Optimal VR Experience

[whitav8 98]

If you want an excellent VR experience with P3DV4 - here is a starting point:
1) Download the BlueSky photoreal scenery for the Grand Canyon - not necessarily all of it 
http://www.blueskyscenery.com/AZ.html

2) Use the Alabeo Extra 300 and fly down just above the Colorado - FPS single monitor >190 and locked at 90 in VR
3) Graphic settings - mostly standard except:
- 8XMSAA, No FXAA, Aniso = 8X, LOD = MAX, Water Detail = LOW, No Reflections, HDR = off, No dynamic Refl/Lighting
4) Shadows = LOW, Clouds = minimal, no traffic , Vsync = off, Target Frame rate = unlimited
5) Use Oculus Tray Tool by ApollyonVR http://bit.ly/2s0vsDS to set Pixel Density = 1.5

Then, after enjoying that, try other aircraft and you will see that many of them cause a significant slowdown. The best in addition to the Extra include the F22, the Cessna 172, the Maule, and the Blackhawk. Then try small airports and finally complex airports and at the end, the single monitor framerate will be below 60 and therefore the VR experience will be very poor (25 to 30 fps without ASW).

For some reason, P3D/FSX/ESP always has had a framerate about 40% that of War Thunder, Aerofly FS2, and Combat Air Patrol - all of which generally maintain an FPS >200 (i7 @ 4.2Ghz, Nvidia 970) where there is similar graphical content in terms of terrain + objects + instrument panel graphics. FS2 usually can do >300 fps with an electronic cockpit and a complex airport like KSFO. I am hoping now that Lockheed Martin is using source code that is 64-bit that they own and understand, they could increase performance to that of the other flight simulators. The other sims show that it can be done. VR requires an FPS around 200 so that Stereo with a Pixel Density Override at least at 1.5 can result in a locked 90 fps for the best fluid experience.

[Noel 4,487]

That's just bizarre--and for another $199 which will be the 3rd professional license if I decide to go to V4, which I'm hardly convinced by for this kind of coin.

[Noel 4,487]

Just now, Noel said:

That's just bizarre--and for another $199 which will be the 3rd professional license if I decide to go to V4, which I'm hardly convinced by for this kind of coin.  Are you saying this performance discrepancy of the various other sims over P3D V4 only applies to VR? 

 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

4 hours ago, Noel said:

I I am quoting myself!

 

Noel, the performance differential is there in non-VR use as well. Plenty of people around here noting they're getting 20 or 30 FPS. Meanwhile, AF2 locks at 120 or 240.

for VR, you need the high frame rates for a tolerable,experience.

having said that, I've been VR flying almost exclusively in P3d v4 this week - rather than AF2 or dcs - and am enjoying the experience.

[jkeye 150]

6 hours ago, whitav8 said:

If you want an excellent VR experience with P3DV4 - here is a starting point:
1) Download the BlueSky photoreal scenery for the Grand Canyon - not necessarily all of it 
http://www.blueskyscenery.com/AZ.html

2) Use the Alabeo Extra 300 and fly down just above the Colorado - FPS single monitor >190 and locked at 90 in VR
3) Graphic settings - mostly standard except:
- 8XMSAA, No FXAA, Aniso = 8X, LOD = MAX, Water Detail = LOW, No Reflections, HDR = off, No dynamic Refl/Lighting
4) Shadows = LOW, Clouds = minimal, no traffic , Vsync = off, Target Frame rate = unlimited
5) Use Oculus Tray Tool by ApollyonVR http://bit.ly/2s0vsDS to set Pixel Density = 1.5

Then, after enjoying that, try other aircraft and you will see that many of them cause a significant slowdown. The best in addition to the Extra include the F22, the Cessna 172, the Maule, and the Blackhawk. Then try small airports and finally complex airports and at the end, the single monitor framerate will be below 60 and therefore the VR experience will be very poor (25 to 30 fps without ASW).

For some reason, P3D/FSX/ESP always has had a framerate about 40% that of War Thunder, Aerofly FS2, and Combat Air Patrol - all of which generally maintain an FPS >200 (i7 @ 4.2Ghz, Nvidia 970) where there is similar graphical content in terms of terrain + objects + instrument panel graphics. FS2 usually can do >300 fps with an electronic cockpit and a complex airport like KSFO. I am hoping now that Lockheed Martin is using source code that is 64-bit that they own and understand, they could increase performance to that of the other flight simulators. The other sims show that it can be done. VR requires an FPS around 200 so that Stereo with a Pixel Density Override at least at 1.5 can result in a locked 90 fps for the best fluid experience.

Not entirely true-I can run XP11 with my vive and Flyinside with 20 fps and its very usable. 

[Noel 4,487]

2 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

 

Noel, the performance differential is there in non-VR use as well. Plenty of people around here noting they're getting 20 or 30 FPS. Meanwhile, AF2 locks at 120 or 240.

for VR, you need the high frame rates for a tolerable,experience.

having said that, I've been VR flying almost exclusively in P3d v4 this week - rather than AF2 or dcs - and am enjoying the experience.

And comparable visual complexity on those other sims?

[Raven9000 272]

10 minutes ago, Noel said:

And comparable visual complexity on those other sims?

No, they actually have better visuals...

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Most people need high, smooth frame rates to enjoy VR - 20 FPS is far less than is typically needed to minimise the adverse effects of motion sickness. 

To enjoy P3D, I've been aiming for 75 FPS in VR, without any dips. To do this, I need a frame rate of about 130 in the normal non-VR cockpit. To achieve these very high (by P3D) rates, I turn on simple clouds, turn off HDR, turn off autogen, use orthoscenery and fly simple planes.

This gets me 75 fps of smooth flight that I can enjoy for long sessions. 

in AF2, I can have very high quality shadows and much better looking cockpits PLUS better scenery (with autogen-type objects) PLUS moderate-depth systems, and I can still easily lock the frames at 120.

im stoked that P3d is flyable in VR, but Aerofly 2 is in a different league with regards to performance. 

And for anyone who still thinks AF2 only performs because it doesn't have autogen, wait a week and then you can fly over half a million houses in ORBX Meigs!

[Lenny777 299]

Yeah AF2 is the king of VR for civil flightsimming by far.  Flying New York city is amazing and that has a huge autogen count. Great FPS. If these guys get more devs on board for ATC and more complete aircraft systems, active environments with traffic, traffic AI, animated water etc. it could well  be the best simming ever with its superb VR implementation.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Considering  the lack of high resolution  VR headsets, AF2 is more like the proverbial "one eyed man in the valley of the blind."

The hotbed for the VR market right now, BTW is the Sony  PS4 Pro. There still isn't a "killer app" even for the PS4  but I'd wager that Red Dead Redemption  2 might be the one, if it's ever released.

[whitav8 98]

Here is a photo comparison of Aerofly FS2 and P3Dv4 - both at 160+ FPS. Again, my point in this is twofold - first of all, those of us who desire to fly with fluid, non-stutter  (and non-distorted by ASW) aerobatic motion in VR need (and can already get) this level of performance and secondly, to encourage L-M to please review their inner loop of graphic rendering code to see where it can be sped up to the same level that these other flight sims in 64-bit code have been able to accomplish. The photo of the A320 shows that the detailed graphics of a glass cockpit can be accommodated (with systems code executing on various CPU cores) as well as a complex airport terminal model. The ORBX release of LOWI and Meigs for FS2 also show the ability to support very high city building count but still supporting VR. 

 Note that FRAPS FPS is in upper left corner:

 

P3Dv4:

P3Dv4 (Default 737 at KSFO)

Aerofly FS2 (A320 at KSFO):