Oculus - Global ASW Settings - 45 FPS

[A D]

I know VR players like the buttery smooth 90 FPS. Bit of a dream though with ED unless your rig is a beast.

I'm using Oculus Tray Tool, a free VR utility which has some really nice features. Relevantly, two are:

- In game VR overlay which has a host of options (which can be changed by voice or hot key) to display info in real time while playing. One option is to monitor performance - basically FPS and dropped frames.
- The ability to toggle global ASW to "auto" (flips to ASW as needed), "45 FPS" (locks FPS to 45) and "off" (will ignore ASW altogether).

Have a Oculus Rift, 1080ti GPU, i7600 CPU and 16GB D4 Ram. Not a bad rig, so tried all of these on ED default ultra settings with a couple of settings turned down a bit. Result, getting less than 90 FPS most of the time. Generally, fluctuated significantly with global ASW off and mostly sat near 45 FPS. Stations and planets were the biggest FPS hogs (which is no surprise), but there were a lot of other culprits that I noticed after running ED with the overlay for a decent period.

Conclusion - Why not use the global ASW 45 FPS option and be done with it? Game is still smooth and no stuttering due to the Oculus switching between ASW on and off when using "auto". Could also use higher settings on ED graphics which I prefer for the immersion. VR motion sickness not a big problem for me either (fortunately). My question therefore is has any one tried locking ASW at 45 FPS and playing ED for an extended period? What is your take? Pros and cons?

Cheers

 

[Agravar]

For 1080Ti - I prefer to maintain 90fps as much as possible - mainly by lowering one or two settings - keep shadows at low - HMD 1.5 / SS 1.0 - use FSAA for AA. I find, with ASW, that when it drops to 45fps that I get a stuttering effect on text etc... whilst moving head.

 

[TorTorden_VR]

because it is a far far far far better VR experience at native 90fps than ASW.

And with a 1080ti, an i7 8700k having full 90 fps is very possible. Even with shadows at ultra.
it's my personal choice but I prefer shadows at ultra and 1.3x SS over shadows at low and 1.5x.

In fact Elite played better for awhile by deactivating ASW entirely before the latest update.
Which was a know bug during the transition between native FPS and ASW.
If you have the system to run native, you could force that.
if not we'll you might as well stay in ASW.

 

[A D]

Will try both and see what happens. My CPU may let me down.

 

[Micha]

Wow, I "only" have a GTX1080 and a 6700K, but I manage to keep it -mostly- to 90fps with a tweaked "VR High" set of settings (some turned down, others up) which includes a 1.25 multiplier on the HMD Quality setting and AWS turned OFF.

Played for several hours in an SRV doing Guardians stuff last night. Struggled a tiny bit with queasiness but managed. More driving should fix it as long as I don't push myself.

Whereas on the defaults I get queasy after only a few minutes in an SRV as it's pretty much locked to 45fps AWS.


Would love to see what I can get out of it with a 1080Ti!

 

[A D]

Wow, I "only" have a GTX1080 and a 6700K, but I manage to keep it -mostly- to 90fps with a tweaked "VR High" set of settings (some turned down, others up) which includes a 1.25 multiplier on the HMD Quality setting and AWS turned OFF.

Played for several hours in an SRV doing Guardians stuff last night. Struggled a tiny bit with queasiness but managed. More driving should fix it as long as I don't push myself.

Whereas on the defaults I get queasy after only a few minutes in an SRV as it's pretty much locked to 45fps AWS.


Would love to see what I can get out of it with a 1080Ti!

Not trying to be a naysayer Micha, (not saying you) but it does seem that FPS claims are often exaggerated or a guess.

The Oculus Tray Tool shows FPS, dropped frames and overhead in real time and 90 FPS is the exception in ED, with settings I LIKE (which is so the planets don't look like cartoons).

I can hit 90 FPS with a 1080Ti, but OTT shows missing high number of frames and negative headroom once the settings get into the high end (e.g. shadows medium, AO medium, HMD 1.75, terrain work 50% and so on). Moreover, in reality is the game is bouncing to 45 FPS as often as not. Fortunately, no obvious stutters so not getting VR motion sickness and game looks good. Even the card is running reasonably cool. Happy man if I ignore what OTT is telling me.

 

[Micha]

Not trying to be a naysayer Micha, (not saying you) but it does seem that FPS claims are often exaggerated or a guess.

The Oculus Tray Tool shows FPS, dropped frames and overhead in real time and 90 FPS is the exception, not the rule in ED, with settings I LIKE (which is high so the planets don't look like cartoons).

I can get 90 FPS with a 1080Ti and everything appears to be smooth, but in reality OTT shows missing high number of frames and negative headroom once the settings get into the high end (e.g. shadows medium, HMD 1.75, terrain work 50% and so on). I may just have a high tolerance for tearing, micro stutters, etc. cos it looks fine to me if I don't look behind the curtain.

I spent the first hour last night playing with the Oculus tray tool to tweak my settings(*). Previously playing mainly in space I didn't care so much about AWS kicking in occasionally, but only a minute on the surface made me sick.

So yeah, until I was happy the framerate didn't drop below 80fps (and mostly stuck at 90), I was tweaking. I'll take a hit on quality to achieve fps, having said that, it didn't look too bad (to me).

The overhead on my system was at 0 +/- a few percent either way.


With HMD 1.75, your system is doing a LOT more work. The best I can do is 1.25, which I had before, but I did have to drop various other settings down a notch, which looked better than keeping them and dropping HMD to 1.0.


EDIT: * as in, keeping the Oculus performance window open.

 

[A D]

I spent the first hour last night playing with the Oculus tray tool to tweak my settings(*). Previously playing mainly in space I didn't care so much about AWS kicking in occasionally, but only a minute on the surface made me sick.

So yeah, until I was happy the framerate didn't drop below 80fps (and mostly stuck at 90), I was tweaking. I'll take a hit on quality to achieve fps, having said that, it didn't look too bad (to me).

The overhead on my system was at 0 +/- a few percent either way.


With HMD 1.75, your system is doing a LOT more work. The best I can do is 1.25, which I had before, but I did have to drop various other settings down a notch, which looked better than keeping them and dropping HMD to 1.0.


EDIT: * as in, keeping the Oculus performance window open.

Yes, I would emphasize that I am talking about ramping up settings. I can even run HMD 2.0 without cooking the GPU if I tweak other settings so the 1080Ti has some grunt. Note I edited my post immediately above yours to make it a bit clearer. Glad to see you used OTT too as it gives real stats even if only to prove you are right and to confirm your original settings.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Yes, I would emphasize that I am talking about ramping up settings. I can even run HMD 2.0 without cooking the GPU if I tweak other settings so the 1080Ti has some grunt. Note I edited my post immediately above yours to make it a bit clearer. Glad to see you used OTT too as it gives real stats even if only to prove you are right and to confirm your original settings.

I've spent a lot of time using performance overlays on both the Rift and on the Vive Pro. I've tweaked my game so at points it maintains 90FPS in stations. Yet with the exact same settings on a different day in the same scenario the frame rates dip below 90FPS. I think something network related plays a large part in performance. Due to this I believe that it is not possible to maintain 90FPS 100% of the time on any HMD or system even with no supersampling and at the games lowest settings. Sure, you can in space but in just about any other scenario even the most tweaked GFX settings will let you down and you will notice better results on some days than others.

I've tested on different rigs, with fresh installations of Windows, the works. Same results everytime. My personal view is that any person claiming to run this game at a native 90FPS 100% of the time in VR has not closely monitored the games performance or is simply talking out of their rear end.

ASW is great, however it is not perfect and imo it does not play nice with Elite at all. While it will "mask" frame rate dips it does introduce some quite severe graphical distortions. These are particularly noticeable on the games HUD, ships with thiner cockpit window frames and very much so in the SRV if you turn. While it works well to smooth head rotation and directional movement it does not smooth out the rest of the game, you'll notice ships stutter past your view and you'll see terrain stuttering as you drive in your SRV.

My conclusion is that ASW brings more issues to the table than it fixes but maintaining 90FPS at all times is just not possible either. You can get close to native 90FPS all of the time by lowering settings but you'll always see some dips in frame rate and stutters, some days will be better than others. You are simple better off playing and ignoring the issues as you'll never get the perfect performance you seek, well at least until FDEV properly address these performance issues, issues they deny exist yet are visible even in the live streams they broadcast.

 

[Benji85]

Asw is great but it does add a lot of latency when it is active - effectively DOUBLING the motion photon latency (the time it takes the pixels on the display to change after you move your head) from around 20 ms to 40+ ms.
This greatly detracts from the "presence" for me

 

[A D]

I've spent a lot of time using performance overlays on both the Rift and on the Vive Pro. I've tweaked my game so at points it maintains 90FPS in stations. Yet with the exact same settings on a different day in the same scenario the frame rates dip below 90FPS. I think something network related plays a large part in performance. Due to this I believe that it is not possible to to maintain 90FPS 100% of the time on any HMD or system even with no supersampling and at the games lowest settings. Sure, you can in space but in just about any other scenario even the most tweaked GFX settings will let you down and you will notice better results on some days than others.

Certainly my experience thus far.

 

[dape]

Certainly my experience thus far.

same for me.

 

[Dooguk]

Well hopefully FD will include support for ASW 2.0 when it is available (which should be soon).


https://uploadvr.com/oculus-rifts-asw-2-0-could-greatly-reduce-artifacts-on-low-end-systems/

 

[CylonSurfer]

Certainly my experience thus far.

I've opened a number of bug reports about the issue, provided logs, posted in other peoples bug reports about the issue and the result it always the same:

Bug report closed, moved to the graveyard, bug report waited out and ignored until next version of the game and then archived, placed in a perputual wait state or complete denial of the issue.

My account was even banned on one occassion for simply challenging support over the "unable to reproduce" reply and asking if they had an in house build prior to the 'station interiors upgrade' release as during that particular beta I could switch from the live game to the beta and see a constant 90FPS on the live build and poor performance in the beta. A bug I reported during all stages of that beta - bug reports which were ignored and 100% reproducible during that period.

 

[Dooguk]

I've opened a number of bug reports about the issue, provided logs, posted in other peoples bug reports about the issue and the result it always the same:

Bug report closed, moved to the graveyard, bug report waited out and ignored until next version of the game and then archived, placed in a perputual wait state or complete denial of the issue.

My account was even banned on one occassion for simply challenging support over the "unable to reproduce" reply and asking if they had an in house build prior to the 'station interiors upgrade' release as during that particular beta I could switch from the live game to the beta and see a constant 90FPS on the live build and poor performance in the beta. A bug I reported during all stages of that beta - bug reports which were ignored and 100% reproducible during that period.

Is your testing done in open, solo mode or both?

 

[TorTorden_VR]

I've spent a lot of time using performance overlays on both the Rift and on the Vive Pro. I've tweaked my game so at points it maintains 90FPS in stations. Yet with the exact same settings on a different day in the same scenario the frame rates dip below 90FPS. I think something network related plays a large part in performance. Due to this I believe that it is not possible to maintain 90FPS 100% of the time on any HMD or system even with no supersampling and at the games lowest settings. Sure, you can in space but in just about any other scenario even the most tweaked GFX settings will let you down and you will notice better results on some days than others

Definitely.

It's absolutely maddening how arbitrary performance behave. And it's no different between open/group or solo either.

I got settings that give me 90fps in station unless when viewing station services.
Even driving around planet settlements I get 90fps.

Unless the game just decide to crap out on you.
I am old school. So when I'm not actually using my computer it is fully shutdown, practically everytime I play it's a fresh boot.

 

[A D]

Well hopefully FD will include support for ASW 2.0 when it is available (which should be soon).


https://uploadvr.com/oculus-rifts-asw-2-0-could-greatly-reduce-artifacts-on-low-end-systems/

Yeah, I hoping FD has picked this up as well.

 

[He$$eeTant]

This was a good read, I just upgraded to a 1080ti and was expecting nirvana. I got some nice surprises but certainly not ultra settings and 90fps in stations. Thanks for the genuine feedback