Jump to content

AJZip

New Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No
  1. I'm not sure if this what you mean, but on the Cessna pulling the knob out closes the throttle and pushing it in opens it. So full throttle is with the knob flat against the dashboard. If that's not what you meant, apologies ☺️
  2. Indeed. By the way, I should emphasise that this: is while flying low over a city in the pretty realistic Orbx True Earth scenery and through VR at 2160x2160 per eye - and, even though the CPU is working hard, was as smooth as silk. No stutters, no judders. One of the most immersive (once I'd moved the fpsVR pop up out of the way 😉 ) and enjoyable X-plane 11 VR flights yet.
  3. Here are some representative snapshots of the fpsVR output for the two models, both on the runway (Orbx EGNX) and flying over the same spot of a small city at the same height (Orbx True Earth Scenery) at same time and same clear weather. These are WMR captures of the view through the HP Reverb Gen1, 5800x CPU overclocked to 4.8GHz and nvidia 2070Super also moderately overclocked. X-plane 11 Visual Effects at Medium (1 notch below HDR) and World Objects at High (1 notch below Max). There's a lot of info on the fpsVR screens, but the most relevant are: the left hand FPS - while this is a snapshot, I've taken a representative one in each case; the graph and value of the GPU frametimes on the left; the graph and value of the CPU frametimes on the right; the GPU and CPU temperatures; the CPU average core and highest core loading numbers and individual core loading bar graph below the CPU output speed graphs on the right. On the ground, end of runway, engine running... Stock Cessna 172 JF BAe146 100 In both cases, this is after a few seconds 'settling down'. For the settling down period, the loading on the CPU on the 146 is much higher but, once in a stable condition relatively close at 37fps as opposed to 41fps for the Cessna (c. 9% drop). Average FPS on the right, by the way, is a bit misleading on a short flight like this - it depends how long you've been sitting at the less taxing runway. So for this comparison, a very short flight, my choice of the snapshots to use showing the momentary FPS on the left is more representative. In the air, the 146 is now doing many more calculations, so as expected, it is the CPU that gets hit harder. Same spot over same city at same height... Stock Cessna: JF BAe146 100: Now you can see a bigger fps hit. Again, while this is a snapshot, it is a representative one. Cessna at 45fps and BAe146 at 29fps (c. 35% drop). The GPU framespeed graph is very similar across the two, but the CPU framespeed is 'in the red' - which denotes that it is running below 30fps, dragging the total framespeed down. You can also see the CPU has an average core loading of 67% (clearly this varied considerably on a snapshot basis) with the highest core here running at 81% loading. So it is more a latency issue than pure CPU grunt. But - when you consider just what the 146 is doing...that's a pretty darned good result. I say it again - great job Just Flight! 🙂
  4. Can't get back on it today, but tomorrow, I'll do an A/B comparison for you.
  5. Just flown from EGBB to EGNX in the 100 version in VR (HP Reverb Gen 1; Ryzen 5800X; nVidia 2070 Super) under ATC direction and including a successful ILS landing using the LOC and GSL capture... ...and it's simply Magnificent! It took a while to familiarise myself with the cockpit and avionics - and I did make sure I read the manual (there are some quite important things you HAVE to know to be able to achieve certain things). I also experimented with my graphics settings. I run both my CPU and GPU overclocked and can usually run X-plane 11 in VR at Medium Visual Effects (my rig really doesn't like HDR at all) and Maximum World Objects. Well, for the JF BAe146 to be comfortable, and to ensure everything inside the cockpit and outside was crisp, I popped the World Objects down a notch. With that adjustment the cockpit was a joy and, in flight, I was achieving an average 30-40fps, completely stutter free and with both GPU and CPU working hard but well within their limits. It was, probably, the most immersive VR flight I've had yet - a nice blend of old-school and modern in the aircraft model itself and, I think, the modelling captures that superbly well. The 146 model is one that I have flown in as a passenger many times and it had the feel and sounds that felt immediately familiar. Noted a couple of quirky things with the controllers (not able to transport within the passenger cabin was one and unable to manipulate the cockpit ipad) but that might be me. I'll have a closer look at the manual and flag them to JF if needs be. But nothing negative in anything that matters. Great job, Just Flight! 🙂
  6. The Reverb Gen 1 is the same resolution as the Gen2 - 2160x2160. The main improvements from the Gen 2 is the larger sweet-spot, less screendoor effect and, I gather, better colours. But, all the same, the G1 gives a crackingly good view. It varies from aircraft to aircraft but, for example, the small print on the dashboard of a Cessna is easily readable from normal sitting position, all of the dials and glass cockpit stuff. Some of the smaller AP buttons need a modest lean-forward to read on the lightplanes. The main limitation, as with the G2, is probably the FOV which is a bit like looking at the world through a scuba diving mask. But I'm very happy with it at this stage in VR headset development. The MSFS is probably linked to an issue I have with OpenXR. The Reverb, running through WMR operates in OpenXR anyway...but it's not the same OpenXR. Presently I can't get the OpenXR Developer App to work properly and have just found some info on something I need to do in Reg-edit to fix that. I'll report back when I've done that. I run an app called fpsVR which gives me lots of in-cockpit detail of the CPU and GPU loadings, temps and speeds which correlate very closely with the actual flying and visual experience - I'll do some screen shots showing what I get for each Sim when I get a few hours - but in overall terms: Oh - and this just is on my system with my set up....it isn't a statement about the programs' relative potentials and /or features: MSFS: On low settings, stuttery and jumpy, freezes and CPU and GPU working to their top working temperature limits X-Plane 11: On high settings, smooth and visually impressive. CPU and GPU working inside their limits but working quite hard nevertheless Aerofly FS2: On Ultra settings, every bit as smooth and visually impressive (other than the scenery being a bit 'static') as X-plane above, but the CPU and GPU simply breezing along, hardly breaking sweat. I'll post the shots when I get a moment - and also with MSFS again if I can sort the OpenXR regedit conundrum.
  7. Yes - I pretty much only use VR now. Generally it is X-plane 11 loaded with the full Orbx True Earth UK suite and flying all sorts: from the stock 737 through to light aircraft to the fantastic Just Flight Hawk Trainer and stunning Avro Vulcan and then to some WW2 fighters including the Flying Iron Simulations Spitfire IX and P-38 Lightning. It took me a fair bit of time, tweaking and reading and trying out to nudge it up to being able to run smoothly and realistically through my HP Reverb Gen 1 at Medium graphics and High World Objects running a Ryzen 7 3700x overclocked to 4.3GHz and a 2070Super GPU, again overclocked. In the past few weeks, I've upgraded to the new Ryzen 7 5800x overclocked through the AMD Ryzenmaster overclock facility to 4.8GHz, with the same GPU and can now run all aircraft at Maximum World Objects, albeit at the same Medium graphics (one notch below HDR). HDR strains my graphics card beyond its capabilities and the visuals are very much OK at one notch down from that. The visuals inside the cockpit and out of all the aircraft I fly are way beyond my wildest dreams of a year or so ago and I can't see me ever running at 2D again unless for testing out stuff. That said, even with the upgraded CPU, I can't get a pleasant experience yet out of MSFS, even at the lowest settings and no air or road traffic. I'm actually surprised considering just how much clarity and animation is going on in X-plane. But the 2D scenery in MSFS is knockout, even compared with Orbx, and so I continue to tweak and try. Last word - anyone with a lower spec of PC and graphics but still wanting that WOW experience, you just HAVE to try Aerofly FS2. Yes - the scenery is static but they really are defying gravity with the efficiency of their VR experience. Certainly, if anyone asks me if they can try VR for their first time, I set them up on the runway in Aerofly in the stock Corsair at Meigs airport. Knocks everybody's socks off!
  8. I have the Gen1 Reverb and there are a couple of things that have caused me head tracking issues in the past - one of which you have already mentioned. As you said, with this type of tracking, it is important that the tracking cameras can distinguish the physical external references and so, yes, decent lighting in the room is important. The second issue I used to regularly get was where the cockpit interior would suddenly 'lock' onto my viewpoint and follow my head movements a bit like a static 3D photo viewer strapped to my head. I realised that it tended to do that when I was sitting too close to my monitor screen. Presumably, because the monitor is relatively very bright, that was confusing or overloading the tracking cameras. I have moved my screen back half a metre from my sitting position and the problem has not re-occurred since. While the G2 have more cameras, the tracking principle is similar and so moving your seating position further back from your monitor might help.
×
×
  • Create New...