Well, I have tried - a number of times and in a number of aircraft - but I will try again.  I'm running on a 4080 and I note you are both on 4090s...that might be the difference. But yes, I'll try again and report back.

6 hours ago, odourboy said:

You need to up the rendering resolution in DLSS to match TAA instrument image quality. You give up some FPS to run the higher resolution but not as much as TAA costs.

Understood - but in my various trials, the render was already running at over 3500x4150 per eye and never came below c.3100x4000 per eye levels.  To be honest, I'm already at the edge of possibility with my rig, and that rig is no slouch. 

Oh and that reminds me - the random pop up VR panel that I don't how to pop up (and neither, it seems, do Pimax Support) included the live resolution values...checked my notes and it was the Pimax VR panel that gave me the actual resolution (including, I'm pretty sure, all and any resolution tweaks in the app chain).  So a very useful pop up if only someone knew how to pop it up 😆   

6 hours ago, odourboy said:

You need to up the rendering resolution in DLSS to match TAA instrument image quality. You give up some FPS to run the higher resolution but not as much as TAA costs.

Repeated post

Edited January 17, 20251 yr by AJZip

6 hours ago, odourboy said:

You need to up the rendering resolution in DLSS to match TAA instrument image quality. You give up some FPS to run the higher resolution but not as much as TAA costs.

Repeated post

 

Edited January 17, 20251 yr by AJZip

Apols for the repeated posts - the 'Submit Post' button didn't seem to engage...but it was actually posting each time

Just a thought before I spend an evening of experimentation:  I should be comparing MSFS2020 using not DLSS but TAA - which is what is giving me decent FPS and great visuals - with MSFS2024 using DLSS to see if I can get close to MSFS2020 visuals in MSFS2024 but with the better frame rates.... 

You were both quite correct to press home the DLSS point @HiFlyer and @odourboy

I've taken my Crystal Light; my processor, my graphics card and my RAM to levels they've definitely never been before!  ✈️

So, my DLSS MSFS2024 focussed tryout....

 

MSFS2024 VR Graphics:  DLSS  On;  AMD FX Sharpening increased from 160 to 190

Pimax Play: Custom Render at 1.2x full rendering (with the other stuff in my chain, this takes me over 3500x4100 per eye)

Flight:  Same flight - Fenix A320 from EGBB to EGCN under BeyondATC control; cruise 9000 feet; Vectored approach to ILS Landing Runway 20

 

Subjective Results:

Cockpit dials and text in MSFS2024 almost as clear as my best TAA results in MSFS2020.  All very clear, including glass cockpit displays, with the sole exception of the middle engine monitoring/notification glass cockpit displays, which were the slightest touch soft focus...but, actually the whole effect pretty darned good

External clarity - excellent, including distant features not normally visible...  It's close, but I think this has the edge over the two sims...

External view from in the cockpit - apart from the milk wash problem, in terms of sharpness good

Just a few micro stutters (see below)

 

Objective Results:

Well, exactly what you said.  The upping of the resolution on top of the upping of the resolution on top of the sharpening should have brought my system to its knees - especially when I added Beyond ATC into the equation.  It didn't...although in areas it got darned close:

FPS at Cruise altitude in VR:  30 - 36

GPU Memory: 11.5 of the 14 Gb available

RAM:  Never lower than 29 of the 31Gb available and peaking at over 30 (basically throttling).  Almost certainly this is where the microstutters were coming from.

 

So this puts me into the one (and only) upgrade I would be happy/able to fund at this stage - going for the 64Gb RAM.  

 

When I have done that, I'll redo the comparisons.  It'll still be close, but I have a feeling I know which sim version is going to have the edge at that point

 

 

Thanks for the report!

Edited January 17, 20251 yr by odourboy

16 hours ago, AJZip said:

Understood - but in my various trials, the render was already running at over 3500x4150 per eye

Just as a data point,  I'm running 4412X4412 per eye DLSS Quality with my Pico 4.

6 hours ago, odourboy said:

Just as a data point,  I'm running 4412X4412 per eye DLSS Quality with my Pico 4.

I'm pretty sure my 4080 wouldn't be able to get there...but I'll see how far I can get when I get the extra RAM.  Do you use the Pimax Play scaler or OpenXRToolkit?

1 hour ago, AJZip said:

I'm pretty sure my 4080 wouldn't be able to get there...but I'll see how far I can get when I get the extra RAM.  Do you use the Pimax Play scaler or OpenXRToolkit?

Silly me, @odourboy , just reread and seen that it's the Pico 4.  Great headset able to punch way over its weight, by the way...

4 hours ago, AJZip said:

Silly me, @odourboy , just reread and seen that it's the Pico 4.  Great headset able to punch way over its weight, by the way...

It's no CL but it's been a solid performer for me. I'm happy with it until the 'perfect' headset come out. 😏

I have another 32Gb of RAM on the way and should be able to try that out over the next two or three days.  In the meantime, intrigued by @odourboy 's results with the Pico, I got my Quest 3 out and tried a few things.

The set up was:

Quest 3, cordless, using its standard software

Virtual Desktop, using VDXR...results horrible...

...but then adding OpenXR Tool Kit with no presets, except pixel density.  After a few tries at different resolutions, the happiest-highest setting with my present compromised RAM was 4050x4195 pixels per eye and it performed VERY well! 

Results were:

- 30-36fps

- Good external clarity

- For the A320, ceiling panels very sharp; printed text very sharp; pilot glass panel a little soft; middle glass panels quite soft

- Quite juddery (though probably RAM-related - see below).  I tried the Preset FFR in OpenXR Toolkit and this sorted most of the judders.  I tried pixel densities above and below the 4050x4195.  Below it, the soft-focus areas became softer and the very sharp areas started softening; above it (up to 4400x) no difference to visual clarity but did result in lower fps.  I also tried the three sharpening options - all of them gave a very artificial and wavy look.  The high pixel per eye setting and the FFR 'On' made the difference for maximising clarity and FPS and minimising visual shimmers and aberrations.

- I couldn't get the centre panels of the A320 super-sharp with any of the settings - but with the above settings it wasn't so bad to be a distraction

- Tried the Cessna 175 - cockpit super-sharp (including glass cockpits), external scenery very good.  A local VFR landmark was spot on - and it's a 'rough approximation' in MSFS2020!

- Tried the Typhoon/ Eurofighter - cockpit (including glass cockpits) super sharp, external scenery very good. 

 

So, just the judders to sort - but the extra RAM may well sort that out (the memory usages were: RAM 29 to 30+ of 31Gb (basically full); GPU 11.5Gb of 14Gb)

I'm beginning to like MSFS2024 in VR...in spite of the well known remaining issues 🙂     

 

Edited January 18, 20251 yr by AJZip

Lots more playing around to do, but extra RAM in (now 64Gb DDR5 @ 5600) and a few quick flights with the aircraft used before.  Pretty much all of the judder seems to be now fixed 🙂

I'll do some more experimenting later on today and see if it allows me to be able to stretch stuff anymore (I doubt it, though, as the GPU Memory is getting pretty close to max) and will do some back-to-back comparison flights with MSFS2020 with a variety of aircraft.

When I'm done with all of the testing, I'll take some screen-shots of my various final settings if they are of any use to anyone.

Edited January 19, 20251 yr by AJZip

5 hours ago, AJZip said:

Lots more playing around to do, but extra RAM in (now 64Gb DDR5 @ 5600) and a few quick flights with the aircraft used before.  Pretty much all of the judder seems to be now fixed 🙂

I'll do some more experimenting later on today and see if it allows me to be able to stretch stuff anymore (I doubt it, though, as the GPU Memory is getting pretty close to max) and will do some back-to-back comparison flights with MSFS2020 with a variety of aircraft.

When I'm done with all of the testing, I'll take some screen-shots of my various final settings if they are of any use to anyone.

This is both good news and bad. Appears to confirm that some of the performance issues are indeed caused by 2024's memory footprint, which can be addressed. But the prospect of blowing another couple of hundred $ on RAM I don't otherwise need is a bit annoying. 😆 

 Might be some time!

After a decent trial flight with the increased RAM, I tried to boot up again and found myself in a fatal Windows error that the auto Windows Repair it couldn't fix.  Just in case, I took the new RAM sticks out again (same make, same DDR, same capacity, same speed) before doing a full reinstall of Windows 11...and there was no option to keep existing files!!!.  Didn't take too long to reinstall Windows from a recovery USB I keep and, with the original 2 sticks in it then booted up OK.  Simply because I had to know, I put the new sticks in again and it crashed again - but thankfully, this time it didn't go fatal error on me.  I've taken them out again so am back to 32GB.   

Most of my other stuff is on SSD's thankfully, but both MSFS Sims and quite a few of the peripherals were on the M2 C:drive - and so need reinstalling.  MSFS2024 is already reinstalled...but wow, MSFS2020 is going to be some time at the blisteringly slow download speeds we've come to know and love (but which I'd forgotten about)...

I'll be back sometime...