bought a Quest in March, I had turned them off. I didn't realize shadows also help reduce shimmering in wires and on ground textures - very cool!

 

I also spent a few hours flying on Combat Box with High Shadows and Complex Mirrors, with SteamVR at 100% resolution and with motion smoothing on for the first time, and it looked quite good. I'll probably dial the mirrors back or off and reduce the SteamVR resolution to 50% so I can turn off motion smoothing and increase my general frame rates. I found identifying bogies more challenging at 45 fps, and feel that limiting to 45 fps makes everything a little less clear.

[chiliwili69]

On 12/8/2020 at 1:12 AM, Charlo-VR said:

so will play around with shadows again

 

The CPU is responsible to build the scene. Where every object should be for the point of view of the user.

Shadows and mirrors are based on the geometry and position of the objects of the scene, and these are calculated by the CPU.

That´s why the impact of the settings of mirrors and shadows load more the CPU.

As you know the VR loads heavily the CPU since scene has to be calculated twice. So a better GPU will not help in raising settings of mirrors or shadows.

 

I made this post sometime ago with the old benchmark, but I think it is pretty valid as a guide:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/57586-performance-impact-of-every-graphics-option/

 

 

16 hours ago, dburne said:

Wow - it was simply gorgeous

 

So then you recommend to run the G2 at 100%?  right? (if GPU can handle it)

16 hours ago, dburne said:

Only way to maybe get some more 90 fps action would be to reduce resolution,

 

In order to know what is limiting you from being at 90fps, I would recommend to use fpsVR. I think it is a great tool to know in every moment if you are GPU or CPU bounded while you are playing the game. Instead of looking at the fps counter of IL-2.

Yes, it is a paid tool, but it is really cheap and worth.

12 hours ago, dburne said:

ust had my first PWCG mission with clear skies, I did get 90 fps a good part of the time in it

 

You know, clouds are basically loading GPU (and CPU a little).

2 hours ago, Charlo-VR said:

reduce the SteamVR resolution to 50%

 

Hey, having a 3090 it is a crime to run STeamVR SS at 50% with G2. You will not be getting the full clarity of the G2.

Your GPU can handle more than that for sure if you don´t use MSAA. And perhaps tune the clouds settings.

If you run fpsVR while you are playing you will see if your constraint is GPU or CPU.

[JG1_Greif]

On 12/6/2020 at 9:46 PM, shirazjohn said:

After all the hype with the G2 i was a little disappointed that it didn't seem that much better than my G1 but afrer trying at 100% I'm blown away at how it looks ,just need better cpu/gpu ( my wallet never gets a rest.) I have found at 100% ss you can turn AA off it has little effect.

As a G1 owner considering to upgrade to a G2: can you indicate what the main differences in experience are for you? And even though budget is heavily dependent on personal situation, would you say it was worth the investment?