How to get Elite in VR looking CRYSTAL CLEAR.:D
- Thread starter z4.MAFIA
- Start date
So true. I got this very quickly. Not from ED, which is about the only thing I can stay inside in VR (spinning stations notwithstanding) but from FPS type "experiences" on the Oculus site. Some of them are shocking.
LOL I did the Dreamdeck demo for my wife as well. I video'd her with the Dinosaur Museaum at the end. She wouldn't look at it, and just cringed down into the chair as low as possible.You might be surprised. Got my Oculus 3 weeks ago now and when I first tried out some of the demos like Dreamdeck and Showdown I was SO excited I was like "you HAVE to come and try this!". She patiently put down her magazine and cup of tea and comes over to the PC to humour me. Ten seconds later she was like "OH MY GOD, OH MY GOD, OH MY GOD, this is AMAZING!". She couldn't stop smiling and is now addicted to Lucky's Tale.
Just installed my 1080 at the weekend so I'll be no doubt be tweaking settings all week now. I'm running an Oculus and initially tried SS 1.0 and HMD quality 2.0. Seems to work pretty darn well but it's by no means a solid 90fps even with no quality settings above High. I'm curious that you would continue to use 0.65 SS even with the 1080 (that's the kind of settings I was using with the 970). What's the reasoning behind that?
I'd also be very interested to know this. I was expecting the 1080 to be a magic-bullet upgrade for my current 970/Vive setup. But the implication I'm seeing is that it won't allow me to crank everything up to 11?
I think there will be others much better able to comment than me, but speaking as a low-knowledge punter, I'm currently finding that I can either run the VR Ultra settings using the defaults, or with HMD cranked up to 2.0 and SS down to 0.65.
With HMD at 2.0, even SS at 0.75 starts to cause framerate drop.
As I said earlier, I'd be very interested in whether we can pool resources and start to find the settings that work best for the majority of 1080 users.
Currently my vote would indeed be VR Ultra + HMD 2.0 + SS 0.65 but like I say I'm not a very reliable source ...
"Allow asynchronous reprojection" for Vive.
So when I enable this my fps drops to 45, without it's at a solid 90 (I am testing in space, and all on VR low with a 1080).
I mean I should disable it right? Or should I not worry too much about just a number?
Also do other people see this?
I suppose I would have thought that setting means it asynchronously reprojects (whatever this means) when it needs to, that it does it all the time when enable, even on the lowest settings seems odd.
There is also "Allow interleaved reprojection"?
edit:
Ah ok.
I am still confused by the terminology but :
☑ Allow asynchronous reprojection
☑ Allow interleaved reprojection
So it seems you get a drop to 45fps only if BOTH are checked.
I know I shouldn't be going so much off a number ie 90 is better then 45 but IANAE on this, also I suppose the ingame FPS might even be meaningless?
Well anyway, I'm thinking really you want one or the other.
So when I enable this my fps drops to 45, without it's at a solid 90 (I am testing in space, and all on VR low with a 1080).
I mean I should disable it right? Or should I not worry too much about just a number?
Also do other people see this?
I suppose I would have thought that setting means it asynchronously reprojects (whatever this means) when it needs to, that it does it all the time when enable, even on the lowest settings seems odd.
There is also "Allow interleaved reprojection"?
edit:
Ah ok.
I am still confused by the terminology but :
☑ Allow asynchronous reprojection
☑ Allow interleaved reprojection
So it seems you get a drop to 45fps only if BOTH are checked.
I know I shouldn't be going so much off a number ie 90 is better then 45 but IANAE on this, also I suppose the ingame FPS might even be meaningless?
Well anyway, I'm thinking really you want one or the other.
Last edited:
I just read somewhere else (can't find it now) that using 0.65ss is more of a Vive thing than an Oculus thing. I should also say now (just to manage expectations) that although the 1080 is very very good, even with this (let's face it, incredibly expensive) card I'm pretty darn sure you can't just turn everything up to Ultra, get 90fps and forget about it like you can on a 1080p monitor.
Some (not all) of us CV1 users like the 2.0/0.65 thing too, though.
About the card and the game, VR and monitor are in different centuries.
On monitor, I just switch to Ultra and put SS up to 2.0.
In VR, we're nowhere near having a similar position yet.
Last edited:
Totally up for this. For starters is there anything we can say for definite (before we start getting into subjective stuff). For example, unless you're taking screenshots I'd have thought there was no reason not to set the monitor display resolution to the lowest it will go (800x600 or can it be turned off altogether?), anything higher is just wasted pixel processing surely?
How about some of the more esoteric ED graphics quality settings. I know the "Ambient Oclusion" is an expensive operation to compute and that a lot of VR profiles simply turn it off. What I'd love to know is whether there is, in fact, absolutely zero benefit in turning it on.
Similarly a lot of people turn shadows off because they say hey, this is a space game, shadows aren't important. But that's subjective. Personally I love the shadows of my ship on the ground and the shadows that creep around inside my cockpit when I fly past a star, no way would I turn shadows off.
Are there any other settings here that make zero difference to the VR experience and could be turned off and discounted before we start tweaking what we have left? (e.g. Blur, DOF)
Last edited:
To be honest I think there's a degree of individuality.
Weird as it may sound, after looking for alien stuff on surfaces, I've really started to appreciate going debug cam and just eyeballing planet surfaces in VR. Particularly mountainous transitions with ice.
Most people will never know!
I have a ultra high speed courier specifically built for it, like some mach 2 reconaissance ship! I throttle up to 580 odd m/s, cruise to 10k and just go external view. With the surface detail turned up it looks incredible!
Hehe, anyway what I mean is I have all the surface stuff set a touch beyond what it would be normally.
VR low, medium and high turn anti-aliasing off altogether. Only ultra enables it which would seem to say it's not much use but if you really have the gpu power then....
Last edited:
Right, after much tinkering I think I've finally found the perfect balance of settings for my 1080 + Oculus setup ...
My primary criteria was to have a consistent 90fps (without recourse to ASW - which I turned off via Ctrl+1). As people have said, shadows are expensive but I still managed to retain medium quality. I turned off Blur, Bloom and ambient Occlusion, turned everything else up to max and then tinkered with the SS and HMD image quality settings until I got a steady 90fps (which, thanks to ED's new coloured fps display, I can now see on-screen through the gap down by my nose). I suspect that if I reverted to using the Oculus Debug tool then I could probably tweak the Pixels per pixel setting up to 1.8 or 1.9 but 1.75 will do. I get a slight bit of aliasing in stations which FXAA seemed to improve but then my fps dropped to 75-80.
I'm pretty confident that I've got things balanced just right because very very occasionally my fps drops into the yellow band but basically stays just in the green at 90fps, both inside stations and down on the planet surface.
This is with the Asus ROG Strix 1080 - overclocked using the stock OC Mode built-in to the Asus GPU TweakII utility.
The only other thing I did was to drop the gamma down a fair bit to make space a bit blacker.
Edit: since writing the above I've changed SS to 1.0 and HMD quality to 1.25 (it just seemed wrong to have the ED code downscaling its output only for the Oculus software to upscale it again). I've also increased shadow quality to high since medium produces weird flickering blobs as shadows on planet surfaces.
My primary criteria was to have a consistent 90fps (without recourse to ASW - which I turned off via Ctrl+1). As people have said, shadows are expensive but I still managed to retain medium quality. I turned off Blur, Bloom and ambient Occlusion, turned everything else up to max and then tinkered with the SS and HMD image quality settings until I got a steady 90fps (which, thanks to ED's new coloured fps display, I can now see on-screen through the gap down by my nose). I suspect that if I reverted to using the Oculus Debug tool then I could probably tweak the Pixels per pixel setting up to 1.8 or 1.9 but 1.75 will do. I get a slight bit of aliasing in stations which FXAA seemed to improve but then my fps dropped to 75-80.
I'm pretty confident that I've got things balanced just right because very very occasionally my fps drops into the yellow band but basically stays just in the green at 90fps, both inside stations and down on the planet surface.
This is with the Asus ROG Strix 1080 - overclocked using the stock OC Mode built-in to the Asus GPU TweakII utility.
The only other thing I did was to drop the gamma down a fair bit to make space a bit blacker.
Edit: since writing the above I've changed SS to 1.0 and HMD quality to 1.25 (it just seemed wrong to have the ED code downscaling its output only for the Oculus software to upscale it again). I've also increased shadow quality to high since medium produces weird flickering blobs as shadows on planet surfaces.
Last edited:
Great stuff, I look forward to trying this, repped
Hi Alec,
which CPU are you using?
I'm using a GTX 1080 too, OC to nearly 2GHz, but my CPU is old (bought it summer 2012), a I7 3770K, now OC to 4,4Ghz thanks to a big fans system from Noctua. It beat simple core speed of lot of recent CPU, but its technology is pretty old (cache, instructions, etc.) and MB is old too (Asus P8Z77-V).
I basically use same settings than you, but SS 1.0 and HMD quality to 1.5. I don't see a real difference between HMD 1.75 and 1.5, and I see difference in quality between SS 0.75 and SS 1.0, that's why I chose 1.0 / 1.5 settings.
But I can't maintain 90fps in all stations, and in RES I often see ASW turning ON, lasers making waves instead of lines when ASW is ON (which is cute BTW).
which CPU are you using?
I'm using a GTX 1080 too, OC to nearly 2GHz, but my CPU is old (bought it summer 2012), a I7 3770K, now OC to 4,4Ghz thanks to a big fans system from Noctua. It beat simple core speed of lot of recent CPU, but its technology is pretty old (cache, instructions, etc.) and MB is old too (Asus P8Z77-V).
I basically use same settings than you, but SS 1.0 and HMD quality to 1.5. I don't see a real difference between HMD 1.75 and 1.5, and I see difference in quality between SS 0.75 and SS 1.0, that's why I chose 1.0 / 1.5 settings.
But I can't maintain 90fps in all stations, and in RES I often see ASW turning ON, lasers making waves instead of lines when ASW is ON (which is cute BTW).
UPDATE 11/15/16: I have applied the following settings that work best in 2.2 with the Vive and my PC.
These settings with 2.2 actually look superior to anything I ran in 2.1
Chaperone Tool Render Target Multiplier: 1.0
HMD Quality: 1.75 - 2.0 (depending on how OC'd your 1080 happens to be.)
Everything else:
If you haven't already, be sure to opt into the SteamVR Beta so that you can utilize Asynchronous Reprojection which will ensure your experience is as smooth as possible.
These settings with 2.2 actually look superior to anything I ran in 2.1
Chaperone Tool Render Target Multiplier: 1.0
HMD Quality: 1.75 - 2.0 (depending on how OC'd your 1080 happens to be.)
Everything else:
If you haven't already, be sure to opt into the SteamVR Beta so that you can utilize Asynchronous Reprojection which will ensure your experience is as smooth as possible.
Last edited:
I havet the exact same setup except that I have OC the CPU to 4.5Ghz. I have found that SS 1.0 ( in game) and HMD quality 1.25, smaa AND steamvr SS of 1.2 ( the last one is important) gives outstanding result. I have tried a lot of other like setting HMD quality to 2.0 but with no real difference. Also setting in game SS to 1.25 and steamvr to 1 is not as good either...
Last edited:
It's an i5 4690k overclocked in the bios via the Asus EZ Tune wizard to 4.3Ghz. Interesting about the 1.0/1.5 settings. I must have tried them since they seem so much more obvious that my 0.75/1.75. I can't quite remember why I didn't stick with those settings, perhaps it was the fps drops that you're now seeing.
Last edited:
UPDATE 11/19/16: I have changed the following settings in order to achieve better performance at stations, res sites and planets:
Chaperone Tool Render Target Multiplier: 1.2
HMD Quality: 1.25
Remember, make sure to opt into the SteamVR Beta so that you can utilize Asynchronous Reprojection which will ensure your experience is as smooth as possible.
---UPDATE ENDS---
Chaperone Tool Render Target Multiplier: 1.2
HMD Quality: 1.25
Remember, make sure to opt into the SteamVR Beta so that you can utilize Asynchronous Reprojection which will ensure your experience is as smooth as possible.
---UPDATE ENDS---
Great that you like this setting as well. Then it is not only me that see a difference using these values.
Thought people might appreciate the following which is an email from Frontier customer support concerning queries over Elite: Dangerous performance in VR (I believe the forum thread in question might be this one) ...
Hi Olly,
Thanks for your patience while we've been working on responding to everyone at this busy time!
So the forum post you mentioned is partially correct. A lot of what has been said is technically correct and Elite does have locations that are far more graphically demanding on a per-frame basis than elsewhere so depending on what else your PC is doing, as well as a variety of other minor factors you may still see your frame-rate drop to 45 which allows ASW to kick in and help you out.
That said, we're also aware and have a list of instances where our optimisation needs further improvement so that we can try to reduce the frequency of ASW needing to kick in and maintain that silky smooth 90 FPS more consistently, these do take some time to process though so keep an eye on future patches. It's also worth noting that Oculus' latest update may be causing issues when ASW kicks in whilst you're playing Elite Dangerous. You may find that rolling back to the previous major version of Oculus' software will assist this a little while we look into that particular issue.
I hope this helps, please do let us know if you need anything else as well - we're here to help
All the best,
CMDR Vanguard
Elite Dangerous Customer Support Wing
Thanks to Olly Fox for sharing.
Hi Olly,
Thanks for your patience while we've been working on responding to everyone at this busy time!
So the forum post you mentioned is partially correct. A lot of what has been said is technically correct and Elite does have locations that are far more graphically demanding on a per-frame basis than elsewhere so depending on what else your PC is doing, as well as a variety of other minor factors you may still see your frame-rate drop to 45 which allows ASW to kick in and help you out.
That said, we're also aware and have a list of instances where our optimisation needs further improvement so that we can try to reduce the frequency of ASW needing to kick in and maintain that silky smooth 90 FPS more consistently, these do take some time to process though so keep an eye on future patches. It's also worth noting that Oculus' latest update may be causing issues when ASW kicks in whilst you're playing Elite Dangerous. You may find that rolling back to the previous major version of Oculus' software will assist this a little while we look into that particular issue.
I hope this helps, please do let us know if you need anything else as well - we're here to help
All the best,
CMDR Vanguard
Elite Dangerous Customer Support Wing
Thanks to Olly Fox for sharing.
Last edited: