5090 is the my first GPU which I would characterise as 'Good Enough' for my EDO VR gaming.

aXeL

A
Morning All,

Obviously this is highly subjective because everyone has their own version of 'Good Enough' for them. I only cite this for me as this is the first time in ED VR where I can turn up the settings as high as I want them and I don't have to compromise to get the visuals I want.

I'm using a Pico 4U and, to my surprise, for EDO, I've been able to turn my game settings up to a point whereby, if I turn them up any further there's no improvement in fidelity and it just hurts performance instead. So, I've maxed out all the settings except SS ( 1.25x ) and HMD ( 1.5x ) and everything feels lovely and fluid ( with the exception of the recently introduced 'stutter' glitch ). I have gone above these SS and HMD values but I don't see any improvement in visuals even when I fixate on objects in the game.

It should be noted here that the Pico 4U, like the Quest 3, has some advantages over other headsets like WMR, Pimax and Index, i.e. built in hardware XR processors and some effects like upscaling and CAS shading can be offloaded to the XR processor meaning less work for the GPU. However, I was using this with the 3090 as well and it still wasn't quite enough me.

I've done a couple of very quick flights in MSFS and again, the fluidity is plenty for me whereas the 3090 struggled. It was whilst playing MSFS that I reflected on the bonkers price I paid and, to my great surprise, I didn't have buyers remorse.
 
Last edited:

Helmut Grokenberger

Helmut Grokenberger
aXeL said:
It should be noted here that the Pico 4U, like the Quest 3, has some advantages over other headsets like WMR, Pimax and Index, i.e. built in hardware XR processors and some effects like upscaling and CAS shading can be offloaded to the XR processor meaning less work for the GPU. However, I was using this with the 3090 as well and it still wasn't quite enough me.
Click to expand...
Knowing nothing about this, I wonder: Doesn't the game explicitly have to support offloading certain functions to different hardware, in this case the Pico, in order to profit from that ability? I can imagine those features being part of OpenXR (is it?), but Elite doesn't support that directly if I am not mistaken (Elite is still stuck with OpenVR, right?). Or is this functionality, for lack of a better word, "hacked" into the pipeline?
 

aXeL

A
Very good question. No special implications for the pipeline or rather, not from the limited info I've read to date. There are 'two' upscaling approaches. One is just where the headset changes the resolution it reports so the game, even at SS 1.0, HMD 1.0, renders above native resolution. Any SteamVR / OpenXR headset can do this. But... what they all can't do but the Q3 and Pico4 can do is do all the down sampling on the XR2 rather than in the GPU so it's still a performance win for XR2 headsets. In addition to this, there is a setting for 'in headset' upscaling of the rendered image. You're more likely to use this if you use a lower render resolution to start with it.

Also, there's a 'do everything faster' button. Pointless since the 5090 doesn't even slightly stress the XR2. It's that powerful.

Also, everyone's favourite vomit inducing space-warping can be done locally in the headset, no GPU input required. That's right, XR2 does this with VR specific hardware algorithms which software can't hope to match. Does it work? It's incredible, the distortion and spaghetti lines are now super fast and look really sharp; When I'm fuel scooping, I swear sometimes an Oblivion portal is opening.

I had been drooling over the prospect of a Pimax CS but TBH, if it doesn't have it's own VR processor, I'm not really sure I could 'downgrade' to older architecture just for more pixels.
 

Helmut Grokenberger

Helmut Grokenberger
Interesting. I haven't thought deeply about it, but that means that upscaling, or other stuff the headset does, happens at the end of the game's render pipeline, pretty much when the game hands over the final rendered image to the "display", in this case the headset. Where in the render process does the game-internal upscaling happen? I imagine there are various pros and cons to doing things like upscaling at different times in the render pipeline...

now my brain hurts.
 

aXeL

A
If I recall ( and it's probably explained better across the forums ), HMD is the render target resolution which will be used by the rendering pipeline as the specified resolution for the scene HMD 1.0x will be whatever the headset reports. Before rendering starts, super sampling is the multiplier applied to that resolution to give the 'actual' resolution to render the scene at. Upscaling IIRC, happens near/at the end of the rendering pipeline.

I could be wrong, there are likely folks on here more current that I am.
 
Last edited:

Groman

Groman
aXeL said:
I'm using a Pico 4U
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing CMDR!

I've quickly checked the Pico 4 Ultra and its resolution is 2160 x 2160
Given that you said you use HMD quality 1.5 in ED, that's now 3240 x 3240
You also said SS is set at 1.25 so I assume this bumps even further the resolution to 4050 x 4050
Those are very encouraging results for me as my Beyond headset resolution is 3560 x 3560 but it doesn't have those fancy hardware components you mentioned.

If you have a bit of time and using SteamVR, I'd be interested to see a few of your benchmark results here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/2025-vr-benchmark.636069/
Even just a few scenarios using one of the default graphic profile would help get an idea of the average performance of your setup.

o7
 

KroyVR

K
aXeL said:
Very good question. No special implications for the pipeline or rather, not from the limited info I've read to date. There are 'two' upscaling approaches. One is just where the headset changes the resolution it reports so the game, even at SS 1.0, HMD 1.0, renders above native resolution. Any SteamVR / OpenXR headset can do this. But... what they all can't do but the Q3 and Pico4 can do is do all the down sampling on the XR2 rather than in the GPU so it's still a performance win for XR2 headsets. In addition to this, there is a setting for 'in headset' upscaling of the rendered image. You're more likely to use this if you use a lower render resolution to start with it.

Also, there's a 'do everything faster' button. Pointless since the 5090 doesn't even slightly stress the XR2. It's that powerful.

Also, everyone's favourite vomit inducing space-warping can be done locally in the headset, no GPU input required. That's right, XR2 does this with VR specific hardware algorithms which software can't hope to match. Does it work? It's incredible, the distortion and spaghetti lines are now super fast and look really sharp; When I'm fuel scooping, I swear sometimes an Oblivion portal is opening.

I had been drooling over the prospect of a Pimax CS but TBH, if it doesn't have it's own VR processor, I'm not really sure I could 'downgrade' to older architecture just for more pixels.
Click to expand...
I raised an eyebrow when I read "downgrade to older architecture". The claims made don't stack up. The benefits are over stated and lost to the PC-XR2 pipeline.
Wired headsets avoid the compress‑transport‑decompress detour. If you have a wired headset, every extra pixel you ask the GPU to draw reaches your eyes, provided your GPU can keep up. My 4090 cannot play ED at 100% of my wired PCVR headset's native 100% resolution. I have to drop to around 66% (4356x3852 per eye) to get it playable.

XR2 headsets trade some clarity and a few milliseconds of latency for wireless convenience and built‑in tracking/passthrough. Past the 3K‑per‑eye ceiling of XR2, you’re paying for supersampling you will literally never see.

Neither path is objectively “a downgrade”; they just optimise for different things. Get a shot of a Pimax Crystal and see for yourself. Decide whether you notice the extra clarity and sharpness of the Pimax Crystal (or a SomniumVR1/Bigscreen Beyond2/Shiftall MeganeX). If you don't, then continue to buy wireless and get the additional benefit of the cord‑free, use anywhere freedom. That's what a Quest 3 / Pico4 are best at, and explicitly designed for.
 

aXeL

A
Did some mining for the CG again this evening and just couldn't get over how good everything is looking, I started laughing to myself. Despite the painful price, this is a 'no regrets' spend. It's easily the best purchase I've ever made for VR. Back in the day when I first played using my old 3090 my initial thought was 'ok - it will do'. This card however, is just too much fun. Not really missing that kidney much at all.

Only gripe this WE is I had to go back to using SteamVR after I broke my tether but that's not the GPU's fault.
 
Last edited:

Groman

Groman
aXeL said:
Did some mining for the CG again this evening and just couldn't get over how good everything is looking, I started laughing to myself. Despite the painful price, this is a 'no regrets' spend. It's easily the best purchase I've ever made for VR. Back in the day when I first played using my old 3090 my initial thought was 'ok - it will do'. This card however, is just too much fun. Not really missing that kidney much at all.

Only gripe this WE is I had to go back to using SteamVR after I broke my tether but that's not the GPU's fault.
Click to expand...
Did you notice any other games where it makes a difference?

I find it hard for myself to justify buying a 5090 right now because Elite Dangerous is the only game I play where I have to use much lower graphical settings.
I'm amazed at how HL: Alyx runs compared to ED. I know it's not the same type of game but it is a huge difference, I can run Alyx at full resolution and max graphic settings.
In comparison, I run ED at 75% resolution and low to medium settings with frequent re-projection on planet surfaces.
 

aXeL

A
Groman said:
Did you notice any other games where it makes a difference?

I find it hard for myself to justify buying a 5090 right now because Elite Dangerous is the only game I play where I have to use much lower graphical settings.
I'm amazed at how HL: Alyx runs compared to ED. I know it's not the same type of game but it is a huge difference, I can run Alyx at full resolution and max graphic settings.
In comparison, I run ED at 75% resolution and low to medium settings with frequent re-projection on planet surfaces.
Click to expand...
MSFS looks like a different game with the settings I use now. Again, I can turn settings up past the point of reason and hurt performance but without any additional eye candy benefits.

Just to be clear, I had no intention of buying a 5090. It was only because I, also, do a lot of LLM fettling so the 3090 went into the workhorse because the latter has 128Gb RAM so I needed something to replace it in the gamer. The 5090 solved that problem. Even though the card has spectacular performance compared with the 3090, in no way, IMO, did that justify the price 'just' to have a gaming build.
 

Groman

Groman
aXeL said:
MSFS looks like a different game with the settings I use now. Again, I can turn settings up past the point of reason and hurt performance but without any additional eye candy benefits.

Just to be clear, I had no intention of buying a 5090. It was only because I, also, do a lot of LLM fettling so the 3090 went into the workhorse because the latter has 128Gb RAM so I needed something to replace it in the gamer. The 5090 solved that problem. Even though the card has spectacular performance compared with the 3090, in no way, IMO, did that justify the price 'just' to have a gaming build.
Click to expand...
Nice, I'm thinking of getting back to flight simulators as well so that might be another reason.
I mean the normal versions are not even available where I am, only the super expensive watercooled ones so I'll definitely have to wait to even think of getting one...
 

Groman

Groman
silence please said:
Actually after the distortion profile is applied render resolution is 3120x3120.
Click to expand...
Right, thanks for pointing that out, I assumed the two resolution on their website matched the usual x1.4 distortion profile but it does not.
I guess 2160 × 2160 is their fancy built-in upscaling from 1920 x 1920.
 

aXeL

A
Groman said:
Right, thanks for pointing that out, I assumed the two resolution on their website matched the usual x1.4 distortion profile but it does not.
I guess 2160 × 2160 is their fancy built-in upscaling from 1920 x 1920.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about the Pico 4U, yes it can stream at 2160x2160, it took some fettling but for some reason they didn't enable it out of the box - weird. I can even stream at any resolution above that and let the headset down sample. This is using the Pico 4U connect software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom