How do people get 2.0 SteamVR SS, high shadows and stay above 90FPS using a 980ti?

[komerdoor]

I have a 980ti and read all over the internet how people achieve SteamVR set to 2.0, shadows set to high and still stay above 90fps?

I even tried the LowFPS profile, but without succes.

See my settings while using 1.5 SteamVR SS at:

https://m.imgur.com/a/1Y7qf

Ignore the images showing the high load and missed frames. EDProfiler did not correctly apply the settings. After manually applying the settings I actually stay close to 9ms.

 

[CylonSurfer]

I have a 980ti and read all over the internet how people achieve SteamVR set to 2.0, shadows set to high and still stay above 90fps?

I even tried the LowFPS profile, but without succes.

See my settings while using 1.5 SteamVR SS at:

https://m.imgur.com/a/1Y7qf

Ignore the images showing the high load and missed frames. EDProfiler did not correctly apply the settings. After manually applying the settings I actually stay close to 9ms.

They don't. Simple as that.

 

[TorTorden_VR]

I guess it's possible they are out exploring.
Haven't seen a station or an npc in two years, doesn't go near planet surfaces and certainly not asteroid fields.

Or they just take the interpolation as smooth enough and don't really notice the artefacts.

Here's a recent result regarding my personal level of OCD:
For instance I can tell the difference between a Samsung k8500 uhd player and a Panasonic ub700.
The Samsung among many other uhd players make the mistake of taking the rec.2020 4:2:0 content and performs the same chroma upsampling as regular with 709 which is incorrect.
This introduces an error of approximately half a pixel in the displayed image.
I think I must be an alien most times.

 

[Kaltern]

Nah, they're lying to make themselves look cool. It's impossible to run at 2.0 on a 1080Ti, without artifacts, and anyone who tells you otherwise is just trying to be the guy who always get the highest 3DMark score.

It also shows we're not yet ready for 4k displays just yet.

 

[komerdoor]

Nah, they're lying to make themselves look cool. It's impossible to run at 2.0 on a 1080Ti, without artifacts, and anyone who tells you otherwise is just trying to be the guy who always get the highest 3DMark score.

It also shows we're not yet ready for 4k displays just yet.

So even the 1080ti cannot do the SteamVR 2.0 SS and stay above 90 FPS? Wanted to buy the 1080ti for this reason. So I can better wait for the next architecture's Ti version or a HMDs supporting eye tracking and use foveated rendering.

 

[komerdoor]

I guess it's possible they are out exploring.
Haven't seen a station or an npc in two years, doesn't go near planet surfaces and certainly not asteroid fields.

Or they just take the interpolation as smooth enough and don't really notice the artefacts.

Here's a recent result regarding my personal level of OCD:
For instance I can tell the difference between a Samsung k8500 uhd player and a Panasonic ub700.
The Samsung among many other uhd players make the mistake of taking the rec.2020 4:2:0 content and performs the same chroma upsampling as regular with 709 which is incorrect.
This introduces an error of approximately half a pixel in the displayed image.
I think I must be an alien most times.

I usually notice these kind of things as well. It seems many people are just running the game at 45 FPS and then let the reprojection take care of the rest.

 

[CylonSurfer]

You are looking 1.25 in game SS (with all other settings maxed) to achieve 90fps at all times even on a 1080Ti. You can push to 1.5 but will see some instances where your frame rates dip - stations and planet surfaces being the main two.

Anyone claiming to run 2.0 SS and maintain 90fps is talking out of their rear end.

 

[UniMag]

You are looking 1.25 in game SS (with all other settings maxed) to achieve 90fps at all times even on a 1080Ti. You can push to 1.5 but will see some instances where your frame rates dip - stations and planet surfaces being the main two.

Anyone claiming to run 2.0 SS and maintain 90fps is talking out of their rear end.

Agreed. I can 'almost' maintain 90 with a Titan Xp at 1.5.

 

[komerdoor]

You are looking 1.25 in game SS (with all other settings maxed) to achieve 90fps at all times even on a 1080Ti. You can push to 1.5 but will see some instances where your frame rates dip - stations and planet surfaces being the main two.

Anyone claiming to run 2.0 SS and maintain 90fps is talking out of their rear end.

Agreed. I can 'almost' maintain 90 with a Titan Xp at 1.5.

I get judder when below 10ms and even when just below 9ms. I have to be below 8ms to get smooth gameplay. Is that normal? It also seems that the SteamVR compositor is taking 1ms worth of render budget, probably because it downscaling and applying the "Advance Supersample Filter"

 

[[VR] Frank_G]

Agreed. I can 'almost' maintain 90 with a Titan Xp at 1.5.

I have everything maxed and HMD quality at 1.5 on a 1080ti.
FPS stay at 90 almost constantly, with framedrops only around stations with heavy traffic and in ice rings, when many mining fragments are flying around (but that could be CPU related as well). Planetary surfaces work great, even in Ultra settings, when the workload is set to 100% GPU.

 

[CylonSurfer]

I have everything maxed and HMD quality at 1.5 on a 1080ti.
FPS stay at 90 almost constantly, with framedrops only around stations with heavy traffic and in ice rings, when many mining fragments are flying around (but that could be CPU related as well). Planetary surfaces work great, even in Ultra settings, when the workload is set to 100% GPU.

As soon as I deploy my SRV on a planet surface with SS@1.5 (1080Ti) I see the tell tale signs of ASW kicking in (HUD artifacts). Flying in the ship around the planets surface or docking at surface bases is fine though.

Yes, I also see small dips in FPS in those two locations (stations with heavy traffic and in ice rings), hence why I run at 1.25 to get a constant 90FPS with no dips in any scenario.

1.5 SS might be more than playable for some but it's not a contant 90FPS even on a 1080Ti.

 

[HeavyGroovez]

Yeah as Cylon said, no chance.

I gave up on trying to maintain 90fps a while back.

I force ASW on for everything I play now. The artifacts do not bother me as they are very minor and in comparison to judder I will take the artifacts every time.

I can run very high pixel per display pixel - currently 2x - and close to Ultra settings (AO off, AA off, Bloom off, Shadows High). I played at 1.5ppdp for a year and the bump up to 2 makes a big difference in sharpness.

I'm running a heavily overclocked 1080 (2.1 GHz) and i5 6600k (4.4GHz)

 

[xondk]

I have a 980ti and read all over the internet how people achieve SteamVR set to 2.0, shadows set to high and still stay above 90fps?

I even tried the LowFPS profile, but without succes.

See my settings while using 1.5 SteamVR SS at:

https://m.imgur.com/a/1Y7qf

Ignore the images showing the high load and missed frames. EDProfiler did not correctly apply the settings. After manually applying the settings I actually stay close to 9ms.

Quite a few people on the internet lie, because they can, for whatever reason, to make themselves look better, because fact checking them is troublesome for most, the list goes on.

 

[AstroCreep]

Why are people using SteamVR SS when there's an in-game setting for it?

Genuine question as I don't run Elite through Steam, have my Oculus set to 0 and use Supersampling 0.75 and HMD Image Quality 1.75 in game, so wondering why they do, better visuals perhaps than in game options?

 

[HeavyGroovez]

Why are people using SteamVR SS when there's an in-game setting for it?

Genuine question as I don't run Elite through Steam, have my Oculus set to 0 and use Supersampling 0.75 and HMD Image Quality 1.75 in game, so wondering why they do, better visuals perhaps than in game options?

Voodoo, you get to the point where you are trying all sorts of bizarre combos to try and get a result.

 

[[VR] Darius_Six]

Why are people using SteamVR SS when there's an in-game setting for it?

Genuine question as I don't run Elite through Steam, have my Oculus set to 0 and use Supersampling 0.75 and HMD Image Quality 1.75 in game, so wondering why they do, better visuals perhaps than in game options?

The ingame SS gives a sort of "fuzzy" look compared to the SteamVR SS. If I put the game to say 1.25 SS and HMD quality to 2, it's most apparent in the spinning ship loading screen and the target holograms. With ingame settings they loose some detail and get more fuzzy glow to them, but with say 0.75 SS, HMD 2.0 AND SteamVR 1.8 SS, the image has more sharp detail to it, plus no fuzzy glow.

Oh, and an 1080TI here too, can confirm, that constant 90fps is definitely NOT possible. At least without totally dropping the detail levels. Though I am happy for the ability to boost up the SS and let the ASR deal with the frame drops. Getting 79-80 in open space, sometimes as low as 45-60 at stations/planet surfaces. But it does look gorgeous, so for the time being, I can live with the lower fps. The reprojection does a decent enough job to still keep it enjoyable.

 

[mp4x]

When you're newer to VR you can also tend to think it's running a lot better than it is. The wow factor takes dominance but as you move along tweaking and tooling around with VR games and configurations, or maybe get a hardware upgrade, you realize what it actually means to have VR running well.

I think the 2.0/980 guys are either lying, or don' realize how bad a game is running for them.

 

[AstroCreep]

The ingame SS gives a sort of "fuzzy" look compared to the SteamVR SS. If I put the game to say 1.25 SS and HMD quality to 2, it's most apparent in the spinning ship loading screen and the target holograms. With ingame settings they loose some detail and get more fuzzy glow to them, but with say 0.75 SS, HMD 2.0 AND SteamVR 1.8 SS, the image has more sharp detail to it, plus no fuzzy glow.

Oh, and an 1080TI here too, can confirm, that constant 90fps is definitely NOT possible. At least without totally dropping the detail levels. Though I am happy for the ability to boost up the SS and let the ASR deal with the frame drops. Getting 79-80 in open space, sometimes as low as 45-60 at stations/planet surfaces. But it does look gorgeous, so for the time being, I can live with the lower fps. The reprojection does a decent enough job to still keep it enjoyable.

Surely running SteamVR SS and in-game is just impacting performance? When I ran some FCAT VR Benchmarks for RFactor2 I had SteamVR and Oculus both running SS and realised it was A) Pointless as they both essentially looked the same and B) A resource hog, framerates increased greatly when I chose one over the other. Sure on your 1080TI it may not be as apparent as on my GTX970 though
Thanks for the "fuzzy" opinion as that is something I have noticed too, I may eventually run Elite through Steam so will remember that and have a play.

 

[jamieboo]

Ignorant question here...
I don't use Steam for Elite. I just use the Frontier launcher.
Is it possible for me to give SteamVR SS a go?

 

[StiTch]

Quite a few people on the internet lie, because they can, for whatever reason, to make themselves look better, because fact checking them is troublesome for most

Source?