So is eye tracking and foveated rendering working in IL2 now?

[Gunfreak]

Thinking specifically about Crystal 

[T24_Martin]

Unfortunately not. I hope the Devs will add it. For high end VR headsets it is the only true chance to use the full potential. 

 

I also have a Crystal. Currently running OpenXR with 80 to 85 percent max resolution. 

[kissTheSky]

?

 

Sorry, couldn’t resist. I’d settle for non stuttering VR. With everything they have on their plate, I thought it may take a while for the developers to get around to it, but in the previous DD they mentioned they’re looking into QoL improvements, so we may yet again get pleasantly surprised. 

[BBAS_Tiki_Joe]

Has any update or word from the devs about supporting Dynamic Fov? Tried googling and couldn't find anything.

[DBCOOPER011]

2 hours ago, BBAS_Tiki_Joe said:

Has any update or word from the devs about supporting Dynamic Fov? Tried googling and couldn't find anything.

 

None that I seen. Maybe for IL2 Korea hopefully. I think what mbuccia says below kind of sums it up...

 

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/implement-quad-views-for-vr-rendering-to-improve-performance/604530/32?page=2

 

[Aapje]

5 hours ago, BBAS_Tiki_Joe said:

Has any update or word from the devs about supporting Dynamic Fov? Tried googling and couldn't find anything.

 

No. What you need to look out for is clarification whether VR support in the Korea engine is still going to be based on the (obsolescent) SteamVR API, or whether they switch to OpenXR. If they do the latter, then this creates the possibility to support foveated rendering, which is part of the OpenXR 1.1 standard. But even then I would expect this to at best be added later on, after they have released Korea with the more important changes first.

[chiliwili69]

On 9/23/2024 at 9:03 PM, Aapje said:

based on the (obsolescent) SteamVR API

 

Please, one thing is the runtime and another thing is the API. Don´t mix them.

 

SteamVR is the runtime, which talks to the available APIs (OpenVR and OpenXR).

 

IL-2 has been developed to use only the OpenVR API, and as you say it would be much better to switch to OpenXR which is the common API that everyone is using now.

 

This picture below tried to explain it:

 

 

[Panzerlang]

Pimax are incorporating Quadview into their software, so wouldn't it then be the case that ANY game will be able to benefit from it? I don't understand that a specific game has to be coded to allow forveated and dynamic forveated anyway, surely it's the headset doing all that regardless of a given game?

[Aapje]

@chiliwili69

 

OpenVR is the SteamVR API. They called it open, but Valve's attempt to create a standard that is universally used, failed.

 

The choice of words I used is way more clear to lay people in my opinion than using OpenVR and OpenXR, because these names look very similar, but in reality, OpenXR is a real open standard controlled by a consortium, while OpenVR is not. So that name is deceptive.

 

@Panzerlang

 

You don't understand how it works. The big benefit of foveated (no r) rendering is that only part of the screen is rendered with high quality and the rest is rendered with much lower quality. This requires that the game engine that does the actual rendering gets told by the headset what parts it should render in high quality, and the game engine then has to do an extra rendering step for each eye. So this requires changes to the game engine (although this is relatively limited because of certain technical details of how rendering works nowadays, using 'views', that I won't explain further).

 

The very reason why they call it Quadview, is because where regular VR renders a separate image for each eyes, Quadview foveated rendering does an extra render step for each eye. So regular VR is dual view (1 image per eye, so 2 in total), while Quadview foveated rendering is quad view (2 images per eye, so 4 in total).

Edited September 25, 2024 by Aapje

[chiliwili69]

23 hours ago, Aapje said:

OpenVR is the SteamVR API.

 

OpenVR was the initial API of SteamVR, in June-2020 they transitioned to OpenXR while mantaining OpenVR.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/250820/view/2522527900755718763?l=english

On 9/25/2024 at 9:17 AM, Aapje said:

The choice of words I used is way more clear to lay people in my opinion than using OpenVR and OpenXR

It is important to name the things as they are.

SteamVR doesn´t mean OpenVR, they are two separate things.

 

The good thing is that OpenXR was succesful and everyone has adopted that as the standard, so it simplify the work for game developers and VR devices manufacturers.

 

It is now the turn of IL-2 developers to move from OpenVR to OpenXR.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Yeah, all they would have to do is update the ancient openVR.dll they use and it would fire up automatically with any openXR capable HMD.  It's the one thing left to get it comply with a pimax which now runs openXR native.

[1Sascha]

Not for me - neither on the G2 nor on the Q3 I just upgraded to.

 

Tried DCS to see what sort of performance I'd be getting there and, sure enough, Foveated Rendering appeared in the OpenXR Toolkit in-VR menu. Not in IL-2 though.

 

 

S.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Finger crossed for the quad view, which can work with and without eye tracking. Now DCS has implemented that in game menu, no need for  additional software to work.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[c19580]

What would we be able to expect in performance and visual quality if this change was implemented?

[TCW_Brzi_Joe]

It depends of your settings (i.e. fov, and what you can tolerate - how big/small super sharp part should be). 

For me in different games normal foveated was 20-30% gain, and with quadviews much more then 100%. 

(pimax crystal)

Edited October 6, 2024 by TCW_Brzi_Joe

[chiliwili69]

On 10/3/2024 at 2:53 PM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

which can work with and without eye tracking

 

The Quadview technique is just another technique for Fixed (FFR) or Dynamic Foveated Rendering (DFR). Well explained here.

 

To me, it would only make sense if the device has eye-tracking, so only for devices like Aero, Crystal (no crystal light), QuestPro, VR1...

 

For all other devices it will just reduce the resolution in the peripheral, reducing the edge-to-edge clarity and forcing you to move your head instead of your eyeballs.

 

I already tested the FFR used by the SteamLink with the Quest3, and I didn´t like it.

 

In any case, it looks like Eye-tracking would be incorporated along the years in most of VR devices, and ideally IL-2 should consider the way to support DFR.

 

Edited October 6, 2024 by chiliwili69

[DBCOOPER011]

18 hours ago, c19580 said:

What would we be able to expect in performance and visual quality if this change was implemented?

 

A big increase in performance/visual quality if implemented the same way DCS has it now with quad views utilizing eye tracking. The pink dot on the screenshot is where my left eye is looking on my OG crystal. You can see the very sharp foveated region thats set at 200% of the native resolution with the peripheral at 12% if you blow the image up. No matter how hard I try, I can only see the foveated area wherever I look since the eye tracking is that good. At almost max settings in DCS, its a very sharp picture and runs smooth on this map between 10-11ms. The screenshot was 35MB and had to be converted down to 5MB to post..

 

 

 

..

 

 

Edited October 7, 2024 by DBCOOPER011

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

11 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

The Quadview technique is just another technique for Fixed (FFR) or Dynamic Foveated Rendering (DFR). Well explained here.

 

To me, it would only make sense if the device has eye-tracking, so only for devices like Aero, Crystal (no crystal light), QuestPro, VR1...

 

For all other devices it will just reduce the resolution in the peripheral, reducing the edge-to-edge clarity and forcing you to move your head instead of your eyeballs.

 

I already tested the FFR used by the SteamLink with the Quest3, and I didn´t like it.

 

In any case, it looks like Eye-tracking would be incorporated along the years in most of VR devices, and ideally IL-2 should consider the way to support DFR.

 

I'm familiar with that technology, I can imagine that in SteamLink it doesn't look great but Q3 in DCS where you can adjust all parameters it's great-  the box is big and I don't notice peripheral reduction there anyway as real eyes loose clarity there to . I do sometimes move my head to move focus boxbut little - feels natural , for sure not so  much as in G2 without this technology. To summarize -  FPS gain is significant and lost of clarity in peripheral view doesn't bother me. The box is large enough to look just using eyes. So it does make sense even for goggles without eye tracking tech.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Youtch]

9 hours ago, DBCOOPER011 said:

 

A big increase in performance/visual quality if implemented the same way DCS has it now with quad views utilizing eye tracking. The pink dot on the screenshot is where my left eye is looking on my OG crystal. You can see the very sharp foveated region thats set at 200% of the native resolution with the peripheral at 12% if you blow the image up. No matter how hard I try, I can only see the foveated area wherever I look since the eye tracking is that good. At almost max settings in DCS, its a very sharp picture and runs smooth on this map between 10-11ms. The screenshot was 35MB and had to be converted down to 5MB to post..

 

 

 

..

 

 

Is this with eye tracking or without eye tracking?

[DBCOOPER011]

41 minutes ago, Youtch said:

Is this with eye tracking or without eye tracking?

 

Eye tracked. You can see the foveated region on the pink dot where the gunsight setting selector is. The resolution decrease is visable around that area..

[chiliwili69]

12 hours ago, DBCOOPER011 said:

At almost max settings in DCS, its a very sharp picture and runs smooth on this map between 10-11ms.

 

WOW, It is better than What I thought. I see you have many parameters to tune the region and transition and adapts the SS. Very nice!

Now we will not need to spend fortunes in top GPUs to get the most of an eye-tracked VR device.

10 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I can imagine that in SteamLink it doesn't look great but Q3 in DCS where you can adjust all parameters it's great-

 

OK, I see what you mean. In the SteamLink there were not all this options to play with, but here it could be also somehow useful for non eye-tracked devices. 

I don´t play DCS, but if Quadviews is implemented in IL-2 I will definetely give a try.

[Youtch]

And does anyone know what would be the gain from fixed foveater rendering?

 

G2 as such as a small sweet spot anyway that it will not make much difference.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, Youtch said:

And does anyone know what would be the gain from fixed foveater rendering?

 

G2 as such as a small sweet spot anyway that it will not make much difference.

Just check yourself it's easy in DCS and all it's free.

[Aapje]

It depends on the size of the high quality area, doesn't it? The bigger you make it, the more you can move your eyes without seeing the low quality zone.

 

I think that it is highly personal whether you either naturally already have a tendency to look straight at things, or can train yourself to do so, rather than move your eyes.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

6 minutes ago, Aapje said:

It depends on the size of the high quality area, doesn't it?

For sure. Sometimes is natural to use just eyes to scan sometimes with additional head movement. In G2 i didn't like to move almost always my head towards interest area where in quest 3 with quadview is ok because most of the time eyes are enough because the box is large and in high quality. Plus it's natural to move head to look behind.

Edited October 8, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Youtch]

Is quadview more taxing for CPU, because with a AMD 5600X, I am already CPU bound in DCS without FFR?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

31 minutes ago, Youtch said:

Is quadview more taxing for CPU, because with a AMD 5600X, I am already CPU bound in DCS without FFR?

I read that in general is best to use when CPU is powerful and GPU is lacking.

[TCW_Brzi_Joe]

26 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I read that in general is best to use when CPU is powerful and GPU is lacking.

No. You just render less pixels in total, I do not believe it does much to my cpu. 

 

[Youtch]

1 hour ago, TCW_Brzi_Joe said:

No. You just render less pixels in total, I do not believe it does much to my cpu. 

So, it is not as if the CPU had to rendered 4 screens instead of 2, duplicating by two the computational load?

[DBCOOPER011]

4 hours ago, Youtch said:

Is quadview more taxing for CPU, because with a AMD 5600X, I am already CPU bound in DCS without FFR?

 

Eye tracking raises the CPU frametime around 1-2ms..

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

3 hours ago, TCW_Brzi_Joe said:

No. You just render less pixels in total, I do not believe it does much to my cpu. 

 

Yes. If not it wound not out benefit the additional cpu load

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, Youtch said:

So, it is not as if the CPU had to rendered 4 screens instead of 2, duplicating by two the computational load?

 

The CPU doesn't render 4 screens. It sends a single 3D-model to the GPU and then the GPU renders 4 different views based on that single 3D-model.

[Ballamjustposted]

In case it saves somebody some time ...

I've just tried various FFR options in IL-2 and none of them worked. I used this tool, which simplies installation, gives hotkeys and lets you try various options like vrperfkit, vrperfkit_RSF etc: https://github.com/tappi287/openvr_fsr_app/releases/tag/0.9.9. I can see the debug circles, so it is trying to work, but when I toggle FFR on/off with any of the options it has no impact on my frame times. Ah well. Maybe one day.

Edited January 4 by Ballamjustposted

[[CPT]Crunch]

No, the game doesn't support it, and in fact turning it on will cause game crashes for most hardware users not very long into any mission.

[BBAS_Tiki_Joe]

Has there been any Dev comments on DFR yet, either for IL2 in general or at least for the upcoming Korea?

[Aapje]

No, but given that they are replacing the gaming engine, they almost certainly have to redo the VR implementation, and the only thing that makes sense is to use OpenXR, which would mean that foveated rendering is an option...but then they still have to add it.

 

I wouldn't expect it in the first release, given how much they have to do and the fact that foveated rendering is not a crucial feature.

[chiliwili69]

On 3/14/2025 at 8:53 PM, Aapje said:

foveated rendering is not a crucial feature

it depends how you define crucial.

DFR is crucial for high resolution VR devices with eye tracking like Crystal (original with eye tracking), Crystal Super, VR1, Aero, XR-4 and future devices like Pimax Air Dream.

Most of them will go to resolution along 3800x3800 per eye, to keep that at 90fps for sure you need either DFR or a GPU which doesn´t exist today

[Aapje]

57 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

it depends how you define crucial.

DFR is crucial for high resolution VR devices with eye tracking like Crystal (original with eye tracking), Crystal Super, VR1, Aero, XR-4 and future devices like Pimax Air Dream.

 

No, the game will still work on those headsets without foveated rendering, so it is not crucial.

 

Also, it is a fact that only a relative small fraction of VR users have a headset with eye tracking, and of course, VR users are a subset of IL-2 players. So it's an important feature for that subset, but they will sell plenty of copies without it.