Elite Dangerous - VR framerate issues/Built for VR?
- Thread starter Henri
- Start date
Because benchmarks has as much real world application as a spare sphincter has on my elbow.
So I should make a new build to get normal framerates in stations and on planets?
I just find it weird because there seems to be a LOT of geometry in the benchmark and the graphics are crystal clear then when I run Elite
anything which is not empty space... Don' t get me wrong space is rendered flawlessly.
Last edited:
Well, ED isn't entirely "normal" for VR, there is an awful lot that happens in the background and much utterly out of our control.
The AI is very cpu heavy, and network dependent, even solo starts fetching from networks and I bet dollars to donuts network response impacts performance.
I only bothered to run this benchmark once but I dont think it was doing much in terms of physics or AI calculations in background.
Like most games would.
Also Elite as such is a bit heavier on these things as well as graphics than most other vr titles.
As for a rig capable of running Elite in VR with 1.5 SS and without scaling back at least a little on graphics honestly doesn't exist yet.
Mostly due to lack of optimization on FD's part.
The and r390 is however well behind the 1070 and that's probably what is holding you back the most.
The AI is very cpu heavy, and network dependent, even solo starts fetching from networks and I bet dollars to donuts network response impacts performance.
I only bothered to run this benchmark once but I dont think it was doing much in terms of physics or AI calculations in background.
Like most games would.
Also Elite as such is a bit heavier on these things as well as graphics than most other vr titles.
As for a rig capable of running Elite in VR with 1.5 SS and without scaling back at least a little on graphics honestly doesn't exist yet.
Mostly due to lack of optimization on FD's part.
The and r390 is however well behind the 1070 and that's probably what is holding you back the most.
Last edited:
ED in VR is very demanding, though DCS seems even more so. Most VR games are targeting a GTX 970. I get 9071 in the orange room benchmark and my GTX 1080 PC still struggles a bit in some situations playing ED.
An upgrade or lower settings are your only options unfortunately.
I've decided 1.5SS with a solid 90fps at ultra is pretty much impossible at the moment too. I'm gonna wait for the GTX 2080 or whatever it will be called and just build a new PC.
I reckon you are definitely on to something with the network having an impact. I'll be most upset if I buy all that kit and still have problems lol.
I'd love to know how Ryzen compares to an i7 in ED.
Last edited:
I get around that benchmark with my Nvidia 1060. 45 FPS is expected in and around stations, and planets. I'm playing with VR Mid - with some graphical options turned down. Even if I play with VR Low, I'm getting the same.
Pinned FPS at 45 is an indication that ASW is kicking in on the Rift.
I'm too waiting for the Nvidia 20x range, rumoured late 2017, early 2018.
Pinned FPS at 45 is an indication that ASW is kicking in on the Rift.
I'm too waiting for the Nvidia 20x range, rumoured late 2017, early 2018.
Last edited:
I would give fd a bit more credit than that, its oretty much a three year old game at this point and still doing more than titles coming out now. fresh from development.
But at this point I would love for fd to develop a new vr centric engine for elite using the latest everything.
I would pay $50 for that.
But at this point I would love for fd to develop a new vr centric engine for elite using the latest everything.
I would pay $50 for that.
I am not holding my breath, but still do hold out hope that the refinement pass after 2.4 may include some VR optimisations, in addition to the expected front-and-centre focus of gameplay mechanics.
There are quite a few things that could be done, such as having adaptive quality, that scales graphic fidelity up and down automagically, just as much as is needed to maintain 90 frames per second - this is one that could benefit non-VR play as well.
NVidia VRWorks (or equivalent) features is a less universal thing, but there are certainly quite a few cycles to be saved, by implementing things like single-pass-stereo (set the scene up once and rasterise two viewports (left and right eye) in one go, instead of preparing each separately), and lens-matched-shading (run pixel shaders at a lower resolution out in the periphery, where the screen is anisotropic to your eye, and the lens compresses the image, anyway).
These sort of things can be a little bit hairy, though, since you will probably want to be prepared for future HMDs, that do not have the particular characteristics and weaknesses of current ones, rather than tying yourself down to a particular proprietary solution to a problem that may be moot tomorrow. :7
Eye-tracking (also improving the HUD gaze-selection we already have today) and foveated rendering (only render at the highest detail in the spot where you are looking, since the photoreceptor distribution on the retina of a human eye extremely favours a very small area) will come; Lightfield displays will probably come (solving several problems); I'm not ruling out, and very much hoping for- real-time raytracing to supplant rasterising in game engines at some point (chips have been shown, as has fast raymarching).
-Plenty of new and intriguing stuff, that will to various degrees force engine writers to tear up their code and do things all over again. :7
There are quite a few things that could be done, such as having adaptive quality, that scales graphic fidelity up and down automagically, just as much as is needed to maintain 90 frames per second - this is one that could benefit non-VR play as well.
NVidia VRWorks (or equivalent) features is a less universal thing, but there are certainly quite a few cycles to be saved, by implementing things like single-pass-stereo (set the scene up once and rasterise two viewports (left and right eye) in one go, instead of preparing each separately), and lens-matched-shading (run pixel shaders at a lower resolution out in the periphery, where the screen is anisotropic to your eye, and the lens compresses the image, anyway).
These sort of things can be a little bit hairy, though, since you will probably want to be prepared for future HMDs, that do not have the particular characteristics and weaknesses of current ones, rather than tying yourself down to a particular proprietary solution to a problem that may be moot tomorrow. :7
Eye-tracking (also improving the HUD gaze-selection we already have today) and foveated rendering (only render at the highest detail in the spot where you are looking, since the photoreceptor distribution on the retina of a human eye extremely favours a very small area) will come; Lightfield displays will probably come (solving several problems); I'm not ruling out, and very much hoping for- real-time raytracing to supplant rasterising in game engines at some point (chips have been shown, as has fast raymarching).
-Plenty of new and intriguing stuff, that will to various degrees force engine writers to tear up their code and do things all over again. :7
Your cpu is solid.. A faster gpu will go a long way to improve framerate. I get mostly 90 fps on planets and between 75 and 90 in stations at ulta/high settings and hmd at 1.75. I can hold 90 pretty much everywhere at hmd 1.5. My VRMark Orange is 10428 for reference. Specs are in my sig.
The VRMark OR number for VR is based on the gtx 970. Ed's min recommend is the gtx 980 and it is not a native VR title. The GTX 1080ti is king and even that won't get 90 fps in Ed all maxed out but it is a beast.
If you're not running 90 it'll run 45 with asw, still playable imo.
I'm running it with a slightly underclocked 290, 45 fps a lot of the time.
I'd love to see your settings - I have 1080 ti as well, but on ultra, SS at 1.0 and HMD at 1.5 I never get 90 on planets even with ASW off. If planet surface is half visible - yes. If the scene is 100% planet surface - nope. Teach me, sensei!
It's more odd than that, most planets I can get 90, unless looking at a busy settlement or something, but some planets and oddly enough in the pleiades I get more instances of ASW.
These are my current settings with the 1080ti.
I use those almost exact settings and can and can confirm that I get 90FPS 99% of the time on planet surfaces as well. (1080ti user as well).
I think SS or HMD Image Quality @1.25 is key to keeping your frames at 90 on planet surfaces.
Last edited:
![[VR] Frank_G](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/59/59394.jpg?1553527111){kind=avatar}
Yup, i can confirm this too. 1080ti user here.
Ran the bench myself, they do present some element of comparability at least, if not any real world application.
Think I the driver warning is because I updated drivers last night, probably not in their db yet.
Average fps of 238 and the score of 10955.
And ED is still far from perfect, but close enough I suppose.
Think I the driver warning is because I updated drivers last night, probably not in their db yet.
Average fps of 238 and the score of 10955.
And ED is still far from perfect, but close enough I suppose.
I have to say, was a little surprised by this. I have a 1070 and run higher settings without problem or lag in game, though I'd be first to admit this is only with SteamVR async reprojection cranked up.
I should have said that better-my bad. I should have qualified with limited testing and while sitting and flying around on planet surfaces. I am sure there would be settlement areas an maybe some planets where there would be many exceptions. I was more speaking to the Op's upgrade path and an idea of what a gpu might afford than any definitive testing. It was not my intention to mislead.
What little testing I did was described here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/364380-Processor?p=5748460#post5748460. In the limited testing I did for the bottleneck discussion, I was holding 90 fps at 1.75 on the surface . I did not test all surfaces and there were no settlements. My settings in the test were pretty much what Tor posted here except for the HMD setting and if I recall I may have had shadows at high rather than ultra.
I am surprised that you say you "never" get 90 on planet surfaces at 1.5 with a 1080ti. Many factors beyond settings seem to be able to affect fps in Ed, such as where you are and how you play, number of AI, number of player, if you are even on-line, cpu class and clock, gpu class and clock, speed of ram and who knows what else, but one would think you should be able to get 90 at 1.5 out of the card somewhere on a planet.