von_Tom Posted October 15 Posted October 15 (edited) I lose my mind over this stuff. I've come from an Index where everything just worked with solid 90hz and no issues at all. System is a 9950X3D with 5090. Following all sorts of isues this is a clean W11 install and the game drive was formatted before a fresh install of everything. Bios and all drivers up-to-date. I have dropped in the openvr_api file and am running without Steam VR. I have not installed Steam yet. Relevant Super settings are: Room lighting - 50(auto) Refresh - 90 Eye tracking - off Image Quality - Medium (0.75) GPU Upsclaing - none Sharpness - 0.4 FFR - off Everything else is off Pimax OpenXR is enabled (or at least there is no option to change it) Passthrough is disabled Game settings are Balanced with view distance at 130km, shadows high and clouds extreme. SSAO on, AA x 2. In-game I get a solid 72 (when I have set it to 90) and I get terrible ghosting and the ground and buildings flicker like crazy. Like a slide show. Does anyonme know how to get to 90 without the slide show? Edit: Tried SteamVR and it is exactly the same. Monitor refresh set to 144hz (default) Edit 2: Set Quaqlity to Low (0.5) and its at 90 and smooth. I'd have thought I could run higher than that. von Tom Edited October 15 by von_Tom
giftgruen Posted October 15 Posted October 15 (edited) For start I'd set SSAO to off and also try without AA ( did you MSAA or FXAA ? ) cause with as much pixels, it's questionable if you still need Antialiasing. Don't own a Super, but both SSAO and AA ( at least MSAA ) are quite performance intense in my experience. Cloud "extreme" also needs a LOT of ressources, so set it to medium for a start, you can go higher later on maybe if you still have headroom. Same with Shadows. However, I admit that Shadows are needed for eye candyness ( I also own a 5090. But if I set all to ultra + SSAAO + HDR + MSAAx4 - then I also cannot run my QuestPro anymore with 90Hz and 3500x3500 Supersampling. And your Crystal Super needs even more rendered Pixels at 100% ) Edited October 15 by giftgruen 1
chiliwili69 Posted October 16 Posted October 16 18 hours ago, von_Tom said: Edit 2: Set Quaqlity to Low (0.5) and its at 90 and smooth. I'd have thought I could run higher than that. Yes, definetely your should be able to have Pimax Quality higher than Low (0.5) with a 5090. I assume you have the Super with the 50PPD lenses, right?. If this is the case the number of pixels rendered by your GPU should be these ones with the 0.5, 0.75, 0.85 (Used by Panzerlang) and 1.0. So, at 0.5 you are rendering 19.5 million pixels which is 10 million less than the panel resoltuion, so the image you will get should not be very good. Panzerlang reported to use 0.85 with the Pimax Super 50PPD and a 5090 card. So, for IL-2 (and without using any upscaling/Quadview/CPR etc technique) the limit of a 5090 card is about 56 million pixels at 90Hz. I would set the custom resolution at 0.75 (or even 0.85) and set all the IL-2 setting which could consume GPU load to the minimun ( for example Preset to Balanced, Clouds to Low, no MSAA, no SSAO, perhaps mirrors, perhaps shadows) and check the frametimes with fpsVR app or similar (In SteamVR you have the Developer/Advanced Frame Timming to see GPU and CPU frametimes) 18 hours ago, von_Tom said: Monitor refresh set to 144hz (default) Regarding this, I don´t know if this could influence the GPU load. What is the resolution of the monitor? What is the resolution of the IL-2 window in the monitor? Do you use full screen option? Since you play in VR I would try to reduce the monitor freq to 60Hz or 72Hz, just in case
von_Tom Posted October 16 Author Posted October 16 (edited) 4 hours ago, chiliwili69 said: ..... In order: The game still looks great even when I reduced it to 0.40 to give me more overhead for busy scenarios. Bear in mind I come from the Index so just the lenses are a big improvement, as is the fov - the game counter says 121. I don't know the interplay between the graphics presets and the headset setting. Does 0.4 at Ultra look as good as 0.75 with Balanced? I am no longer using SteamVR. Personally speaking I like a game to look good so although online fps > looks there is a point where the trade off is too much. My test scenario is a fast mission on Odessa with 8 Spitfire IXes and 8 x Ju52s with overcast. at Ultra 0.4/5 gives me a rock solid 90 with only the very occasional drop to 70+ and 0.75 gives it 72hz but very bad ghosting and twitchiness. At Ultra even in a 1 v 1 with a cloudless sky 0.75 gives ghosting and twitchiness. My experience of SteamVR is that it can limit the VR hz to the monitor hz hence I leave it at the native 144hz. I may test 0.75 with balanced preset to see what it looks like. von Tom Edit: 0.5 with Ultra settings - distance 130km, extreme clouds and shadows plus SSAO and HDR seems to be my sweet spot. Edited October 16 by von_Tom
giftgruen Posted October 16 Posted October 16 Well, yes, in Comparison to the Index even a Quest 3 looks good. However, the question then is .... why to buy a Crystal Super and then use only half the resolution by setting it to 0.4 ? << Does 0.4 at Ultra look as good as 0.75 with Balanced? There is no objective answer to this question. This is subjective. And "Does 0.4 at Ultra look as good for you as 0.75 with Balanced?" can only be answered by you.
von_Tom Posted October 16 Author Posted October 16 1 hour ago, giftgruen said: .... why to buy a Crystal Super and then use only half the resolution by setting it to 0.4 ? << Does 0.4 at Ultra look as good as 0.75 with Balanced? There is no objective answer to this question. This is subjective. And "Does 0.4 at Ultra look as good for you as 0.75 with Balanced?" can only be answered by you. ...because you don't know until you try. The lenses are way superior and the FOV is wonderful. I'd rather stress test it than play 1v1 in a cloudless sky - I'd expect high fps with that. With my test scenario anything above 0.5 provides FPS solid at 72 but ghosting and horrible jitters. There is less ghosting and jitters at 0.6 upwards and it gets unplayable at 0.75. At 0.75/85 I have played with all settings from balanced to ultra but they do not seem to make much of a difference to the fps/ghosting etc. I have settled on 0.5 and Ultra. von Tom
giftgruen Posted October 16 Posted October 16 Sure, it's of course your decision to do so. But ( same as ChiliWili who is the absolute VR expert in this forum ) I am sure that you can go higher than 0.5 with optimized settings. Just going from Ultra to Medium inside IL2 does not help much, you need to reduce AA, SSOA, Shadows/Clouds and so on. Did you try this ? However ... if you are happy with the 0.5 we're all fine
von_Tom Posted October 16 Author Posted October 16 35 minutes ago, giftgruen said: But ( same as ChiliWili who is the absolute VR expert in this forum ) I am sure that you can go higher than 0.5 with optimized settings. Just going from Ultra to Medium inside IL2 does not help much, you need to reduce AA, SSOA, Shadows/Clouds and so on. Did you try this ? Yes - shadows medium, no HDR, SSAO, AA down to x2 and clouds set to medium. It didn't look as nice to my eyes and the fps didn't noticeably improve. It is what it is, and when I update again in 4 years with whatever funky CPU and GPU I have I'll be able to run it at max. If I can sort out the fan noise that is. It just started today... von Tom
Dagwoodyt Posted October 16 Posted October 16 On 10/15/2025 at 5:43 AM, von_Tom said: System is a 9950X3D with 5090. Following all sorts of isues this is a clean W11 install and the game drive was formatted before a fresh install of everything. Bios and all drivers up-to-date. How does performance of the Super in GB compare to settings and performance in DCS?
von_Tom Posted October 17 Author Posted October 17 7 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said: How does performance of the Super in GB compare to settings and performance in DCS? I haven't tried DCS yet. Soon, when I have a day free to rer-install it and set it up etc. I haven't used DFR/Quadviews so that'll be fun to sort out... von Tom 1
chiliwili69 Posted October 18 Posted October 18 On 10/16/2025 at 12:22 PM, von_Tom said: The game still looks great even when I reduced it to 0.40 to give me more overhead for busy scenarios. Bear in mind I come from the Index so just the lenses are a big improvement, as is the fov - the game counter says 121. Yes, the image should still looks good comparing with Index (Index render 9 million pixels with default resolution and you with 0.5 are rendeing 19 millions), but I meant not good comparing to what you should achieve with 1.0 (78 million pixels). FOV looks quite nice.
chiliwili69 Posted October 18 Posted October 18 On 10/16/2025 at 12:22 PM, von_Tom said: I don't know the interplay between the graphics presets and the headset setting. Does 0.4 at Ultra look as good as 0.75 with Balanced? The Presets affects both, GPU and CPU load. The higher the preset tyhe bigger is the detailed render bubble and also more detailed (more polygons) objects and smoke/explosions/smoke. The is more info here: Your CPU is the top one so I don´t expect it to be the botlleneck. resolution at 0.75 with Balanced preset should definetely look much better than 0.4 and Ultra. On 10/16/2025 at 12:22 PM, von_Tom said: My test scenario is a fast mission on Odessa with 8 Spitfire IXes and 8 x Ju52s with overcast. at Ultra 0.4/5 gives me a rock solid 90 with only the very occasional drop to 70+ and 0.75 gives it 72hz but very bad ghosting and twitchiness. This confirms that your CPU can handle all those planes/scenario well, but the GPU has some issues when resolution is raised to 0.75. So the issue is on the GPU or something related to it. Do you have vertical-sync OFF in NVIDIA control panel? (you should put it OFF). On 10/16/2025 at 12:22 PM, von_Tom said: I may test 0.75 with balanced preset to see what it looks like. Have you tried the 72Hz mode of the Super? This will allow you to raise the resolution to 1.0 or close to it.
chiliwili69 Posted October 18 Posted October 18 (edited) On 10/16/2025 at 4:06 PM, giftgruen said: same as ChiliWili who is the absolute VR expert in this forum LOL, not really, I am just wanting to enjoy every pixels and fps of this game, HAHAHA, There are people in this forum who are the absolute masters, not me. I was compiling a number of reasons for lower performance, please review them if they can help: You can also run some public benchmarks for your 5090, just for sanity check: https://www.passmark.com/products/performancetest/index.php https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/ https://benchmarks.ul.com/3dmark Edited October 18 by chiliwili69
von_Tom Posted October 18 Author Posted October 18 (edited) 42 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said: The Presets affects both, GPU and CPU load. The higher the preset the bigger is the detailed render bubble and also more detailed (more polygons) objects and smoke/explosions/smoke. Your CPU is the top one so I don´t expect it to be the botlleneck. resolution at 0.75 with Balanced preset should definetely look much better than 0.4 and Ultra. Do you have vertical-sync OFF in NVIDIA control panel? (you should put it OFF). Have you tried the 72Hz mode of the Super? This will allow you to raise the resolution to 1.0 or close to it. Thank you for the explanation. I think that looking better is subject. I can see the difference between 0.5 and 0.75 and I really like the higher setting, but I don't like how the balanced settings look. Things like extreme clouds and shadows add more to the immersion for me than very high resolution graphics. This is why I use SSAO and HDR etc. Beyond everything else a steady 90fps is a "must". I now use: With my 5090 I have found that the presets do not seem to make much of a difference but the PimaxPlay image quality setting does. V-Sync is off. I am susceptible to hz in VR so I can can "see" 72hz but not 90hz. I'm going to do some more testing and will report back if I find a better compromise. von Tom Edited October 18 by von_Tom
DBCOOPER011 Posted October 18 Posted October 18 You can gain some FPS by cropping some of the vertical picture you may not be seeing anyway. See the link below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CieIQ7cE4CU
von_Tom Posted October 18 Author Posted October 18 (edited) Having done more testing, and wishing to any gods that might exist that the loading part be made quicker.... At 0.75 I can run the following at 90 with drops to 87/88 and no ghosting and jittering. I started at Balanced with almost everything at low or medium (except mirrors at extreme) then jumped to Ultra and gradually improved the various settings. I will probably drop AA to x2 just for a bit more overhead. Landscape sharpen/blurred makes no difference except blurred helps me pick up low flying aircraft quicker. It seems that shadows are the main culprit for fps loss. Going to 0.85 at lower graphics settings resulted in 72fps plus ghosting etc. I couldn't really see any real world visual improvement over 0.75. This is in my test mission so I may well have to lower things further as flak etc is a real fps killer. von Tom Edit: Tried it with 8 x He111s instead of 8 x Ju52s and it ended up hovering around 77 with ghosting and jitters. Likewise in a heavy multiplayer mission from a squad op on Sunday with lots of flak and some Il-2s low down over a city. Dropping to Balanced got it back to 90 again but I'll now check High. Edit 2: High hovered around 80 as soon as I entered the multiplayer mission which means in the busy sections it would drop or I'd get ghosting, so I put it back to Balanced and I'll live with that for a while. Edited October 18 by von_Tom
Aapje Posted October 18 Posted October 18 On 10/16/2025 at 6:59 PM, Dagwoodyt said: How does performance of the Super in GB compare to settings and performance in DCS? GB doesn't support foveated rendering, so you can't use that feature of the Super with GB.
Dagwoodyt Posted October 18 Posted October 18 47 minutes ago, Aapje said: GB doesn't support foveated rendering, so you can't use that feature of the Super with GB. I understand that. DCS on an undervolted 5090 with QVFR/DFR is a treat not to be missed.☺️
chiliwili69 Posted October 19 Posted October 19 12 hours ago, von_Tom said: except mirrors at extreme In fact, some time ago I determined that mirrors was the item which consumed most of the fps in CPU loads. That table gives you the gain/loss in fps when you go one level up/down in every individual settings. So if you put mirrors off, you will gain 14.7+1.4+15.2 about 31 fps if the CPU was the constrain. In your case CPU is not constrained but I suspect that mirrors could also load GPU since those objects in the mirror has to be also rendered. With the same settings you are using now, could you just put mirrors Off (and also Clouds off) and raise the resolution to 0.85? In any case, 0.75 is already a pretty good number of pixels! (44 millions at 90Hz) and the difference with 0.85 will be very small and not noticeable to a human eye (only to a camera)
von_Tom Posted October 19 Author Posted October 19 Mirrors are one of the immersion things so I'll leave those on and at extreme. They're not an issue in most aircraft but I do like them in the Spitfire. In the aircraft which don't have them it'll just allow a bit more overhead. von Tom
[CPT]Crunch Posted October 19 Posted October 19 Thing about the mirrors in this sim is they're so well done it's a crime punishable by firing squad to turn them off. No other sim does mirrors like this. I have high hopes in Korea they make their angles adjustable, they'd be perfect.
DBCOOPER011 Posted October 24 Posted October 24 (edited) Pimax play 1.43 just came out and has a "Narrow Version" option. It appears to cut down the HFOV quite a bit. Its working pretty good for me and should save you some GPU resources. Looks like the narrow mode cuts out about 20 deg of HFOV.. Edited October 24 by DBCOOPER011 1
von_Tom Posted October 24 Author Posted October 24 1 hour ago, DBCOOPER011 said: Looks like the narrow mode cuts out about 20 deg of HFOV.. What does that mean in real terms - I have an in-game reading of the horizontal FOV of 121. Does that mean I'll drop to circa 101? von Tom
[CPT]Crunch Posted October 24 Posted October 24 The central priority looks stunning in IL-2, except it crashes after a few minutes. Sure wish they'd support such things, next round in Korea perhaps.
DBCOOPER011 Posted October 24 Posted October 24 1 hour ago, von_Tom said: What does that mean in real terms - I have an in-game reading of the horizontal FOV of 121. Does that mean I'll drop to circa 101? von Tom The HDMQ values above are indicated by the headset. Your own values are dictated by a variety of factors to include headshape, optical inserts, face cushion thickness, etc.. My in game reading was 117 and its now 105 with the narrow version. My OG crystal was 95 in game, but I use a thick face cushion and wear optical inserts. I'm running the narrow version and cutting off 25% of the vertical I dont see with the Ohnespeed mod, and the picture looks outstanding. I'm running around 10ms at 72hz in a QMB. 57 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said: The central priority looks stunning in IL-2, except it crashes after a few minutes. Sure wish they'd support such things, next round in Korea perhaps. I know, that would be sweet if they did..
Panzerlang Posted October 27 Posted October 27 So they didn't fix the CPR. Gee, well done Pimax, only took you a few months to NOT fix that.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now