12 hours ago, turbomax said:

depends on resolution of the VR system and varies a lot. fps goes down from some 150 down to 45, in my case on a Pimax Crysal Light (16.5 million pixels). that is why I welcome any major progress in GPU technology, like NVidia's recent release of DLSS 4. AI seems to be the way when raw GPU raster improvement seems to have come pretty much to a stand still. unfortunately the 5090's expected 25% fps increase for MSFS won't cut it for me.

Hi. I don't have a VR headset yet and I never used VR before for MSFS.  Obviously, raw GPU improvement without frame generation is preferable. But is AI frame generation not very useful for VR? I mean, if the 5090 is offering a leap in FPS via frame generation, is that not useful enough for VR?

In case I do get into VR one day, I want to know some information should I ever build a new PC just for VR with MSFS.

300 frames of which 225 are AI generated 🙂

Pure raster performance is 46 avg fps at 1440p with a 5080, quite poor for last gen standards in 2025. The 5090 could pull 60+ real fps in any situation realistically.

But 300... come on.

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

But is AI frame generation not very useful for VR? I mean, if the 5090 is offering a leap in FPS via frame generation, is that not useful enough for VR?

absolutely, FrameGeneration would be the highest priority for us VR users, but that option simply does not exist when you switch to VR mode, supposedly due to high latency. not sure if that is true or if the built-in XR graphics processor in the VR headset does not handle NVidia's FrameGeneration.

that is why DLSS4 is such an important new technology for VR to increase fps and at the same time improve visual quality. but we will never see like a 2x or 4x multi Frame Gen with DLSS4 alone. I usually get around 60 fps on the HP Reverb G2, and 45-55 fps on the super high resolution of a Pimax Crystal Light (16.5 Mega pixel, both eyes combined !).

I am not obsessed with ghosting/shimmering artefacts of the vertical speed band in glass cockpits which some Fenix users complain about (don't use it anyway and it is mostly only on extreme vertical speeds during take off, where you may see up to 3.500 ft vertical speed for a short time only during initial high speed climb, but not near that afterwards).

apart from that, even fine print is still absolutely clear. and since MSFS, you guessed it, is not an ego shooter, around 55 fps is absolutely fine. if your hardware can not cope with it, Asobo implemented more than one slider just for this scenario. I don't get it how some users with Jurassic hardware expect smooth fps with MAX settings just because they can, and then complain about Asobo's incompetence. 🤣

4 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

But 300... come on.

only 300?  🤣

23 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

But 300... come on.

But multiframe gen is supposed to go up to 8x native.  I have no problems running 40fps anywhere, so that's 320fps at 8x.

2 minutes ago, Noel said:

But multiframe gen is supposed to go up to 8x native.  I have no problems running 40fps anywhere, so that's 320fps at 8x.

Time to buy a new monitor then!

Very stable with 4090 and 7800x3d using autofps and modest settings. Still...some stutters here/there near final and landings though in 2024.

Ah, another external view simmer, how can his review not be reliable? especially when flying so high above all the object and terrain, ala the OLOD Radius................................