Need help interpreting VR performance

[Voxman]

2 hours ago, 1Sascha said:

. Don't remember the rules for that one - I don't want to have to switch back to SteamVR again

You won't have to, OpenXR/composite can be used.  But there are setting in the program (in VR menu) that you'll need to modify.

 

Impressive numbers BTW.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Voxman
Give out a compliment for a kicka$$ card!

[Qcumber]

I run a Pico 4 on the 4070 with a 5600x. I have it set to 3120 pixels and 120% FSR in OXRTK. At 72 Hz I get a steady 72 fps in most situations. Game settings to Ultra, most settings at max and msaa 4. It looks pretty good at those settings. 

[1Sascha]

Rheinland, QM, 2x8 planes.

 

 

Using the custom curve generated by MSI's Auto-OC (which really isn't bad if you have the 40 minutes to let it do its thing) plus VRAM cranked up by 1000 MHz.

G2: 90 Hz, 90% res

IL-2: "balanced" preset, shadows "medium", clouds "high" no SSAO, no HDR.

 

FPS hovered around 80 - very rarely hitting the 90-mark and dipping down into the low/mid 70s at times too. It was definitely a bit too choppy to call it completely acceptable, but I *think* I wouldn't have to go much lower with the resolution to get it to run stable. 80%, 75% perhaps?

 

Second attempt:

 

Same OC settings for the 4070

G2: 60 Hz, 110% res.

IL-2: settings cranked up a bit (preset from "balanced to "high", shadows from "medium" to "high").

 

 

 

Sadly, that stupid WMR bar at the top covered the CPU info, but it wasn't really stressed:

 

^ Plenty of headroom on the card with these settings, so I'm thinking I could probably get away with 120% res and/or some more eye-candy in-game. Perhaps raise my viewing distance from 70 to 100km.

 

 

So... question is... do I accept the lower frame-rate and make the game look a bit sharper and crisper... or do I reduce resolution and details to be able to run at 90 Hz?

 

Any opinions on the matter?

 

 

EDIT:

 

Same OC

G2: 60 Hz, res from 110 to 120%

in-game: Preset from "High" to "Ultra", AA from "OFF" to MSAA 2x

 

 

No FPS drops whatsoever and the card didn't seem *much* more stressed than in the other 60 Hz run:

 

Think I'll leave it like that for the time being and see what'll happen in a career mission. ?

 

Game looked probably the prettiest I've seen it in VR - ignore the rough looking stuff in the shots - my monitor res is set to 1080p and I did zoom in to take the screenshots.. ?

 

 

 

 

S.

Edited August 12, 2023 by 1Sascha

[1Sascha]

... and getting back to my original point: It seems that VRAM might actually play a role in career missions. Just flew a few over Normandy and Rheinland and had steady 60 FPS all the way. Looks like the game was indeed trying to hog more than 8 GB in these missions:

 

 

Of course: The added horsepower of the new card and the fact that I've dropped the G2's refresh-rate to 60 Hz will probably also be a factor, but the use of VRAM seems a bit...err.. excessive in these missions...

 

S.

[dburne]

Contrary to what some might say one can always use more Vram...

[[CPT]Crunch]

You can gain an extra meg by using the sky spaces empty room as your WMR portal.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

18 hours ago, dburne said:

Contrary to what some might say one can always use more Vram...

My wallet would disagree after looking at my 4090, but too much is better than not enough.

[horendus]

I would dare say most people buying a 4090 are not actually after the 24GB of VRAM.

 

There more interested in the 83 Teraflops of computing performance ?