Flight sims might be the only thing I'll ever play in VR. Got my first headset, a G2, a couple of days ago, and (re)installed my old Aerofly 2 just for a first impression of flying inside VR. Well.., it is absolutely amazing, incredible, stunning!

Because of all its deficiencies I hadn't touched Aerofly for almost two years - but over the last days I've been completely hooked. The cockpits are stunningly beautiful and the sim couldn't be more fluid, even on my middleclass RTX 2070. A great first experience that makes me look forward to tomorrow..

25 minutes ago, SimFx said:

A great first experience that makes me look forward to tomorrow..

you took the words right out of my mouth. you are in for a surprise, a pleasant one I guess. brace for impact 🙂

Any hope a 1080ti will be able to drive a Reverb G2 at high/ultra settings? I'm interested in VR with MSFS, but don't have the budget to upgrade my GPU and buy a headset.

7 minutes ago, odourboy said:

Any hope a 1080ti will be able to drive a Reverb G2 at high/ultra settings? I'm interested in VR with MSFS, but don't have the budget to upgrade my GPU and buy a headset.

don't worry, I have the same GPU and HP G2,you'll be a happy camper. not sure about Ultra settings though, but you can still enjoy VR as you are more concerned about cockpit environment and image clarity, and for that you got the best headset you can currently get.

I don't agree with some comments here that suggest you need 90 fps for VR and thus implying VR will not be enjoyable, quite the contary. x-plane and P3D would often stutter, thats why we all demanded ever higher fps. with MSFS I get very smooth flight experience  (in 2D) even at 25-30 fps.

Edited December 21, 20205 yr by turbomax

4 hours ago, cantremember said:

I'm curious to find out what people will think of it. I might get a VR set if its pretty nice. One thing in FS that I never have enough of is screen real estate.

You’re seriously asking if people are going to sim in VR in the VR forum??

2014 called, and they want their question back. 😊

Seriously, there’s a lot of simmers like me who gave away pancake simming over half a decade ago, and will never go back under any circumstances.

57 minutes ago, turbomax said:

don't worry, I have the same GPU and HP G2,you'll be a happy camper. not sure about Ultra settings though, but you can still enjoy VR as you are more concerned about cockpit environment and image clarity, and for that you got the best headset you can currently get.

I don't agree with some comments here that suggest you need 90 fps for VR and thus implying VR will not be enjoyable, quite the contary. x-plane and P3D would often stutter, thats why we all demanded ever higher fps. with MSFS I get very smooth flight experience  (in 2D) even at 25-30 fps.

For most humans to enjoy VR flight, you need to hit the intrinsic refresh rate or 50% of the intrinsic refresh rate, or at least come close to it.

I generally find that i need around 80 FPS in pancake mode to get 45 FPS in VR.

If you’re only getting 25-30 FPS in flatscreen, you are nowhere near the ballpark of FPS that most people will need to use VR in MSFS, if flatscreen/VR performance ratios are similar to x-plane, dcs and p3d.

Also only got MSFS for VR.  Although I have bought every version going back to the commodore 64 days I would not have bought it if it didn't support VR.

 

     I hope the performance is OK,  I have no issue in DCS or xplane at half framerate, they are very smooth so I am not worried about not getting 90fps.  If it doesnt make 45, or enough for reprojection to give a smooth experience then I will wait a bit longer.

Has anyone setup a poll with this question in mind? Would be interesting.

1 hour ago, SimFx said:

Flight sims might be the only thing I'll ever play in VR. Got my first headset, a G2, a couple of days ago, and (re)installed my old Aerofly 2 just for a first impression of flying inside VR. Well.., it is absolutely amazing, incredible, stunning!

Because of all its deficiencies I hadn't touched Aerofly for almost two years - but over the last days I've been completely hooked. The cockpits are stunningly beautiful and the sim couldn't be more fluid, even on my middleclass RTX 2070. A great first experience that makes me look forward to tomorrow..

You need to try HL Alyx. It’s a blast

 

can’t wait for tomorrow but I am in fear my 1080ti will struggle. If I could only purchase my 3080ti already.....

1 hour ago, SimFx said:

Flight sims might be the only thing I'll ever play in VR. Got my first headset, a G2, a couple of days ago, and (re)installed my old Aerofly 2 just for a first impression of flying inside VR. Well.., it is absolutely amazing, incredible, stunning!

Because of all its deficiencies I hadn't touched Aerofly for almost two years - but over the last days I've been completely hooked. The cockpits are stunningly beautiful and the sim couldn't be more fluid, even on my middleclass RTX 2070. A great first experience that makes me look forward to tomorrow..

Be aware that VR performance in AF FS2 is massively better than any other currently-available sim. That sim lets you choose between locking frames at 120 or 240. People here are talking about 25 fps from MSFS as though that’s a good number. I’m hopeful that MSFS VR will be sort-of acceptable, when settings are turned down, but don’t expect anything like the performance that aerofly can deliver.

3 hours ago, jpe828 said:

My PC does OK with it 1440 and on mostly high settings... I would have to do a major upgrade to run VR. I have an ultrawide curved monitor which I like. I also would not be a fan of using my controls in VR... I guess you would get used to it?

You’re speculating on NOT liking VR, based on not having tried it. If you have a decent system, get into the game with one of the cheaper headsets. With the right computer to drive it, VR takes sim flying to a whole different level, but you’ve got to actually put some time into it to understand and adapt to a new paradigm.

19 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Be aware that VR performance in AF FS2 is massively better than any other currently-available sim. That sim lets you choose between locking frames at 120 or 240. People here are talking about 25 fps from MSFS as though that’s a good number. I’m hopeful that MSFS VR will be sort-of acceptable, when settings are turned down, but don’t expect anything like the performance that aerofly can deliver.

I don’t consider Aerofly FS2 a full open world sim as it lacks any real autogen outside of scenery areas and simply isn’t being taxed by multiple renderings and processes as the full sims (XP11,FSX,P3D) 

One would expect better VR performance in titles like DCS and Aerofly FS2.

Edited December 22, 20205 yr by blueshark747

32 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

If you’re only getting 25-30 FPS in flatscreen, you are nowhere near the ballpark of FPS that most people will need to use VR in MSFS,

thats at ultra settings @ 4k in 2D; that leaves some room to reduce sliders gradually until you get your best compromise of quality and performance in VR.

5 minutes ago, turbomax said:

thats at ultra settings @ 4k in 2D; that leaves some room to reduce sliders gradually until you get your best compromise of quality and performance in VR.

Sure, but 25 FPS flatscreen is about 1/3rd of the framerate that you want for VR, so there’s going to be a lot of slider adjusting and other compromises necssary.

The G2 is great headset for display clarity. The potential issues are the pixel count being too high to be practically useful, the need to use WMR (7% of the VR market, and falling) and the poor tracking of controllers (at least the latter is not a problem for MSFS right now!).

There is a lot of love for the G2 here, which is great, but it’s verging on a “G2 master race” vibe at times. I don’t want any VR newbies reading this to think that this is the only headset that they can use for simming. Much cheaper and more readily-available options such as the Quest 2 or Rift S are also excellent and very popular possibilities for flight sim use.

40 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

I don’t consider Aerofly FS2 a full open world sim as it lacks any real autogen outside of scenery areas and simply isn’t being taxed by multiple renderings and processes as the full sims (XP11,FSX,P3D) 

This was often claimed in the earlier days of FS2, but in fact performance holds up pretty well once you throw a whole country of Orbx/other autogen at it where it’s rendering circle is likely just as big as xp11 or p3d.

I think it’s more a case of modern engine developed from scratch with performance in mind.

I don’t really fly AF FS2 any more, but those guys did code a great engine. 

Edited December 22, 20205 yr by OzWhitey