Questions about VR

[Cynical Jester]

I am kinda looking for information here, I just started looking into VR headsets to mostly play this game again.

I'm curious what headset you guys have and the pros/cons to them.

So far from the little research I've done is the HTC Vive is good, has the highest quality image as far as pixel density goes iirc and supports 120hz refresh rate which is great!

Then there's the oculus rift S which supports a higher resolution than the previous model but has a 80hz refresh rate.

I'm kinda leaning toward the oculus rift S but wanted to hear some feedback on your personal experiences/knowledge.

[Goffik]

Originally posted by Cynical Jester:

Then there's the oculus rift S which supports a higher resolution than the previous model but has a 80hz refresh rate.

That isn't even an option, unless you plan to buy one second-hand. The Rift S is no longer in production, and is no longer supported in any way by Oculus. This is something I have found out to my extreme frustration, since I can not get a replacement controller for a device that is less than two years old.

I would absolutely not recommend buying a Rift S second hand either. My search for replacement controllers across the internet has revealed that nearly every one being sold (with or without the actual headset itself) is usually damaged in some way. You'll probably end up paying for something that will be DoA... defective on arrival.

And to that end, I would also not recommend you even consider Oculus products at all. The way they treat their loyal customers, particularly with their atrocious "support" policy, is beyond abysmal. Then there's the forced linking to your Facebook account for all new customers, and all existing customers soon as well. I also tend to see many, many posts of people having issues with the Quest 2 when playing anything that requires it to be plugged into a PC, like DCS would.

TLDR; Avoid Oculus like the plague, and save yourself a great deal of frustration. They may be "cheap" compared to other brands, but that's because their quality and service are far inferior.

(By the way, unless you happen to own a supercomputer, the refresh rate of the HMD will not matter much. You're not going to hitting 120fps... or even 80fps... in DCS VR.)

[Cynical Jester]

Damn that's disappointing. I guess the choice is between one of the HTC vive headsets and the valve index.

I hope that VR isn't too much of a hit to performance. I just built a laptop a couple months ago and didn't skimp on parts at all and it runs everything flawlessly that I've put on it.

I know laptops aren't ideal but I'm currently moving around more than I am stationary so lugging around an expensive desktop and everything that comes with it isn't exactly ideal right now.

Edit: Specs are as follows - i9 10900k 3.7ghz, 32gb Ram @3200mhz, 2tb Firecuda 520, 500gb Samsung 980, RTX 3080 16gb

[trn3r]

I originally considered the Valve Index but eventually chose the HP Reverb G2. The HP has a good price ratio and due to inside out tracking you don't need to setup external cameras, which makes it handy and flexible. Field of view is not very great though. Some people use a 3D printed part to decrease distance between eyes and headset and increase field of view that way.

Like Goffik pointed out though, currently the specs of the VR headsets don't mean too much with DCS. Which not only applies to FPS, but also to resolution. The HP has a very decent resolution, but unfortunately ATM everybody is using a pixel density setting of less than 1.0 in DCS. I'm currently using 0.8 pixel density and get around 36 FPS in VR.

Even if you buy the latest and greatest machine, you won't get sensational frame rates in VR with DCS. It seems the cause is that DCS still does not support multi-threading very well.

[Goffik]

Originally posted by Cynical Jester:

I hope that VR isn't too much of a hit to performance.

Unfortunately it is a massive performance hit. My own PC (desktop) can handle DCS in all it's glory in pancake mode, but performance inevitably tanks in VR because the hardware requirements take a massive jump upwards. Like trn3r, I average around 35fps or so after a lot of tweaking, though it varies depending on the aircraft being used. (I love choppers, but flying at treetop level is much more performance intensive than flying at 30,000ft.)

Don't let it put you off too much though... it's just the way VR simming is at the moment, even for those who can afford the latest and greatest. 30-40fps really isn't too bad and will do the job quite nicely, as long as you're not too susceptible to VR sickness. If there's any way you can try before you buy then I'd highly recommend it, but I realise that not all of us have a friend with VR equipment.

Incidentally, if I had the money to buy a new VR headset right now, I'd probably go with an HP. I have no experience with them or any brand other than Oculus, but it feels like I see more positive comments about their HMDs than any other.

[chargo]

Originally posted by Goffik:

Originally posted by Cynical Jester:

I hope that VR isn't too much of a hit to performance.

Unfortunately it is a massive performance hit. My own PC (desktop) can handle DCS in all it's glory in pancake mode, but performance inevitably tanks in VR because the hardware requirements take a massive jump upwards. Like trn3r, I average around 35fps or so after a lot of tweaking, though it varies depending on the aircraft being used. (I love choppers, but flying at treetop level is much more performance intensive than flying at 30,000ft.)

Don't let it put you off too much though... it's just the way VR simming is at the moment, even for those who can afford the latest and greatest. 30-40fps really isn't too bad and will do the job quite nicely, as long as you're not too susceptible to VR sickness. If there's any way you can try before you buy then I'd highly recommend it, but I realise that not all of us have a friend with VR equipment.

Incidentally, if I had the money to buy a new VR headset right now, I'd probably go with an HP. I have no experience with them or any brand other than Oculus, but it feels like I see more positive comments about their HMDs than any other.

Just for context, what GPU are you running?

[Goffik]

Originally posted by richhhhhgang:

Just for context, what GPU are you running?

A GTX 2060, with i9 10850 & 32GB RAM. I average ~30-35fps when flying low level in choppers over the Caucasus, ~40-50fps in jets at high altitude. (Though I usually lock the FPS at 30 to help reduce stutter.)

The age of the aircraft can also make a difference though, since newer releases tend to be more detailed. More detail = more polys & bigger textures = worse performance.

[chargo]

Originally posted by Goffik:

Originally posted by richhhhhgang:

Just for context, what GPU are you running?

A GTX 2060, with i9 10850 & 32GB RAM. I average ~30-35fps when flying low level in choppers over the Caucasus, ~40-50fps in jets at high altitude. (Though I usually lock the FPS at 30 to help reduce stutter.)

The age of the aircraft can also make a difference though, since newer releases tend to be more detailed. More detail = more polys & bigger textures = worse performance.

Thanks!

[Toprudder]

Running a 3080. Best HMD all-round is still the Index. Can get away with one base station but 2 are better. Had WMR in previous HMD's and despise it.

[Gunfreak]

HTC vive sucks and is old stuff now, you have 5 options.

1. Buy the Quest 2, it's an ok headset, has good handtracking incase you want to play other stuff. Its super uncomfertable to use as is, but you can buy stuff for it. If you're new to VR it's a good starter set if you can live with evil empire Facebook/meta

2. Get the G2 it has very good clarity, you'll probably be running it at 70-80% resolsution in steam VR but still all texts and numbers in the cockpit is clear and readable,(except in the F14, the F14 has a lot of tiny text stuff in the cockpit, and the stuff in worn too, works ok, But not easy to read at night. The new G2 has better tracking then mine has, but still probably not as good as the Q2.

The index has good field of view but not as clear as either Q2 or G2, also expencive, and old by now, valve might come out with something new next year old off on the index.

The vive stuff has horrible controlers, and you aren't gonne get much improvment over the G2 in qualty of picutre.

Then you have the Pimax stuff, a lot of people are happy with the Pimax 8k, but like the vive and index it's expencive stuff. I'm personally waiting for the Pimax 12k as it has inside out tracking. I doubt it will be as good as they say it will be, but that's the one I'm waiting for before I retire my G2.

Varjo cost as much as the 12k will cost, but you need base stations and controlers, so it will cost more then the 12k, but might have better display.

Don't get to hung up in the field of view you're new to VR and you'll be to busy to really notice stuff once the ♥♥♥♥ hits the fan. If you do get a big field of view headsett it will be hard to go back to a smaller field of view headsett, but as long as you havn't tried it, it will be OK. Don't get to hung up in pixles and reslution, you'll not be using most of it anyway. with the G2 you'll probably use 70-80% of max resultion and with 8k, 12k or Varjo you'll be using 40-50% by the time a computrer exist that can run DCS at 100% with a Pimax 8k the Pimax 8k will be 10 years old.

It's the clarity, ease of use etc that you are after, How low the FPS you can surive depends on you, I use a lot of stuff to squeese as much out of my comptuer as possible, I use AMD FSR, I've turned of stuff in Steam VR and Mixed reality rooms ect. You need at least 32gig ect. ect. I don't check my FPS, I notice when it becomes uncomferably low. And I have quite high settings in game. with stuff like clouds on ultra, smoke, high textures. It's still far from the insane quality you can get outside of VR, but it looks good.

[Goffik]

Originally posted by Gunfreak:

It's the clarity, ease of use etc that you are after, How low the FPS you can surive depends on you, I use a lot of stuff to squeese as much out of my comptuer as possible, I use AMD FSR, I've turned of stuff in Steam VR and Mixed reality rooms ect. You need at least 32gig ect. ect. I don't check my FPS, I notice when it becomes uncomferably low. And I have quite high settings in game. with stuff like clouds on ultra, smoke, high textures. It's still far from the insane quality you can get outside of VR, but it looks good.

^^ This is a very good point. Far too many people get hung up on stats and counters, dismissing anything that doesn't hit a specific target number. The reality is that it doesn't matter. If it feels good to you then it is good, regardless of what number happens to be shown in the corner of the screen. As long as you're comfortable and enjoying yourself, stats don't mean a damn thing.

[trn3r]

BTW if someone is considering to invest in new chiplets, I would concentrate on picking a CPU with high single-thread ranking, and not caring about amount of CPU cores. That probably gives you the highest chance to increase FPS with DCS.

At least from the performance comparisons I saw, the GPU does not seem to be the limiting factor with DCS, and you currently have to sell a kidney to get any good GPU. Maybe you could run DCS with certain higher anti-aliasing settings, but that's pretty much it.

I think the current things that really hurt with DCS are the actual physical simulations, which seem to be CPU bound. And since no decent multi-threading support yet ...

[Detective Dan]

Oculus is good as a starter VR headset (quest or Oculus) but eventually you'll want something better. save for an Index or G2

I have an Oculus Rift S and its lost it's wow...

[Goffik]

Originally posted by trn3r:

BTW if someone is considering to invest in new chiplets, I would concentrate on picking a CPU with high single-thread ranking, and not caring about amount of CPU cores. That probably gives you the highest chance to increase FPS with DCS.

That may be the case for those playing pancake mode, but GPU is a massive consideration when playing in VR. Even flying an empty test mission (therefore greatly reducing CPU load), performance will vary greatly on different GPUs. Even changing a single setting that has minimal impact in pancake mode can have a dramatic performance effect in VR.

Originally posted by Lancia 037:

Oculus is good as a starter VR headset (quest or Oculus) but eventually you'll want something better.

Oculus is the manufacturer. Quest is one of their HMDs. So they're the same thing.

Also, I disagree. If the CV1 or Rift S was still available, and if someone's budget was tight and they couldn't wait to save more, then Oculus might be a (poor) choice for a starter kit. However, the Quest HMDs are designed as standalone units for playing basic VR-only games. Plugging them into your PC to play proper games was little more than an (expensive) afterthought, and that's why so many people have issues with the Quest 2 in such games. I think the extra money for a different brand is worth it to avoid this kind of hassle alone, not to mention all the other reasons mentioned above.

[80ne]

I own a CV1 and still use to this day. Happy Happy Happy 1080P good for you good for me

[Shrimp Tabasco]

I bought an Oculus Quest 2 after using a CV1 for years. My experience with Oculus so far (5 years now) is pretty good. I also want to play standalone sometimes so the Reverb G2 wasnt really an option for me. I guess if i had to buy a headset right now i would go for the Pimax 8KX (as extra headset) mainly because of the huge FOV and big sweet spot. Youll need a pretty powerful machine for it though.

Performance wise, be prepared to do a lot of tweaking. There are good guides on YT which are pretty easy to find.

Clarity wise the G2 is better than the Quest 2 though the Quest 2 did get a clarity update a while back. Not sure how they compare now.