Am i VR ready?

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I'd rather buy a new PC than mounting one more CPU cooler! (*"Push! Push!" "OMG, the mainboard is gonna break!" "Now DON'T let this screwdriver slide to the side and puncture your mainboard!" "How the hell am i supposed to mount this cooler with the RAM in the way?" "How the hell am i supposed to install the RAM with this cooler blocking access to all slots?")

But i should be fine. I have a nice big german quality cooler (by Silentmaxx).

Spoiler

https://www.technic3d.com/news/images/News_Bilder_sonstiges/Frostbite_Pro.jpg

i am surprised its running so warm with that cooler TBH. i take it you are set to optimal in you bios for fan cooling?? (long shot but just incase you are on silent running or something with the fans under power management in the bios. its what i do with my media pc, but its a core 2 duo, if it melts so be it i am looking for an excuse to upgrade

 

[Knightshark]

i am surprised its running so warm with that cooler TBH. i take it you are set to optimal in you bios for fan cooling?? (long shot but just incase you are on silent running or something with the fans under power management in the bios. its what i do with my media pc, but its a core 2 duo, if it melts so be it i am looking for an excuse to upgrade

Hehe.

Judging by the noise level it was not in any silent running mode but good point, i can check that (i originally build a silent PC, so maybe i optimized it in that respect). But it was also a hot summer evening and Prime95 is brutal, also OC from 2.93 to ~4GHz is quite a step. That's why i wasn't very surprised.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Hehe.

Judging by the noise level it was not in any silent running mode but good point, i can check that (i originally build a silent PC, so maybe i optimized it in that respect). But it was also a hot summer evening and Prime95 is brutal, also OC from 2.93 to ~4GHz is quite a step. That's why i wasn't very surprised.

true enough... i forgot really how big an overclock that is.

 

[Knightshark]

I now got it to 3.5GHz and it remains around 85C in Prime. 99C is the melting point for my CPU, so its ok.

Nausea is still an issue. Is there a way to display FPS in VR?

 

[dape]

I now got it to 3.5GHz and it remains around 85C in Prime. 99C is the melting point for my CPU, so its ok.

Nausea is still an issue. Is there a way to display FPS in VR?

start up Oculus Home. Then run the OculusDebugTool.exe (it is somewhere in the Oculus Foloders on your HD). Visible HUD -> Performance. Now you have FPS etc showing in the Rift.

 

[Knightshark]

start up Oculus Home. Then run the OculusDebugTool.exe (it is somewhere in the Oculus Foloders on your HD). Visible HUD -> Performance. Now you have FPS etc showing in the Rift.

Thanks!

 

[Knightshark]

Ok, i did some testing and the results are not good.

Even with VR Low and the CPU at 3.9GHz (almost melting) the fps remain mostly bound to 45 and only occasionally jump to 90. In higher VR settings fps remain at 45 and occasionally dip to 30. Assuming everyone is running steady 90fps, i can only conclude that the CPU has a massive (negative impact). My only other guess would be that my main display (which is still connected and served by the GPU) i creating overhead (3840x1600 native resolution).

I also tested House of the Dying Sun, there my FPS switches between 45 and 90, but remains more steady at 90 compared to ED. There i also feel slightly nauseous, but it is nothing compared to ED, where Going to the surface with the elevator in the space station makes my stomach twitch.

So, frack, i guess i am screwed and wasted 500 Euro? (+30 for Landfall, the only VR game i can play comfortably)

 

[TorTorden_VR]

Or keep the hope.

But you should definitely look to upgrade mobo, CPU, and RAM asap.

 

[Knightshark]

Or keep the hope.

But you should definitely look to upgrade mobo, CPU, and RAM asap.

Sure, there just isn't any non-VR advantage of doing this. Even with an i7 7700K the performance improvement will be marginal for most games.

 

[Kaltern]

Ok, i did some testing and the results are not good.

Even with VR Low and the CPU at 3.9GHz (almost melting) the fps remain mostly bound to 45 and only occasionally jump to 90. In higher VR settings fps remain at 45 and occasionally dip to 30. Assuming everyone is running steady 90fps, i can only conclude that the CPU has a massive (negative impact). My only other guess would be that my main display (which is still connected and served by the GPU) i creating overhead (3840x1600 native resolution).

I also tested House of the Dying Sun, there my FPS switches between 45 and 90, but remains more steady at 90 compared to ED. There i also feel slightly nauseous, but it is nothing compared to ED, where Going to the surface with the elevator in the space station makes my stomach twitch.

So, frack, i guess i am screwed and wasted 500 Euro? (+30 for Landfall, the only VR game i can play comfortably)

Your 4K screen should not have much impact on your gameplay, unless you have the game window maxed out - in which case drop that to something sensible a 4k desktop will take up slightly more VRAM but won't impact gameplay to any significant level.

ED is more intensive on VR than some people realise. VR Low still looks excellent, however the biggest issue you'll have is the lack of HMD density - as far as I know, increasing this has no impact on CPU cycles, so shouldn't affect FPS more than it already is.

Also, consider something drastic; install a clean version of Windows specifically for Elite. Ignoring the collective rolled eyes, I did this myself a month ago, and the results were staggering. My guess is that a 'normal' Windows install gets clogged up with the usual stuff behind the scenes, stealing CPU cycles. My system, which is considered optimal (1080Ti is overkill ) still has a hiccup or two if I play VR in my normal Windows install. But by shoving it on to a dedicated install... I get nothing, not a flicker of instability. So if you have some space spare, give it a try.

 

[Nagual]

Ok, i did some testing and the results are not good.

Even with VR Low and the CPU at 3.9GHz (almost melting) the fps remain mostly bound to 45 and only occasionally jump to 90. In higher VR settings fps remain at 45 and occasionally dip to 30. Assuming everyone is running steady 90fps, i can only conclude that the CPU has a massive (negative impact). My only other guess would be that my main display (which is still connected and served by the GPU) i creating overhead (3840x1600 native resolution).

I also tested House of the Dying Sun, there my FPS switches between 45 and 90, but remains more steady at 90 compared to ED. There i also feel slightly nauseous, but it is nothing compared to ED, where Going to the surface with the elevator in the space station makes my stomach twitch.

So, frack, i guess i am screwed and wasted 500 Euro? (+30 for Landfall, the only VR game i can play comfortably)

Quite possibly, plus anything running in the background etc may have an impact.

 

[dogbite]

Ok, i did some testing and the results are not good.


I also tested House of the Dying Sun, there my FPS switches between 45 and 90, but remains more steady at 90 compared to ED. There i also feel slightly nauseous, but it is nothing compared to ED, where Going to the surface with the elevator in the space station makes my stomach twitch.

So, frack, i guess i am screwed and wasted 500 Euro? (+30 for Landfall, the only VR game i can play comfortably)

You may have noticed that House of the Dying Sun's graphics are no where near that of ED. Couple that with the fact ED's VR was added later (it is not a native VR game) and Houston You Have A Problem. Many have run the GTX 970 with modest settings despite Frontier having the 980 as minimum spec for VR, so you could hold off on an upgrade there. Your cpu, however, is woefully under spec it would appear. The head tracking alone can be cpu demanding. If you stick with made for VR from the ground up for awhile you might get by, but if you can't do an upgrade of you cpu to at least a Sandy Bridge 2500k type level, you are likely grasping at straws with ED. I ran a I5 2550k@ 4.2 initially with my GTX 980 and Ed ran quite well on medium-high with the usual offender low or off. For DCS I went to to an I5 6600K@4.4 and the 980. This made very little (if any) difference in ED as it is much more GPU dependant than cpu, but there is still a minimum cpu that one can get away with.

 

[Knightshark]

You may have noticed that House of the Dying Sun's graphics are no where near that of ED. Couple that with the fact ED's VR was added later (it is not a native VR game) and Houston You Have A Problem. Many have run the GTX 970 with modest settings despite Frontier having the 980 as minimum spec for VR, so you could hold off on an upgrade there. Your cpu, however, is woefully under spec it would appear. The head tracking alone can be cpu demanding. If you stick with made for VR from the ground up for awhile you might get by, but if you can't do an upgrade of you cpu to at least a Sandy Bridge 2500k type level, you are likely grasping at straws with ED. I ran a I5 2550k@ 4.2 initially with my GTX 980 and Ed ran quite well on medium-high with the usual offender low or off. For DCS I went to to an I5 6600K@4.4 and the 980. This made very little (if any) difference in ED as it is much more GPU dependant than cpu, but there is still a minimum cpu that one can get away with.

What i really would like to know is if i'd get constant (on planets, in stations, in CZ) 90fps with any acceptable VR setting on a i7 7700k with my 1070.

 

[[VR] Frank_G]

What i really would like to know is if i'd get constant (on planets, in stations, in CZ) 90fps with any acceptable VR setting on a i7 7700k with my 1070.

I get 90 fps almost everywhere with VR maxed and HMD Quality 1.5 / SS 1.0 on a 1080ti and an i5 4690K. Terrain workload is 100% on the GPU. Exceptions are, when many objects are around, like in Res zones, while mining with several other vessels around. Sometimes i get constant switching between ASW/ATW and full 90fps, which results in ugly judders - it is definitely tied to the number of objects, not to the graphic quality.

I guess, you will come pretty close to my experience, when you reduce only a few settings, like ambient occlusion, object draw distance and put more terrain workload on the CPU.

I am mostly a PvE player though, so i dont have much experience, how it will perform in open, with other player vessels around. I guess a decent i7, like you mentioned would be a must-have then.

 

[dogbite]

One thing to consider also is that if you were to buy the Oculus Rift by itself (without the Touch controllers), you'll have just the headset and one sensor to plug in. The CPU usage is a lot higher with multiple sensors, which are basically high framerate IR cameras. For just the headset and one sensor, you can probably get away with a lot less CPU than with the full setup.

Also, lots of tracking problems are due to the USB controllers and over-saturation of those by plugging the sensors in right next to each other. I suspect a lot of the problems people are having could be solved by buying a multi-controller PCIe USB card, rather than plugging everything into the motherboard's USB ports on the back.

Still, the i7-870 is pretty darn old by today's standards. I just don't know how low you can go and still have it work well.

While most of what you say is true and has possible merit for a slightly under spec cpu, my testing with 1 and 2 sensors has shown me a great value in having the second sensor that I wasn't aware of before getting one.

ASW off.
Both sensors are in usb 3.0 ports. Rift is in usb 3.1 port
All setting the same for both tests. I tried to keep the tests as close to same conditions as possible and employed rapid head movements such as those you would do in a dogfight.
In stations on the pad 2 sensors:75-90 average-smooth
1 sensor:53-64 with a max of 85-jittery as hell
Planet landing and surface: 2 sensors:45-60 average 85 max-smooth
1 sensor:45-55 av with a max of 70-jittery as hell
Only a short test but enough to convince me of the value of a second sensor.

 

[Knightshark]

While most of what you say is true and has possible merit for a slightly under spec cpu, my testing with 1 and 2 sensors has shown me a great value in having the second sensor that I wasn't aware of before getting one.

ASW off.
Both sensors are in usb 3.0 ports. Rift is in usb 3.1 port
All setting the same for both tests. I tried to keep the tests as close to same conditions as possible and employed rapid head movements such as those you would do in a dogfight.
In stations on the pad 2 sensors:75-90 average-smooth
1 sensor:53-64 with a max of 85-jittery as hell
Planet landing and surface: 2 sensors:45-60 average 85 max-smooth
1 sensor:45-55 av with a max of 70-jittery as hell
Only a short test but enough to convince me of the value of a second sensor.

So much anecdotal evidence. Hard to make a judgement. For instance, i don't notice any difference between sensors in USB 2 vs 3. I cannot image that having the rift at a 3.1 port is relevant, since it only transfers audio, or am i wrong?

Edit: Oh, man, I just tried ED in non-VR for the first time since I got the Rift... I guess I'm getting a new MoBo&CPU&Ram set then.
It is a difference like day and night, despite the 38" Ultrawide Screen with TrackIR.

 

[dogbite]

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting 3.1 was anything to do with my findings. Only reported it as it was hooked up. I too didn't notice a real diff between usb 2 and 3 (earlier computer)when I only had 1 sensor and have not tested the assumption since getting a second sensor and machine. Even when I got the 2nd sensor, some time ago, I posted then that I felt it was smoother tracking. Like I said though, it was a short (limited) test. What others find regarding this will surely vary depending on many factors, I am sure.

Yep, I tried to go back to a 147" hd display. The result was my deleting any game that was not VR. It is definitely the only way to play now, for this gamer.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Ok, i did some testing and the results are not good.

Even with VR Low and the CPU at 3.9GHz (almost melting) the fps remain mostly bound to 45 and only occasionally jump to 90. In higher VR settings fps remain at 45 and occasionally dip to 30. Assuming everyone is running steady 90fps, i can only conclude that the CPU has a massive (negative impact). My only other guess would be that my main display (which is still connected and served by the GPU) i creating overhead (3840x1600 native resolution).

I also tested House of the Dying Sun, there my FPS switches between 45 and 90, but remains more steady at 90 compared to ED. There i also feel slightly nauseous, but it is nothing compared to ED, where Going to the surface with the elevator in the space station makes my stomach twitch.

So, frack, i guess i am screwed and wasted 500 Euro? (+30 for Landfall, the only VR game i can play comfortably)

sorry you are having issues... i really thought you would be able to get VR workable with that rig esp with the overclock. are you sure you are not doing supersampling or something? it is not something i am that up on as i do not do it, however i think you can turn it on by default in your nvidia settings.

what is your cpu occupancy playing Elite? if you disabled all unneeded background processes?

 

[Knightshark]

sorry you are having issues... i really thought you would be able to get VR workable with that rig esp with the overclock. are you sure you are not doing supersampling or something? it is not something i am that up on as i do not do it, however i think you can turn it on by default in your nvidia settings.

what is your cpu occupancy playing Elite? if you disabled all unneeded background processes?

I did not check the CPU occupancy, but did disable all processes in the background. Also i don't have any global setting in the Nvidia control center, i only enabled AA for Crusader Kings 2. Judging by the visual quality in VR there clearly is no AA/SS going on. The Rift Software shows headroom deep in the negative numbers. Either way, the system cannot maintain the overclock, not even 3.6GHz. I do encounter random bluescreens and it already fried my oldest HDD (read head started to make permanent clicking noises and the system freezes when accessing the drive). Fortunately it only contained my MP3 collection and backups which i didn't use for many years thanks to Spotify&Co.

Maybe a fresh reinstall would help. But i am reluctant to do more patchwork with questionable outcome. There is no denying that my CPU is very old and far below minimal spec. I didn't plan to upgrade now, and my wife certainly isn't delighted, but well, you got to do what you got to do.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I did not check the CPU occupancy, but did disable all processes in the background. Also i don't have any global setting in the Nvidia control center, i only enabled AA for Crusader Kings 2. Judging by the visual quality in VR there clearly is no AA/SS going on. The Rift Software shows headroom deep in the negative numbers. Either way, the system cannot maintain the overclock, not even 3.6GHz. I do encounter random bluescreens and it already fried my oldest HDD (read head started to make permanent clicking noises and the system freezes when accessing the drive). Fortunately it only contained my MP3 collection and backups which i didn't use for many years thanks to Spotify&Co.

Maybe a fresh reinstall would help. But i am reluctant to do more patchwork with questionable outcome. There is no denying that my CPU is very old and far below minimal spec. I didn't plan to upgrade now, and my wife certainly isn't delighted, but well, you got to do what you got to do.

lol well imo its worth it...... as i said earlier (i think) if you are on a tight budget keep an eye on the avforums classifieds. there are a lot of hard core high end pc gamers there and they tend to get rid of their "old tat" on the classifieds...

and their idea of old tat is often ivybridge era i5s and i7s with mobos etc which would be more than enough for a good VR pc.