FlyIce

For G2 I had experimented with TAA and DLSS, and DLSS wins hands done. Regardless how high I go TAA always has some aliasing/shimmering (mostly autogen area?), while DLSS is virtually aliasing-free.

Very exciting. It's definitely the future. Longing for the days of high resolution VR + high resolution video pass through for such mixed reality setup.

These days you can buy a 1TB SSD for $50 and even a 4TB SSD for barely over $200. There is truly no reason not to use SSD for Windows and MSFS.

That sure is a compliment from Asobo to your system. I'll do the SU12 tonight and hopefully get the same honor...

Does this improved DLSS work in VR?

He was invited by the company which almost certainly paid all his trip cost plus sth more. It would be hard for him to make bad comments during the trip and on the compay spot. While that is understandable, his videos make it harder to gauge how good Crystal really is. At $1600, the Crystal is not that cheaper than Aero which everybody seems to agree is a super VR headset.

But he did say the visual quality and sweet spot were excellent. I might consider it when it's readily available (no pre-orders), provided nothing else better by then. The battery thing is annoying, but I'm willing to swallow it for image quality. I worry more about software. Does Pimax still require its own software to work in windows?

I know it's insane. I heard this has to do with the optical flaw of G2 - it has to compensate some huge image distortions due to its bad lens therefore really needs super high rendering resolution to look good. I experimented a lot and in general I found that G2 only looks good once OXR is over 150%. I tried TAA 100% + OXR 100% and it's no match to DLSS Quality + OXR 225%. Further increase OXR still improves the quality, but the benefit is very small and not worth the performance penalty. So far OXR 225% (i.e. 1.5x G2 resolution) is a sweet spot for my hardware. Totally agree. If Aero is priced like $600-$1000 I'd have bought it already. But at $2000 plus $500 extra is just too much to swallow. I want at least to wait for its second generation just to make sure that much money is well spent. Right now I'm ok with G2 as except for Aero it appears nothing else is truly better than G2 all around.

Thanks! Yes I did install the chipset drivers and turn on windows game mode to make sure MSFS runs on core#0-7. Overall not too bad, but hopefully such extra steps won't be needed in the future. I also used hardwaremonitor to confirm that when running MSFS nearly all cpu activities were on core#0-7.

Just to add, with 10850K/4090 I also got around 35fps with DLSS+OpenXR=225%. The biggest difference is that to maintain >30fps I can only set LOD=150-200 and the LOD ring is clearly visible once I'm in the air. With 7950x3D, I got the same fps with LOD=400, and no more visible LOD ring. This is probably the biggest improvement made by 7950x3D for me.

I just upgraded from 10850K/4090 to 7950x3D/4090/32GB DDR5 and want to give you guys some quick observations regarding the VR experiences. I fly with HP G2. I use DLSS quality and OpenXR scale = 225%. At this setting the image quality in G2 is *very* good. I feel it's nearly 95% of G2's max quality and panels are crystal clear with not a single hint of pixelation. However, there is no cure to the small sweetspot of G2, very annoying. Performance wise. I now set nearly everything to the ultra/max with 7950x3D. Terrain LOD=400, object quality=200, nearly everything ultra, except windshield effect = medium, ambient occlusion = low, cockpit display refresh rate = medium. Not sure what differences will be if I set all these three to max. All traffic at 100%, except those settings at airport to 75%. Settings like LOD=400 was not possible with 10850k, as it will almost half the fps. Overall, I got between 30-45 fps in most areas, more around 35 fps, and likely I'm mostly GPU-limited. Flying the helicopter roof-top low at NYC (that discovery flight) made me CPU limited at 25fps. Once I'm above 1000' high I got rather smooth 30-35fps even over NYC. I cruised in F-18 over Australia with real weather and overall the experience was breathtaking at ~40fps, making me feel that the future of perfect VR is finally over the horizon (not within the reach yet!). I don't fly big jets in and out busy airports, so don't know how that would perform. I also only fly VR so can't comment on the 2D performance. During flight the video card routinely draws >400W, CPU around 70W. MSFS does run exclusively on CCD0 (cores#0-7) that has the 3D V-cache. It apparently uses mostly core0 and core4, run them max to 20W each, twice than the rest of cores at 10W each. Anyway, I'm pretty happy with what I have. But for that perfect VR at 60fps and great image quality, we're probably still two generations away for both CPU and GPU.

all of you flying only 2D should already be in heaven with 3090. We the unlucky ones sticking with VR are the ones suffering even with 4090. I just upgraded from 10850K/4090 to 7950x3D/4090 and even this mighty pair could be down to the knees at 25fps when I'm flying low over the NYC skyscrapers (helicopter discovery flight). Of course, part to blame is that my settings are bit out of roof with like terrain LOD=400, object quality=200, nearly everything ultra, all traffic at 100% etc etc. I fly with HP G2, DLSS quality and OpenXR scale = 225% (i.e. the VR resolution in MSFS is like 6000x5000 pixels). The video card routinely draws >400W, CPU around 80W. In "normal" area other than NYC, I got like 35-45fps in VR. Flying roof-top low at NYC makes me CPU limited, other areas I'm more GPU limited. So it's scary to think that to have perfect VR we're still about two generations away for both CPU and GPU.

(blank) The end. I used to download quite a few free airports and sceneries from flightsim.to but I kind of stopped that either. I want to hold a different philosophy flying MSFS2020: one of the biggest points of enjoying this dream-come-true program is that I finally don't have to tweak and manage anything. I am still traumatized by the countless (thousands?) hours I spent on FSX/P3D/X-plane tweaking settings and managing addons. I want to keep it as simple as it is, to spend every seconds possible flying.

Haven't seen VR benchmarks. But I believe my 4090 in VR is very much limited by 10850K, so hope 7950x3D will make a big improvement. I use HP Reverb G2.

ahh... I so wish I could say that ("sim nirvana") about my VR performance. VR is just so much demanding on the hardware. I had been waiting for this day to decide between 7950x3D and 13900K. Glad that I waited.