VR only, occacional VR and screen only players

[SARFlytitus]

Great Battles + VR  =  HEAVEN ! 

[=420=Syphen]

The survey from Navigraph that SharpeXB posts about that says VR is a minority only sampled Civil Aviation flying groups and did not focus on DCS or IL2 players.  And it makes sense, when those polls were done, VR implimentation in Xplane and FS2020 was "meh" at best with terrible performance.  Aerofly FS2 was the only Civil/GA sim that ran great in VR for me, and it was NOT a popular sim. 

 

I think the VR adoption from IL2, and DCS users is a higher % number as the implimentation is MUCH better, and more Combat Sim users have a HOTAS that makes flying in VR viable. All the guys I know who are GA/Civvie sim guys fly with Track IR and often have pretty crumby HOTAS kit. They rely on the KB/Mouse combo heavily. No Virpil or VkB to be seen. 

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Own a Pimax 8K but don't use it.  The immersion of the 3D is wonderful but I find it finicky and not he best resolution.  So I bought a 48" 4K OLED 120Hz monitor.  It is absolutely gorgeous to fly with.  As far as I am concerned resolution trumps 3D and really don't miss VR.  I figured to wait til the next generation of VR comes out (beyond G2) to see if I should try again.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2021 by VBF-12_Stick-95

[AEthelraedUnraed]

13 minutes ago, =420=Syphen said:

The survey from Navigraph that SharpeXB posts about that says VR is a minority only sampled Civil Aviation flying groups and did not focus on DCS or IL2 players.  And it makes sense, when those polls were done, VR implimentation in Xplane and FS2020 was "meh" at best with terrible performance.  Aerofly FS2 was the only Civil/GA sim that ran great in VR for me, and it was NOT a popular sim. 

 

I think the VR adoption from IL2, and DCS users is a higher % number as the implimentation is MUCH better, and more Combat Sim users have a HOTAS that makes flying in VR viable. All the guys I know who are GA/Civvie sim guys fly with Track IR and often have pretty crumby HOTAS kit. They rely on the KB/Mouse combo heavily. No Virpil or VkB to be seen. 

It's absolutely true that the Navigraph poll is biased as well, and in general I agree with your prediction that IL2 and DCS users will have a higher percentage of VR users than the other sims you mention. But the Navigraph survey seems to be more randomly sampled than a poll on the IL2 forums. I think that if you take *all* IL2 users - Steam, standalone, occasional players, addicts, multiplayer, singleplayer, active on the forums, not active on the forums, active on the Russian forums - all those into account, then the result will be closer to the Navigraph survey than to the two-thirds majority you see here.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, =420=Syphen said:

The survey from Navigraph that SharpeXB posts about that says VR is a minority only sampled Civil Aviation flying groups and did not focus on DCS or IL2 players.

Yes Navigraph clearly focuses on civy flight sims. What’s interesting about the statistic isn’t the actual % but the lack of change or growth. It will be interesting to see what effect MSFS will have. 

1 hour ago, =420=Syphen said:

VR implimentation in Xplane and FS2020 was "meh" at best with terrible performance

X-Plane and MSFS don’t perform well in VR because they’re flight sims! Literally worst game genre you could try to run in VR. Long view distances, high object counts, complex physics etc. The performance target of these games are designed around 2D and of course will tax the strongest hardware today when just running on a monitor. 

[Spinnetti]

All the setup and faffing around for VR is kind of a pain and interface elements are annoying. Reverb G2 works quite well when flying though and feels more real. Sometimes just jumping in with Trackir is a lot less hassle.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Spinnetti

[15[Span.]/JG51Costa]

7 hours ago, VBF-12_Stick-95 said:

Own a Pimax 8K but don't use it.  The immersion of the 3D is wonderful but I find it finicky and not he best resolution.  So I bought a 48" 4K OLED 120Hz monitor.  It is absolutely gorgeous to fly with.  As far as I am concerned resolution trumps 3D and really don't miss VR.  I figured to wait til the next generation of VR comes out (beyond G2) to see if I should try again.

 

 

 

Hi Stick-95
If I may read between the lines I think you are also saying that virtual reality is the future.

It is only a matter of time before the resolution matches the immersion.

 

Saludos.

15(Span.)/JG51 Costa.

[Dragon1-1]

9 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

X-Plane and MSFS don’t perform well in VR because they’re flight sims! Literally worst game genre you could try to run in VR. Long view distances, high object counts, complex physics etc. The performance target of these games are designed around 2D and of course will tax the strongest hardware today when just running on a monitor. 

Dunno about MSFS, but X-plane's problem was actually Linux support. To that end, it was designed around OpenGL (instead of DirectX like with everything else), which is antiquated. If you download an experimental build and enable Vulcan support, it suddenly runs butter-smooth in VR. Flight sims do tax computer performance by their very nature, however proper design and using modern drivers can mitigate that.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

@SharpeXB, it seems you're having a couple of misconceptions about VR.

 

First of all, it doesn't require much tweaking. When I bought my Quest 2 about a year ago, it was pretty much plug and play. As with everything (including monitors!), tweaking can improve things, but that's definitely not exclusive to VR. Personally, I only tweaked it a bit a month or so ago, which indeed increased my framerate a bit. This involved downloading a file and moving it to a certain directory, as well as running an installer. Hardly requiring a doctoral degree in computer science. And it definitely wasn't necessary, given that I've played for months with the default settings.

 

Secondly, it seems you're having a somewhat pessimistic view of how much the performance hit is. As explained in my earlier post, the lower bound on the performance is basically half the framerate of 2D (with equal resolution and settings). This is the lower bound and in practice, the actual FPS will usually be a bit higher since there are a couple of optimisations you can do to increase this number. Turning the in-game graphics settings down a couple of notches should be enough to get a good FPS.

 

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

X-Plane and MSFS don’t perform well in VR because they’re flight sims! Literally worst game genre you could try to run in VR. Long view distances, high object counts, complex physics etc. The performance target of these games are designed around 2D and of course will tax the strongest hardware today when just running on a monitor. 

Lastly, flight sims are literally the best genre you can try to run in VR, precisely *because* of the large view distances. One of the optimisations I mention above, is that for large view distances you can basically reuse much of the pixel data from the other eye. Meaning that, for a scene with only air and distant terrain, the theoretical framerate of VR approaches that of 2D. In practice it will be lower because it still has to do a couple of extra checks, but long view distances is really the best-case scenario for VR.

 

High object count doesn't matter; the game will have to do everything twice for each object, but that's already included in the half-framerate lower bound.

 

Regarding physics; it's true that these calculations are nowadays often performed on the GPU rather than CPU. However, this can be basically seen as a constant that is deducted from the available GPU power, and doesn't have to be done a second time for VR. So for VR it doesn't matter either.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

First of all, it doesn't require much tweaking.

Yeah I can see all the performance threads in the VR sections of these game forums. It’s just mind boggling and would prevent most people from even attempting VR. 

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

7 hours ago, 15[Span.]/JG51Costa said:

 

Hi Stick-95
If I may read between the lines I think you are also saying that virtual reality is the future.

It is only a matter of time before the resolution matches the immersion.

 

Saludos.

15(Span.)/JG51 Costa.

Yes, that's a good interpretation.  I  have always been a believer in VR.  Increased resolution and wider FOV are key.  They are just not there yet IMO.  Maybe we'll see curved OLED/AMOLED screens in the future that will achieve it.

 

[Rapierarch]

44 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah I can see all the performance threads in the VR sections of these game forums. It’s just mind boggling and would prevent most people from even attempting VR. 

I spent more than a month to get my quest 2 play nice with IL-2 and DCS. The holly grail for IL-2 was getting rid of Steam VR and switching to open composite. Since I cannot update my 2070 super due to the reasons everyone knows I had to fine tune my FOV exactly my physical FOV which gave me a render volume reduction 50% where I used it for maximum supersampling and to run everything at max. 

 

Now IL-2 works like a charm except for VR zoom (we should get same pixels as 2d screen zoom for details but instead we get similar magnification which puts VR users in disadvantage)

DCS still needs to optimize their game but they are working on it. 

 

So yes it takes time and effort. But this is not a game it's a hobby. Now I can fly without problems and IL-2 is the best looking sim I have ever seen.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Rapierarch

[Asgar]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah I can see all the performance threads in the VR sections of these game forums. It’s just mind boggling and would prevent most people from even attempting VR. 

Not like there are tons of threads in the non VR sections looking for better performance in either of those games too… there will always be people who own hardware that struggles to keep up and those people will be looking for help.

 

For me the experience was flawless, I bought a quest 2. plugged it in installed the software and put a check mark on „use VR“ in IL-2. Done working for me ever since. But my PC can handle it. I wouldn’t have needed any tweaks at this point. Did I tweak? Sure, you can always improve performance or looks! But I always do this, no matter if VR or flat screen

Edited October 18, 2021 by Asgar

[SharpeXB]

37 minutes ago, Rapierarch said:

But this is not a game it's a hobby

I get it. For some people, the “hobby” is screwing around constantly with their hardware. Like some people like owning old cars that they can work on constantly because they like doing that. That’s not me. I just want to play the game. 

[BBAS_Tiki_Joe]

Discovered VR with Il-2 about three years ago, started with a OG Vive for the first year and now have an Index. In my observation, I think a lot of misinformation has been spread throughout the community about VR which has scared a lot of people off. The most common of these I hear is that you will not be competitive on MP in VR, and that your spotting will be way more inferior to that of someone playing on a 2d screen. That is just simply no the case, it might have been 4-5 years ago but with modern HMD and the computer to run it you will be equal in the skies. I fly with a mixed group that plays in VR and on Flat-screen, all very good pilots. We all equally spot distant aircraft and can ID them at the same range. With the caveat that you need the right equipment, it is a myth that you will not be competitive. Just because someone had a bad experience on a 980 graphics card using a first generation VR set 5 years ago does not apply to today. I'd even argue that you will see a pretty large jump in your gunnery skills using VR, after some practice, you will be able to aim just by feel. Half the time on deflection shots I'm not even looking at my sight, the depth perception is crazy and feels so natural aiming.

 

My second observation.. I have a top-of-the line PC and headset, I've had roughly 40 people, friends and family spend time on my VR set. I've noticed a small number of those people just didn't enjoy the experience. I have a very unscientific theory that some people just can't see "VR."; I don't know if it is bad vision/needing glasses, our that their eyes/brain just don't process the images in away that gives off the immersion(Unable to experience 3d depth in VR). Common complaints I received from the 5 or so people that did not like it was that the experience was just blurry, or that it was "just like holding a monitor up to their face" and that they couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I honestly think that some people just can't see "it" for whatever reason.

 

In my own personal experience with VR, it completely blows my mind every-time I put it on to fly. The experience is so real that I find myself having to take a break after a heated engagements because my adrenaline is going so hard I'm shaking. After three years piloting in VR, it has yet to go stale. I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it is hard for me to reconcile my experience VS. what some of the VR naysayers experiences have been with VR as they seem so different.

 

Anyway, enough rambling... if you've got the money its worth every dollar. Like someone said earlier, I justify the cost as I view this as a hobby not a game. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by BBAS_Tiki_Joe
spelling

[Rapierarch]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I get it. For some people, the “hobby” is screwing around constantly with their hardware. Like some people like owning old cars that they can work on constantly because they like doing that. That’s not me. I just want to play the game. 

No you have misunderstood me. This is the second best thing than flying in real. Since I cannot afford that I'm doing this. So spending 1 month to solve not optimized software and weak GPU issues is something I can take. If it was a game I would have never done this. 

 

But of course I would have love to have a plug and play experience. But sims are far from that. You need a good stick throttle rudders. Than setting them up than seeing that you ended up something unnatural change settings again. This took me also a few weeks. I would love to have a VKB tecs throttle for example but I'm just afraid of setting up all keybindings again. IL-2 and than for each plane in DCS

But flying sim is a hobby it means learning the aircraft reading a lot of stuff, setting up a lot of things watching how others fly in you tube.... 

It just takes time. 

 

I see that you are one of the IL-2 team. You probably you do not need to do so much research because you know it already or you are doing it as a job  And for you plug and play is the only thing remaining in your wish list.  I still did not fly any bombers for bombing run, I still want to learn the stuka....... yes setting up my computer is one thing in the list only: I call the whole package as hobby not building computers and tweaking them.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Rapierarch

[[CPT]Crunch]

The last two years my close up vision has taken a nose dive, absolutely need reading glasses to do anything within two feet.  I find it easier, more comfortable and relaxing on the ole eyes in the VR set despite upgrading to ever larger monitors placed ever further away.

[Rapierarch]

24 minutes ago, BBAS_Tiki_Joe said:

I have a top-of-the line PC and headset,

Just a question. 

Which headset do you have?

I have quest 2 running at maximum supersampling (running at 6K) everything ultra except msaa which is around  2x or 4x (I did not decide it yet) I have solid 72fps.

I cannot get not even close to same detail for plane identification as on screen. Is it possible that when you are flying in the mixed group that 2d players actually confirm your identifications?

 

I killed 2 friendlies until now in my short MP experience. I do not dare to open fire before I fly by them anymore so I have zero advantage. My most effective pass I fly without shooting to see them. I can spot them there is no problem but identification is really a totally different ball park for VR and 2D for me at least. 

 

I test flied on my 1080p screen and planes at the same distances are clearly identifiable since they have more pixels on the screen than on the HMD. 

 

[SharpeXB]

31 minutes ago, Rapierarch said:

But of course I would have love to have a plug and play experience. But sims are far from that.

I’m not adverse to complexity in sims. But VR tweaking borders on futility and delusion in DCS. I have no desire for that experience at all. 

34 minutes ago, Rapierarch said:

I see that you are one of the IL-2 team

I’m actually not on the IL-2 team

[Rapierarch]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m actually not on the IL-2 team

Ah, what does founder mean in this forum? I'm still new here 

[BBAS_Tiki_Joe]

24 minutes ago, Rapierarch said:

Just a question. 

Which headset do you have?

I have quest 2 running at maximum supersampling (running at 6K) everything ultra except msaa which is around  2x or 4x (I did not decide it yet) I have solid 72fps.

I cannot get not even close to same detail for plane identification as on screen. Is it possible that when you are flying in the mixed group that 2d players actually confirm your identifications?

 

I killed 2 friendlies until now in my short MP experience. I do not dare to open fire before I fly by them anymore so I have zero advantage. My most effective pass I fly without shooting to see them. I can spot them there is no problem but identification is really a totally different ball park for VR and 2D for me at least. 

 

I test flied on my 1080p screen and planes at the same distances are clearly identifiable since they have more pixels on the screen than on the HMD. 

 

 

I have the Valve Index, no issues at all with plane identification. I do use VR zoom to look at the planes, when I use that feature they are clear as day. I've never done an actual test to compare, I'd actually be interested in that to see what distance I can ID at. I'd guess 1k-1.75k I get a 95% ID. Leaving that 5%, sometimes it is hard to tell between a few planes such as a mustang/109 or a bf110/pe.2 but anything less than 1k away its a 100%.

[SharpeXB]

24 minutes ago, Rapierarch said:

Ah, what does founder mean in this forum? I'm still new here 

“Founders” are the first early access purchasers of Battle of Stalingrad ?

[Dagwoodyt]

25 minutes ago, BBAS_Tiki_Joe said:

 

I have the Valve Index, no issues at all with plane identification. I do use VR zoom to look at the planes, when I use that feature they are clear as day. I've never done an actual test to compare, I'd actually be interested in that to see what distance I can ID at. I'd guess 1k-1.75k I get a 95% ID. Leaving that 5%, sometimes it is hard to tell between a few planes such as a mustang/109 or a bf110/pe.2 but anything less than 1k away its a 100%.

I too have an Index but if I forget to put my prescription glasses on before the HMD things will look blurry and I recognize immediately that I have forgotten them. My guess is that many guest users don't imagine needing prescription lenses for VR even though they might never drive without prescription glasses.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Dagwoodyt

[Rapierarch]

54 minutes ago, BBAS_Tiki_Joe said:

have the Valve Index,

Interesting, my resolution is far better than yours, and yes I would expect to id targets 1.5km away. I'll look into that. May be missing something in the settings.

41 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

“Founders” are the first early access purchasers of Battle of Stalingrad ?

? Alright than. I was treating everyone with that tag as someone from the developers. Thanks  

[SirFlappy]

2 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

The last two years my close up vision has taken a nose dive, absolutely need reading glasses to do anything within two feet.  I find it easier, more comfortable and relaxing on the ole eyes in the VR set despite upgrading to ever larger monitors placed ever further away.

 I have been following VR since it came out ,and if I upgrade my PC in the future I am very tempted to give it a go.

   My only real concern is (after getting a PC capable of running it smoothly)  the effect on my eyesight.

 I am 50 now (nearly!) and my eyesight has never been great,in fact they said I should wear glasses when I was a child,after having a few NHS glasses at the time I found they made my vision weaker so I stopped wearing them at about 12 years old....so far my eyesight has  not deteriorated any further and I can still read small print just fine!!

  So my worry is would prolonged VR use push eyestrain to the fore and make my eyes worse?

    I wonder if the above is testament to this........I suppose I must try a decent VR setup and try to gauge it before I take the plunge.............but it does seem to open up another world of immersion if motion sickness and or eye problems dont get in the way...as I said the PC power can be solved ,thats not the issue with me.

 PS- I dont know if Crunch got into VR 2 years ago or just months ago, so my thinking that VR has caused his eyestrain in the first place maybe false?

Edited October 18, 2021 by SirFlappy

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, Rapierarch said:

I spent more than a month to get my quest 2 play nice with IL-2 and DCS.

Alright, but the crux is, did you *want* to tweak VR or did you *need* to tweak VR?

 

Yes, VR will have a better framerate (or resolution or whatever) if you spend a couple of hours to tweak things. But the Quest 2 (which I have myself) is very much plug-and-play. I never tweaked a thing for the first six months, it all pretty much worked out of the box (with a slightly lower-rated GPU than you). Yes, once again, you *can* tweak things to get better performance, but when I still had a low-end laptop and a monitor, I also spent at least a month to optimise my settings to get at least a decent framerate. That's nothing specific to VR; if you want more FPS you need to tweak, no matter if you use a monitor or an HMD.

 

1 hour ago, Rapierarch said:

I can spot them there is no problem but identification is really a totally different ball park for VR and 2D for me at least.

That's true; unless you've got a top-notch GPU and HMD, you will have to reduce your resolution, which hampers your ability to ID aircraft. On the other hand, spotting seems to be much better than for most monitor players.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m not adverse to complexity in sims. But VR tweaking borders on futility and delusion in DCS.

Once again, there is no such thing as "compulsory tweaking". If you want to tweak, that's possible and it will give better performance. Just like it does with monitors. But if you don't want to tweak, it also works. Just like with monitors. You're blaming VR for something that is not VR specific at all.

 

I'm not making a case for VR. It definitely has a couple of disadvantages, such as that you will have to reduce your resolution or GFX settings to maintain a decent framerate, and that as a result aircraft ID will be a bit harder. Also, you need an HMD which is expensive. On the other hand, it offers a much more immersive world and generally a bit better spotting. In how far all of these things weigh against each other is a personal question and something everyone has to decide for himself.

 

I am requesting however that VR gets a fair judgement, and as such I simply cannot agree with your statements that using VR somehow requires excessive amounts of tweaking to make things work. It just doesn't.

 

10 minutes ago, SirFlappy said:

 I am 50 now (nearly!) and my eyesight has never been great,in fact they said I should wear galsses when I was a child,after having a few NHS galsses at the time I found they made my vision weaker so I stopped wearing them at about 12 years old....so far my eyesight has  not deteriorated any further and I can still read small print just fine!!

  So my worry is would prolonged VR use push eyestrain to the fore and make my eyes worse?

Well, I'm about 20 years younger, but otherwise my story is pretty similar. My right eye is -3 and my left -0.5 or something, never tested again since I had to get glasses to obtain my driver's license. Never used said glasses. I've been playing VR for a year, and I haven't noticed any deterioration of my eyesight whatsoever. Of course, I'm no optometrist, but from my personal experience I can say that it hasn't made a difference.

[SirFlappy]

3 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Alright, but the crux is, did you *want* to tweak VR or did you *need* to tweak VR?

 

Yes, VR will have a better framerate (or resolution or whatever) if you spend a couple of hours to tweak things. But the Quest 2 (which I have myself) is very much plug-and-play. I never tweaked a thing for the first six months, it all pretty much worked out of the box (with a slightly lower-rated GPU than you). Yes, once again, you *can* tweak things to get better performance, but when I still had a low-end laptop and a monitor, I also spent at least a month to optimise my settings to get at least a decent framerate. That's nothing specific to VR; if you want more FPS you need to tweak, no matter if you use a monitor or an HMD.

 

That's true; unless you've got a top-notch GPU and HMD, you will have to reduce your resolution, which hampers your ability to ID aircraft. On the other hand, spotting seems to be much better than for most monitor players.

 

Once again, there is no such thing as "compulsory tweaking". If you want to tweak, that's possible and it will give better performance. Just like it does with monitors. But if you don't want to tweak, it also works. Just like with monitors. You're blaming VR for something that is not VR specific at all.

 

I'm not making a case for VR. It definitely has a couple of disadvantages, such as that you will have to reduce your resolution or GFX settings to maintain a decent framerate, and that as a result aircraft ID will be a bit harder. Also, you need an HMD which is expensive. On the other hand, it offers a much more immersive world and generally a bit better spotting. In how far all of these things weigh against each other is a personal question and something everyone has to decide for himself.

 

I am requesting however that VR gets a fair judgement, and as such I simply cannot agree with your statements that using VR somehow requires excessive amounts of tweaking to make things work. It just doesn't.

 

Well, I'm about 20 years younger, but otherwise my story is pretty similar. My right eye is -3 and my left -0.5 or something, never tested again since I had to get glasses to obtain my driver's license. Never used said glasses. I've been playing VR for a year, and I haven't noticed any deterioration of my eyesight whatsoever. Of course, I'm no optometrist, but from my personal experience I can say that it hasn't made a difference.

 This is good news ,I may well try VR in the future.

   You quoted me before I noticed my TYPO on "Glasses"....maybe I do need them after all lol!!

[DD_Arthur]

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It will be interesting to see what effect MSFS will have. 

X-Plane and MSFS don’t perform well in VR because they’re flight sims

 

Just an observation here but since MSFS August update it’s VR performance has become phenomenal.

At least as good as IL2 imo.

[SharpeXB]

18 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

If you want to tweak, that's possible and it will give better performance. Just like it does with monitors

Not really. If you have a strong system, a monitor requires zero tweaking. Move all the sliders to Ultra and game on. 
In DCS VR even players with 3090 GPUs are taking their machines apart in the futility to get a few more frames. 
 

And see, you just wrote a whole paragraph about VR performance with something about resolution etc etc etc. Just a no-go for me. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by SharpeXB

[DD_Arthur]

?

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Just an observation here but since MSFS August update it’s VR performance has become phenomenal.

Define “phenomenal”. See VR performance is subjective whereas monitor performance isn’t. Good performance on a monitor means running at 60hz on Ultra settings in 4K. Are you getting a solid 90fps in VR on Ultra settings in MSFS? I don’t think so… 

[DD_Arthur]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Define “phenomenal”. See VR performance is subjective whereas monitor performance isn’t. Good performance on a monitor means running at 60hz on Ultra settings in 4K. Are you getting a solid 90fps in VR on Ultra settings in MSFS? I don’t think so… 

 

Sorry Sharpe, I’m not playing.

?#2

[AEthelraedUnraed]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Not really. If you have a strong system, a monitor requires zero tweaking. Move all the sliders to Ultra and game on. 
In DCS VR even players with 3090 GPUs are taking their machines apart in the futility to get a few more frames.

If you have a strong system, VR requires zero tweaking as well. Honestly I can not understand why you think this is any different for VR. It isn't.

 

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And see, you just wrote a whole paragraph about VR performance with something about resolution etc etc etc. Just a no-go for me. 

I tried to explain a bit about the workings behind VR performance. If VR is a no-go for you, then that's fine and I won't even attempt to convince you otherwise - to each his own. However, I do have to request you to stop spreading falsehoods about how VR requires massive amounts of tweaking.

Edited October 18, 2021 by AEthelraedUnraed

[SharpeXB]

27 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

If you have a strong system, VR requires zero tweaking as well

You should surf over to DCS… ?

[Rapierarch]

26 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Not really. If you have a strong system, a monitor requires zero tweaking. Move all the sliders to Ultra and game on. 
In DCS VR even players with 3090 GPUs are taking their machines apart in the futility to get a few more frames. 
 

And see, you just wrote a whole paragraph about VR performance with something about resolution etc etc etc. Just a no-go for me. 

I totally agree with that. 

 

But I guess our perception of good, smooth VR experience is subjective. 

Most of the guides that I follow they are actually relying on image projection. Which is absolutely no go for me. Some guides for msfs and even for DCS recommend not only half the rate but some of them suggest forcing 1/4 fps forced.  Or some suggest to stay above 40-45fps without image projection. They are for me just no go at all. 

 

I managed to get 72fps solid. No projection and maximum supersampling and game rendering at 100%. This is what is usable for me. 

I fly hours without a break no sickness no headaches no eye strain nothing. 

 

So if I hear that MSFS is running like IL-2 I simply cannot believe that. IL-2 runs at solid 72 fps. DCS did something in last open beta update so Caucasus map plays really nice suddenly that I can roar with my beloved Viggen. They say Syria  is also improved but I'm holding myself for real deal, multi core update and Vulkan/DX12 api. 

War thunder is the only one which runs better than IL-2. MSFS is just trash. Yes they have improved it but they are not there yet and while improving they have broken the color rendition, they have fixed the overexposed clouds but washed out colors are still there frame rates improved but still not suitable for agile planes doing acrobatics but I can soar with my JU-52 and enjoy it if I do not make sudden head movements.   

[SharpeXB]

36 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I do have to request you to stop spreading falsehoods about how VR requires massive amounts of tweaking.

What’s this then? 17 pages of tweaking…

And this! 36 more pages…

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by SharpeXB

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You should surf over to DCS… ?

I don't know about DCS. Maybe their VR implementation is worse. I don't know. I don't play it.

 

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What’s this then? 17 pages of tweaking…

That's a benchmark. A benchmark is not used for tuning but to compare your current system against others (it can be used as a target for further tuning, but that's it). I don't know about the pages that follow, but reading through it, it contains posts of both VR and monitor players, which proves my point. As I've said a couple of times above already, tweaking is possible and will improve FPS. But it is nowhere "required." But since we're going back and forth, I'd like to know which of my three basic statements exactly you disagree with:

1. VR has lower performance than 2D, theoretically bounded between ~0.5 and 1x the FPS of 2D.

2. VR works out of the box without tweaking (although at lower GFX settings, see my first point).

3. Settings are tweakable to get a better performance. This is true for both monitors and VR.

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Settings are tweakable to get a better performance. This is true for both monitors and VR

Yeah but I’ve never seen any “tweaking” for monitors like what goes on with VR. And it’s actually possible to max out the graphics in 2D whereas this is impossible in VR. Hence VR always involves compromises and tweaking. 

9 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That's a benchmark. A benchmark is not used for tuning but to compare your current system against others

Sure, Benchmarks are typically used to adjust your settings. Why dozens of people seem to care about how somebody else’s system performs escapes me. If VR actually performed there would be no need for this vain search for the mystery system that might be able to run it. 
 

A monitor and a 2080Ti don’t need a benchmark test in this game. Just max everything and go. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by SharpeXB

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

it’s actually possible to max out the graphics in 2D whereas this is impossible in VR. Hence VR always involves compromises and tweaking. 

Then that's the core of what we apparently disagree on. Yes, everything but the *very* best of GPUs will not be able to run VR on full resolution and GFX settings. That's something I can agree with.

 

However, does one always have to have the maximum possible performance? I for one am satisfied with "good" performance. I'm sure that I could get a couple more FPS out of my GPU/HMD if I'd spend some time tweaking it, but I'm fine with it as it is. And that's my point - of course, you *can* spend time to tweak your settings, but there's no-one forcing you to. If you're fine with slightly less performance than the absolute maximum that you can achieve, then you don't *need* to tweak anything at all. Whereas you imply that tweaking things is basically a requirement to run VR at all, and that's a simple falsehood.

[SharpeXB]

15 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Yes, everything but the *very* best of GPUs will not be able to run VR on full resolution and GFX settings

I’m not sure about IL-2 but in DCS I don’t think there is any hardware which can run it “well”. Running it “well” IMO would mean being able to keep the constant refresh rate of the headset (80-90 fps), without continually running in reprojection mode, and doing that in all gameplay situations.