The improved visual difference between "no supersampling" (1.0x) and "0.65x in-game SS and 1.5 Oculus Debug Tool SS" (still effectively 1.0x)

[JerryLove]

It is the quality of the image sent to the HMD that is on test here; Not the display technology.

And what I care about is what gets to my eye... which is neither and both of the above.

If you want to show what effect changing SS has for someone using a rift, you will need to screenshot from within the rift... which pretty much means putting a camera to the lens.

I can guarantee you: the screenshot of "what is sent" doesn't give a good indication of the effect.

 

[jojon]

And what I care about is what gets to my eye... which is neither and both of the above.

If you want to show what effect changing SS has for someone using a rift, you will need to screenshot from within the rift... which pretty much means putting a camera to the lens.

I can guarantee you: the screenshot of "what is sent" doesn't give a good indication of the effect.

Garbage in -> garbage out.

I don't need your guarantee; I can see it for myself.

 

[Failtrainch00ch00]

Keep supporting the lame VR products. Maybe in a few yrs it might be worth getting, as long as it's put into a wrap around pair of sunglasses and focus without glasses. Never gonna wear a diving helmet for a frakking game. Spend your money, you go.

Spoken like someone who hasnt played ED in VR. Stick to facts buddy lol

 

[IronAnode]

I think (as a new cheap ass ebayer who bought a dk2 to test the water) the issue is for most people going VR first time is the difference in res.

I'm 1440p on a decent screen in ultra at 60fps (970, some nvidia settings to make things better) but on the dk2 im 1.2 in debug tool and on mid in ED.

The immersion is *AMAZING* but the res is so far behind the panel i struggle to square that. Also I use eddb, discord etc and in VR mode I don't find the base game (e.g. no tools/chat) engaging enough to be worth the res drop. That said if its combat and intense I'm on the dk2 for the sheer in the game feeling.

tldr; kinda agree vr in a few years will be awesome, right now its very very good but not at a high enough res.

Ta,

IA

 

[Beavis Tingleball]

1.8 debug/1.0 elite. gfx@ultra, no bloom or blur. great performance and ultra clear. stars are now points of light instead of light-flooded pixels. aliasing has been 99.9% obliterated. i7 6700k/gtx1080.

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

I think (as a new cheap ass ebayer who bought a dk2 to test the water) the issue is for most people going VR first time is the difference in res.

I'm 1440p on a decent screen in ultra at 60fps (970, some nvidia settings to make things better) but on the dk2 im 1.2 in debug tool and on mid in ED.

The immersion is *AMAZING* but the res is so far behind the panel i struggle to square that. Also I use eddb, discord etc and in VR mode I don't find the base game (e.g. no tools/chat) engaging enough to be worth the res drop. That said if its combat and intense I'm on the dk2 for the sheer in the game feeling.

tldr; kinda agree vr in a few years will be awesome, right now its very very good but not at a high enough res.

Ta,

IA

For me the question is one of tradeoff - Does the increased immersion of VR outweigh the icky low resolution by a factor of cost of entry? This is a subjective thing and the answer won't be the same for everyone.

 

[foxpur]

OP, I was playing at default SS, Default Elite SS, and 1.75 for DebugTool
Using HDMI->DP for 4k at 120hz refresh rate for my Oculus

If I get this right I should lower the EliteSS to .65, and the DebugTool to 1.5?

(And I REALLY need a new MB/Processer to make full use of this)

 

[dannyboy]

Keep supporting the lame VR products. Maybe in a few yrs it might be worth getting, as long as it's put into a wrap around pair of sunglasses and focus without glasses. Never gonna wear a diving helmet for a frakking game. Spend your money, you go.

Did you actually bother posting this drivel?

 

[UniMag]

Did you actually bother posting this drivel?

His loss, our gain

 

[AztecScribe]

Interesting. I'm itching to buy the 1070 soon and pretty much souly for improving visuals in VR. I only just realised that with the settings on VR high most options are still only on medium or completely turned off. I found that along with the OPs settings and then setting effects to medium (which activates smoke effects in stations) the game looks good. Can't wait to activate ambient occlusion

 

[Surefoot]

The diminishing returns hit quickly though due to the relatively low resolution of current VR devices. I have most settings on ultra (running on a 1080) and the difference with medium is mostly psychological. Only settings that make a difference are related to draw distances and LOD... Shadows look a lot better on high too.

 

[Cliché]

I've got a 1080 and have played around with a lot of debug and in-game SS settings, as well as GFX quality settings. There are too many variables to list, but I've found you can greatly increase the image quality of the cockpit interior, text, other ships, stations, & stars, but at the sacrifice of FPS. I can maintain 90FPS most of the time, but I take a severe FPS hit in a RES while in combat (not when just flying around asteroids). The odd thing is, it doesn't really seem that noticeable when the FPS drops and it doesn't bother me at all. An FPS drop in the SRV is more of a problem (for my eyes and my stomach), so I tend to pick settings that are a little lower so I can maintain a decent FPS in the SRV - but still not 90FPS. I also start at High GFX quality and turn a few things down. Still, it is a vast improvement over Ultra at 1.0 in-game SS with no debug tool.

So IMHO, even a GTX 1080 does not have enough grunt to get the most out of VR, but I gotta imagine it is a lot better the 9xx series cards.

 

[Cliché]

Some additional info. I took 3 high res screen shots (2560x1440) of the same scene, with AA off, set to FXAA, and set to SMAA, and the anti-aliased shots looked nothing like the in-game image. So I think comparing screenshots for graphics settings may have limited value. Also, with extensive testing with different AA and SS settings, I didn't notice significant changes to the text, while there were big reductions in jaggies. I'm wondering if some other settings like blur and bloom have an effect on the text? And that testing was with a 1080 and a CV1.