FIXES (Game is fantastic, how to FIX). PC tech; played both PC and PS5 game. How to FIX PC version !! (Steam defaults will make game horrible for NO REASON)

[WhIteDragem]

Alright; just starting a thread with solutions on how to make this game work.


I have been tweaking gaming PCs since the nineties. I have a ten year old PC and can run this game. I use an pdated graphics card, sure.. but.. even a flagship graphics card can be taken down by default settings, as set by Steam!)


Wow I couldn't believe how much my first five minutes of playing this game on PC was hampered by some settings that many users may not know to change.

This info is not likely to EVERYONE. Advanced users may have other issues.
I don't know, obviously...
but I do know what I saw upon starting this game.

Using a 'nice' graphics card,.. the game was a judder fest. Repro nightmare. but wasn't the games' fault.

Alien Rogue Incursion actually setup well and blew me away.
Until I realised that PCs for some reason, make VR a niche product.

History:
Last year I toyed with the PSVR2 adaptor on PC, so I could try out the PSVR2 headwear on 'better hardware'.
I wanted to do this, having bought iVRy software years ago, and ran a PSVR(1) unit, on PC; Skyrim VR on PC, on the same PSVR(1) hardware, was fantastic.

Most gamers didn't like the PSVR(1) headset for LEGITIMATE reasons,.. but most of those fell down to an underpowered console attempting to render to TWO screens and HIGH REFRESH RATE..
In Skyrim, walking up and down stairs, on the console was horrible.
On PC, same headset, same game,.. Skyrim VR was much better.

Using a PC to 'supersample' higher resolution than the headset offered vastly improved the quality of the graphics being rendered (all other factors being equal).
120hz mode of course, made things 'very smooth'. (was an awesome way to play pancake games like Battlefield and 'pull off headshots' constantly, due to how large the screen appeared to be).

So, supersampling or scaling up to super large resolutions was nearly mandatory for much of the early VR headsets,.. as they mostly had low screen resolution, per eye.. to make them work.

When I hooked the PSVR2 up to my PC.. all my VR games worked 'very poorly'.
It took me a short while to figure out what was going wrong. (same fix as I am about to recommend, but this dialogue is so that people understand the industry, and the 'why' and not just feel angry at Steam for wasting our time!)

When I noticed that Steam was overrendering the resolution to my VR2 headwear,.. last year, when the VR2 adaptor released; I actually assumed it was legacy screen multipliers that I HAD PUT IN PLACE.

I quickly dropped the resolution from the default 3300x3000 pixels PER EYE.
Magically my games could now work.
In some of them I could even get out of 'reprojection mode'.

Then I noticed 'another multiplier' generally set able else where which was 'another multiplier' on the data being worked upon.
It was like some mad mischiefous gremlin had intentionally set all the worst numbers to make any of this kit work. (being a tech, I figured it must have been me, 'late one night', and simply not remembered....)

So, firing up Alien Rogue Incursion-
I got the same experience as many of you here.
I changed NOTHING.
This was a new windows install.
Literally had to install the PSVR2 software, the dot net packages, Steam VR, and of course my favourite VR game Alien Rogue Incursion.

well its a good thing I had already played this game, and knew how it should look, and run.
(even on the lowly Playstation 5 console).. (a perfectly smooth and incredible gameplay experience)

apologies for the long write up.. but I cannot seriously believe I have to write any of this.

The experience I just had, using Windows system defaults and Steam defaults..(?)

so my 120 hz capable screen defaults to 90hz (requires software restart to change).
I left this at 90 (wanting to see what others were seeing)
My game set very good configuration showing that the software actually had carefully somewhat considered my actual hardware, and no doubt used a look up table to net appropriate performance. (this was the best I have seen in any software in years, eg Hogwarts defaulting everything to low when I can run everything at Ultra)

so 90hz monitor, with Steam trying to output 72hz, and using reprojection (from 36hz?)
but - and this is the kicker... whilst the multiplier was 0.9 as a default (most aim for 1.2 or 1.3) the resolution was set to 3300x3000 pixels- PER EYE.

Open up your Steam VR front end, and get into graphics settings and don't be afraid to open up the 'advanced menus'.

look at resolution settings and slide that baby WAY WAY down.

maybe aim for somewhere near your actual screen resolution, if, like me,.. your VR headwear has a natively high resolution to start with.

I feel Steam defaults are assuming we have development kits of early oculus products or Playstation VR1 level screens that are truly low resolution.
It would make sense to over render those screens by a factor of 2-4x, just so that high resolution textures and game worlds could have text that is 'somewhat legible'.

As for high resolution VR that many of you might be using?
no need to over render the native 'per eye resolution'.

as I have only played for five minutes (was a horrible nauseating experience, that I have NEVER had in VR, and certainly not fitting of a Survios product, who are masters of VR content creation)

lower that per eye resolution under advanced graphics settings in your Steam VR front end. (this can be done outside of any game, is my understanding)

Once I have had a chance to build a step by step guide.. (today, I promise),.. I will write a short help guide.

I know this is a large wall of text to say, to newbies, lower the work being done by your PC graphics card to something reasonable.. and this game should run like a cheetah. (and look good and feel and play beautifully)

The product I experienced, due to steam defaults, was completely unplayable, but only because I ahd seen how it SHOULD run.
Whilst I could have continued,.. it no doubt would have led to all sorts of thoughts about 'optimisation issues'.

Survios probably haven't seen this happen, as arguably this setup is non standard.

3300x3000 resolution could easily be halved.. that will quadruple framerates easily.

I will check if the 120hz mode hurts the variable resolution that Unreal Engine uses in this game.. and try to find some nice guranteed fluid settings for people with 'normal' PC setups.
My bedroom PC isn't special by todays standards, and the only thing holding this game back from good performance, are some generic Steam and Windows settings.
crazy.

hope this helps, have fun

[WhIteDragem]

tested: working


https://youtu.be/ojQHnVDDTes
video to show what I am talking about.

cheers. (success with you!)

[Sebit]

For me, this is the basic thing you do in VR (but I didn't understand it at first either)
I have a pico4 and I manually set the resolution in steamVR to something close to my VR set, which is res 2160.

Later, in VR games, I set supersampling in the menu so that the game looks as good as possible and has about 90fps.

It should also be noted that when using VD (virtual destop), each change of the transmitted resolution, e.g. if I have it set to ULTRA and then change it to GOD, the native setting in steamVR will change -- that's why you then have to manually set the resolution in steamVR again (in my case to 2160)

[WhIteDragem]

Sebit; cheers- it comes across to me as one of those things that 'PC nerds' (myself) seem to know, intuitively,.. vs anyone new to the hobby who just wants it to work - they see 28 sliders and freak out and 'don't know where to begin'.

2160 (awesome)
I noticed so many antialiasing (max) and supersampling settings (high/ultra) as defaults, that combined with 3300x3000 pixels (per eye), I can see why people were saying UnrealEngine5 in VR needed 'optimisation'...
~maybe not 'optimisation', though - rather, just not being asked to do the impossible might be fair to our PC rigs.

I went in blind to try to see what others might be.
If it wasn't a clean build of windows and 'all defaults'; I wouldn't have caught it, likely...

being set to being nigh impossible to render, on ANY rig, as defaults seems to be something that would force users to fix this..

but then the game actually played.. and made me feel a little 'hmmm';

'things that make me go hmmm' (great song) get my attention.
now I am not SAYING the platform holder and the store holder have reasons to make this happen... (oh hang on; 'hmmmm')

alright.. hope this helps.
I toyed with some settings slightly, after doing that crappy video.
I noticed how close I was to running 120 with no reprojection. (game is AWESOMELY efficient, when tasked with a 'reasonable load')

I did notice that open world mist and fog broke up badly and given I hadn't turned anything down except 'per eye resolution'- means I DO need to explore more.

Still going to get a guide up for some settings that work wonders / 'well'.
for the newbies :-) (like 'me')

[WhIteDragem]

alright: checked 'the interweb'; seems like this is a known thing:

do not set to AUTO,.. enforce a resolution, per eye, closer to native.

ValveVR, ahem, SteamVR default settings are what everyone in the VR space will inform need to be changed in order to get VR working on the 'open market'. (guessing Valve/Steams own hardware has better optimised Auto settings?)

anti consumerism aside- This was probably all Alien Rogue Incursion needed to 'get up to speed' and play the way it is intended.

[Tau Settee]

Originally posted by WhIteDragem:

(guessing Valve/Steams own hardware has better optimised Auto settings?)

Guess again! i9 14900HX (32GB RAM, NVMe SSD) & RTX 4080 Laptop here (SLIGHTLY weaker than a full 4080) and using a stock Valve Index VR kit. While other VR titles run smoothly, A:RI has yet to do so, even after various suggestions from Survios and fellow forumites. And dropping most graphical options to low/off helps, but the game continues to stutter.

So I'll be taking a peek at the SteamVR settings on my machine when I have time, and definitely intend to follow your thread.

[kordelas]

I would like to know what is a minimum PC hardware which can run ARI on the same or similar level as PS5 console does.

[Tau Settee]

SteamVR by default has resolution set to "Auto" - if I click "Custom" this seems to resolve out to 2016 x 2240 per eye.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3405580283

This feels like it might be excessive given that Valve lists the specs as:

Dual 1440 x 1600 LCDs

Maybe a lower resolution might be better? ;)

The nearest I can see is 1452 x 1612, so I'll give that a spin.

[Tau Settee]

Ouch. No speed/smoothness improvement but the quality reminded me of why we like anti-aliasing, super-sampling, and so forth. The jaggies! Argh!

Turning on performance monitoring in "Developer" options really suggests the hardware has loads of headroom - from this perspective the issue seems to be within the game itself rather than within the VR system.

[Vandamme]

Hi, how your setting in OpenXR in steamVR ? thanks.

[WhIteDragem]

Originally posted by kordelas:

I would like to know what is a minimum PC hardware which can run ARI on the same or similar level as PS5 console does.

interesting concept.
both platforms have natural strengths and weaknesses.

In the PC space, a user can add a modern GPU to a computer more than ten years old. (ie like my setup)
Brute forcing crazy high settings seems easily doable.. (technically a much harder to render gameworld is being done)..
depending on a users sensitivity to 'how improved' this makes things- some users wouldn't notice, some would claim "no foveated rendering tricks".

Foveated Rendering Tricks has the Playstation APPEAR to give an output better than a flagship modern GPU (in some regards), and then it comes down to ingame settings (how aggresively do textures lower /'at what distance' do they lower' etc.
anisotropy filtering, can sharpen up textures and create a smooth gradation between high res up close textures, and 'the next set/step out'..

It comes down to how well the package holds together.

There isn't a PC out there that can make the experience as smooth as the Playstation TOTAL PACKAGE.
context- total package isn't 'reprojection' (a negative), but factors the setup time and the chance of an immersion break (ie judder or front end hiccup, not related to the software)

My partner heard me swear about thirty times yesterday, exclaiming time and time again how grateful I am to have moved to console...
as a technologist this didn't align, and as someone with a high end PC build with more than twice the grunt of the console, SHOULDN'T have been my experience, nor would I consider a 'reprojection' budget console experience to touch what a high end PC should be doing.

The reality was- nothing further from the truth.
I haven't done any reprojection games. GAmes I have bought that use reprojection I ahve either waited for a patch, or simply not fired them up.
I played the Horizon call of the mountain demo for less than five minutes to 'see', and the improved reprojection method brought to Gran Turismo I trialled for 'two races'. (maybe six- actually it was pretty damn great)

The reprojection in Alien Rogue Incursion as used on the Playstation system is 'really good'.
I can catch it up, as a techie,.. by turning one way and moving in a plane from left to right, whilst using my hand to, at varying speeds, move in figure eight patterns at the edge of the screen.
If I attempt to read fine text at the bottom of the motion tracker whilst it is at the edge of my screen, doing the above three movements (turning, walking, and shaking hands in all different axis, I can create easy to see doubles' as the hardware tries to guess my intention.

this is of course a worst case scenario.
during gameplay, with screen brightness at my normal level, only locker doors open, with edge up near my face, and a slight angle on the lines (head ♥♥♥♥♥♥), a high contrast edge can be an obvous 'catch out'.
during a play session?
might notice it twice during an hour..
maybe eight times if I were more attempting to look for it,.. but 'heat of battle' and 'typcial gameplay' (remember art design is dark and moody), this game is a great fit for the technolgies brought together on the console (Unreal Engine and foveated rendering)
Prior to the first three patches, there seemed a rendering delay with the torch onto surfaces.. that made the graphics feel 'slow' or 'budget', and perhaps a PC build would have shown itself off easily during the early game builds.

Now cheating (foveated rendering) vs 'brute force',.. well- no comparison..
if a user can brute force- their 'share screen' will look better. No denying that brute forcing the best graphics, something I do in all my games (I do not use upscalers on my desktop PC), is a nice luxury to have...

at four times the cost of the console, to net a 'slightly better experience'...?

I'd rather have everyone in the house on Pro consoles with VR2s... (a game like legendary tales benefits from having a few friends)..

but if we remove budget/ price to performance ratio,.. and just focus on capability.. it is ingenuine to remove from the discussion the 'total package' and ecosystem.

The PC space shows itself as unreliable, and unstable and 'a reeal mess' (PC tech for many decades,.. and I can get on top of most issues very quickly, so I am at an advantage with regards to this).

Once the game is running?
technically a fairly well built mid level (enthusiast) PC can equal the console..
but most do not buy these sorts of rigs.
many users will buy EVO drives and not PRO drives, as an example.
in desktop benchmarks they might perform fairly equally, but when gaming,.. losing CPU cycles to decompression that a better SSD would do internally, can really affect gameplay. (on borderline systems)..
which then pushes up the concept of 'the build required'.
As for actual RAM required, etc.. specs quoted by developers (not specific to Alien Rogue Incursion) has to handle a range of end users.

eg My PC was a clean install with NO applets running. No widgets- literally nothing, not even performance monitoring tools up, that might lead to frame microstutters or use more resources..
and if a user is savvy, and users a five year outdated build of windows 10, and correclty locks off the updates, then they can get by with a much better experience on vastly lower hardware.

in the PC space, no one can hear you scream.
a unique build comes with unique idiosyncratics that will mean either 'time investment' or 'money investment' to surpass.

It is simply easier to demand users throw more money at the 'problem' and buy overpowered hardware.

In terms of 'equal' this falls into so many semantics.
The power supply in my computer is worth as much as a PS5 console.
My regular mainboard (on the 'rest bench' due to forced windows updates), cost as much as a Playstation console.. those two features combined make the electrical performance of the output top tier. (better than the base PS5, but only equal to the PS5 Pro, which has superlative electrical performance)..
to some- this stuff matters- it makes a much better surround feed and, if the user has reference colour accurate panels and quality HDMI cable, an improved colour output as well. (there is a reason $2000 bluray/4K players sell).
The electrical performance of the PS5 Pro is akin to the several thousand dollar 'disc spinners'.. most PC geeks save money on the 'worst built', 'best specced' part ie the budget version of any given graphics card that sells for hundreds of dollars less, and will whine audibly on an 'all white screen'; which often happens in moments of silence, and may be audible over 'open back headphones'..

one persons equivalence is 'not another persons'.
To truly get better than a PS5 Pro console, even for games 'not optimised for it', requires a PC build that is easily 4x the cost of adoption.

regarding the specific specs?
any driver update or platform update could greatly vary the actual 'base/minimum parts one could quote' and so it is again, easier to quote an ovespecced requirement and just not be made to look a fool when some angry entitled child on the internet tries to quote 'without context'
Those same people generally wouldn't read my large posts.
hence why I make large posts that 'give context; which is key'.

[WhIteDragem]

Originally posted by Tau Settee:

Originally posted by WhIteDragem:

(guessing Valve/Steams own hardware has better optimised Auto settings?)

Guess again! i9 14900HX (32GB RAM, NVMe SSD) & RTX 4080 Laptop here (SLIGHTLY weaker than a full 4080) and using a stock Valve Index VR kit. While other VR titles run smoothly, A:RI has yet to do so, even after various suggestions from Survios and fellow forumites. And dropping most graphical options to low/off helps, but the game continues to stutter.

So I'll be taking a peek at the SteamVR settings on my machine when I have time, and definitely intend to follow your thread.

I do not want to sound rude when I give 1:1 support here.
It is arrogant of me to 'know' anything about your build.
but..
I have sold many many laptops, and I ahve been servicing PCs since the early nineties.

Chances are your CPU power state is holding it back (check power plan, 'customise', and then go into advanced/individual settings,.. and look up CPU, and set minimum and maximum power state to 100%).
obviously you now need be on wall power,.. and be mindful that microsofts' updates will eaily wipe your CUSTOMISED plan and reset the upper speed limit of your CPU to 70%.
Apology (just the messenger)

The NVMe is likely a budget unit, more about bragging rights (quoting the interface type, and no doubt a 'very large size')
I can just about guarantee that if you were to put steam and Alien on an EXTERNAL 'very high quality' SSD (ie has little to no CPU hit to load data as it has a high quality dedicated processor built in) would massively help streaming textures.

The ability for your page file to then have 100% drive input/output, less queing,.. would really speed up throughput.
Local office supplies shops sometimes have generous return policies, so you might be able to try this out with minimum risk. They usually have good price matching policies too,.. but the drive will need to be a performant one.. you will know it when you see it,.. it will likely cost twice the price or be half the size of all the other 'well reviewed' units.

I feel that both of these solutions will have you running very well.

but it will depend on where the issue is.
If it were my system I would set the textures to lowest to see if moving large amounts of data is causing issues.

If we were really getting 'back to basics' I'd start with 'all settings at low', the SteamVR per eye resolution down at lowest 1600x1400 or whatever has been mentioned in this thread by another poster, and then ensure antialising and supersampling are set to low.

Apparently there are driver settings in your Nvidia drivers panel that are 'pwer optimisation' levels as well (not sure- lots of reddit posts highlighting that nvidia control panel has some settings just as vital as the windows power plan setting to 'get right')

most will say 'run the latest drivers' (and windows updates), but as a tech, I'd be wiping the machine and forcing a six year outdated build of windows to get the absolute best performance.

my situation is not yours though, and 'using a laptop with a modern CPU' you will NEED the latest CPU hardware scheduler, that Microsoft ONLY packages with Win11...
so, seriously,.. run the latest drivers and windows updates. set CPU to 100% in power plan, use an external FAST (PRO) SSD for game, and drop all resolution settings to lowest (which is the per eye 'steam VR' setting as well as antialiiasing and supersampling settings as well)

CPU and Drive tweaks as given first, are likely the big ones that will get you out of trouble in the long run, whilst allowing super pretty graphics..
but until you set everything to low, you won't actually know what your rig is capable of.
My optimisation strategy for any 'super pretty' game, is settings to low (res and supersampling/antialiasing as well) and then SEE what my MAX and MIN fps are.

I then tune my graphics settings to as much prettyness as I can get without lowering my framerates (that matter) to me.
"that matter" (some games I optimise to stay above the low, some games I just want to keep the highs- that is a 'per title' situation.. in the same way that frame generation doesn't aid online competitive games.. users know their own preferences!)

apologies for length,.. but off the top of my head, that is EVERYTHING I have to offer you.

[kordelas]

Yes, but the question is still unanswered.

Also I am not sure that foveated rendering is utilized in this game on PS5 and that additional processing power of the Pro is utilized either.

Anyways having this answer would likely make many people think again. Especially those who are bashing PS5 consoles.

[WhIteDragem]

better video
https://youtu.be/tniT49XCTLc

same as first one, but longer.
just resolution per eye advice (SteamVR frontend setting)

[WhIteDragem]

Originally posted by kordelas:

Yes, but the question is still unanswered.

Also I am not sure that foveated rendering is utilized in this game on PS5 and that additional processing power of the Pro is utilized either.

Anyways having this answer would likely make many people think again. Especially those who are bashing PS5 consoles.

If foveated ISN'T used; the capability of the console is 'too good'.
If the Pro isn't upping the average resolution, then the PS5 rendering UE5 is 'too good'.

As I said,.. different things to different people.
A super budget PC, sans bluetooth ("I prefer keyboard and mouse"), sans operating system ("I don't pay for Operating System), sans quiet case and water cooling ("I don't need quiet"), sans quality Voltage Regulation Modules/RAMDACs on GPU (the eternally quoted random Amazon find of some super UNRELIABLE GPU, which will buzz on a white screen), paired with an unreliable motherboard and power supply ('the typical super budget build that people always like to quote'), paired with crap RAM ('not usually an issue') and a budget SSD, generally less than 2 terabytes in size; will get the cost of a NON equivalent PC down to only DOUBLE the cost of the PS5 PRO -that includes the wireless and controller, and Operating system, and 2 terabytes of super fast SSD, on customised silicon for UnrealEngine, with 'next gen raytracing' (now on dedicated Raytracing hardware and not shoehorned onto compute units and the CPU, ie large CPU overhead feed up), still won't render tempest level audio, without heavily using the CPU, and will not have a software ecosystem that is the lead platform and equals optimised for the performance envelope.

People will quote nvidia tech demos (ie cyberpunk) and existing software that was multiplatform and never used the Playstation hardware to the max as 'what the Pro is up against', and with those blinkers on.. the equivalent PC is double the cost..
With software optimised for the console, using UnrealEngine 5.4 or later, and not being antagonistic to the Sony platform, will easily need three times the cost outlay to get near to equal.
Still won't have the quiet build or tight electrical performance that someone like myself would opt for.. then we are looking at 4x the cost.. (at which point the PC may actually be made of reliable parts and not cost the end user a lot of time switching out budget mainboards or power supplies,. and won't 'whine' on an all white screen etc.

"antagonistic to the Playstation platform"? sure;
lots of examples of European partners (pro xbox jank) that zip small files and do not use the krakken compression that allows the PS5 SSD to shine.
if a programmer uses small files sizes, and zips, can leverage the decompression onto the CPU, which the XBOX had a slight lead with, meaning they could make games appear to have similar drive performance as the highly customised Sony silicon.

all first wave titles were written so studios could pivot in case they had to resell software in other ecosystems, and so NO ONE (beyond some first parties) attempted to use the silicon fully (ie tempest/SSD) ..

If we factor RDNA4 Raytracing now becoming the industry norm, simply due to the market numbers of high end raytracing capability in a typical console platform, that is the lead platform for games design and creation (majority of the studios not being Nvidia ad campaigns) - then the capability will pull forward massively of what we typically see in the PC space,.. certainly in a bang to buck ratio.

I have answered the question as diplomatically as anyone can.

Nvidia limit last gen hardware through driver manipulation.
They do this due to having short and long shader paths that can alter performance easily by 20%.- and now with AI driver building, 'no accountability' for their 'accidents' with drivers for last gen parts- that users like me have been catching them out ("apology" they give) ever since theWitcher3 on GTX 780 vs GTX1060 etc..

factorying that Microsoft is pivoting to PC desperate to keep users off the Playstation (we now get Prey in HDR and Ultrawide, 'yay'), we may even see windows performance go up.. (eg Win10 may get an updated CPU hardware scheduler/ they may stop breaking GPUs from having access to their own hardware schedulers et)

PC performance could become better in the next few months.. so it is a hard call as the goal posts are moving a lot, right now.

I am not going to fuel PC/nvidia fans 'sillyness' with a spec build, as uneducated people will simply try to educate me on the nonsense that the western media is attempting to sell (ie the PS5 Pro is expensive for what it is, etc)

the PS5 Pro is superlative hardware, highly customised to do games, and quite honestly NOTHING exists like it in the PC space (that sells enough numbers to be optimised for as a lead platform, which is worth more than actual hardware numbers truly dictate).

apologies if I look like I am dodging a question, but no good diplomatic answer exists when dealing with 'PC zealots', naturally the audience on a Steam forum.

My unbiased opinion on this is based on the facts as the industry deals them, and a deep understanding of the Sony silicon.
I used to enjoy widescreen gaming (and HDR etc) at high framerates and resolutions on the PC platform.
now?
I will enjoy my freetime not fighting windows updates that ALWAYS make gaming worse.. (again,.. likely turning around now whilst Microsoft has to play nice)

[kordelas]

So where I can find this information that foveated rendering and additional Pro processing power are utilized on PS5 systems?
AFAIK it has not been confirmed by Survios or any comparison test.
Also my question is from a customer point of view. So I want to know what cheapest PC can give me equal or similar experience to PS5 in a case of this specific game.