Track IR or VR?

[CZM]

So i've been wondering what should i buy Track IR or VR . To be specified i want to buy a oculus quest 2, but i don't know what is better will someone help me what should i buy? (it's horrible control the view by a joystick so thats why im asking)

[bingbean]

For VR experience in this game, you need really, really powerful PC. 32GB of ram RTX3080 and so on. For head tracking you can try at beginning some of free solution.

https://youtu.be/MGoRnmXEXYQ
https://youtu.be/ajoUzwe1bT0

(Ja som kúpil od jednoho týpka čo vyrába irtrack5 alternatívu, čo je modifikovaná ps3 eye kamera + IR LED clip na sluchátka za 45 Euro a funguje to úplne bez problémov).

[spike2071]

I prefer TrackIR. Even with a nice rig, DCS is horribly optimized for VR. The gained depth perception isn't worth all the negatives (heavy headset, staring at screens 2 inches from your face, terrible FPS compared to flat, etc.). It's also much easier to learn new aircrafts with TrackIR, as you can reference another screen/tablet/phone with a manual, video, or checklist without having to take off your headset.

Other people love VR, and swear they can never go back.

It depends on how powerful your setup is and if you prefer to spend a little or a lot. I would try to borrow a friend's VR setup if they have one and try it out.

If you have a webcam, you can look into cheaper (or free) TrackIR options like FreeTrack or FaceTrack. I haven't tried those, but it might help to get an idea.

[SSerponi76]

In a nutshell: VR for immersivity, TrackIR for everithing else.

[Jel]

You really should start with TrackIR.
If after a while you start to think that´s not enough, upgrade to VR. Many ppl find a Tracker to be more than enough :)

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by bingbean:

https://youtu.be/ajoUzwe1bT0

I'd highly suggest giving this a try, I've started using it mainly as a stop-gap, but it works so damn well that I don't really see a good reason to upgrade at this point.

PS3 eye cam is a good choice as webcam, since you can always upgrade to IR tracking with that one, which actually was my plan.

[fink]

VR s incredible. Yes, you do need a good rig and no, you wont always get good performance even with the best computer on the market. But for me personally it is worth suffering these things to be immersed in a full sized 3D environment. I can never go back to 2D now.

[grandafam1]

If DCS was the only VR game on the planet I'd go TrackIR. However the VR catalog is growing by the day. Most every other flight simulator runs VR incredibly well ... don't allow the poorly VR optimized experience to convince you to adopt last generation tech.

One day, probably soon, DCS will get the VR optimization it deserves and then you won't have a headset. VR is THE most consequential improvement to simulation titles since the joystick.

The HMD is lighter and more comfortable than a real life fighter helmet.

[freakshowfreak]

Originally posted by grandafam1:

If DCS was the only VR game on the planet I'd go TrackIR. However the VR catalog is growing by the day. Most every other flight simulator runs VR incredibly well ... don't allow the poorly VR optimized experience to convince you to adopt last generation tech.

One day, probably soon, DCS will get the VR optimization it deserves and then you won't have a headset. VR is THE most consequential improvement to simulation titles since the joystick.

The HMD is lighter and more comfortable than a real life fighter helmet.

..... One day... With that in mind get a track ir. It's a fraction of the cost and then maybe in a few years when it's more affordable and more developed to run decent for a decent price then maybe get vr..


Vr is nice I jumped in to early 1st Gen but now use track ir and really happy with it..


Vr if you have a good resolution and rig is cool but it gets hot on you're head and while it is a pro and a con... You are blocked from normal life around you hence for longer playing sessions that can be a problem.

[Gunfreak]

Originally posted by spike2071:

I prefer TrackIR. Even with a nice rig, DCS is horribly optimized for VR. The gained depth perception isn't worth all the negatives (heavy headset, staring at screens 2 inches from your face, terrible FPS compared to flat, etc.). It's also much easier to learn new aircrafts with TrackIR, as you can reference another screen/tablet/phone with a manual, video, or checklist without having to take off your headset.

Other people love VR, and swear they can never go back.

It depends on how powerful your setup is and if you prefer to spend a little or a lot. I would try to borrow a friend's VR setup if they have one and try it out.

If you have a webcam, you can look into cheaper (or free) TrackIR options like FreeTrack or FaceTrack. I haven't tried those, but it might help to get an idea.

Heavy headset? My G2 is light as a feather. I can use it for hours upon hours with no problems.
And DCS can run fine. Here I'm flying on Marianas (the most demanding map) with 14 helicopters, 6 aircraft dropped bombs all over the place, rockets going off and some 150 infantry firing off tracers. In VR with most settings on max.

https://youtu.be/9d0RxvQPznU

[spike2071]

Originally posted by Gunfreak:

Heavy headset? My G2 is light as a feather. I can use it for hours upon hours with no problems.
And DCS can run fine. Here I'm flying on Marianas (the most demanding map) with 14 helicopters, 6 aircraft dropped bombs all over the place, rockets going off and some 150 infantry firing off tracers. In VR with most settings on max.

An average feather weighs[weightofthing.com] .0082g.

The G2 weights 550g, and the majority of that weight is on the front of your face.

The top rated headset on Tom's hardware weighs[www.razer.com] 262g (the X version is 240g), and the lightest gaming headset that I found after a quick look is 210g. All of of those sit comfortably on top of your head, not like a 550g pair of sunglasses.

It's cool that you can play for hours and hours. The FPS in your video seems bad (especially compared to flat screen), and I just checked the first time in the cockpit, not with all the bombs and tracers. I recently started that campaign, so I didn't want to watch much. I think it's RightCNTL + Pause/Break to show the FPS counter.

Congrats on the 300th subscriber.

[startrekmike]

Originally posted by Gunfreak:

Originally posted by spike2071:

I prefer TrackIR. Even with a nice rig, DCS is horribly optimized for VR. The gained depth perception isn't worth all the negatives (heavy headset, staring at screens 2 inches from your face, terrible FPS compared to flat, etc.). It's also much easier to learn new aircrafts with TrackIR, as you can reference another screen/tablet/phone with a manual, video, or checklist without having to take off your headset.

Other people love VR, and swear they can never go back.

It depends on how powerful your setup is and if you prefer to spend a little or a lot. I would try to borrow a friend's VR setup if they have one and try it out.

If you have a webcam, you can look into cheaper (or free) TrackIR options like FreeTrack or FaceTrack. I haven't tried those, but it might help to get an idea.

Heavy headset? My G2 is light as a feather. I can use it for hours upon hours with no problems.
And DCS can run fine. Here I'm flying on Marianas (the most demanding map) with 14 helicopters, 6 aircraft dropped bombs all over the place, rockets going off and some 150 infantry firing off tracers. In VR with most settings on max.

https://youtu.be/9d0RxvQPznU

It is important to note that without giving us your general system specs or any real indication of the actual FPS (since watching VR footage on Youtube always has a choppy feel regardless of actual performance), saying it "can run fine" doesn't really say much at all.

On top of that. it shouldn't be overlooked that you are flying a module that has a notably lower overall visual detail level due to its age and lack of any significant visual overhaul to bring it in-line with more recent module releases. Performance can differ wildly depending on the module you choose.

[grandafam1]

I don't have a TrackIR but if I did, it work poorly with my eyeglasses. Progressive lenses do not offer clear vision in every area of the lens .. so if I turned my head (to cause head tracking to move my viewpoint on the screen) and then moved my eyeballs to still see my pancake screen, I would no longer be looking through the part of my eyeglass lenses that give me clear vision.

VR solves that problem for me.

My PC Specs?
i7 8700k
32GB
1080ti

No, DCS runs poorly in VR on my system WHEN using usual 2D screen resolutions. However the VR effect is so useful to me that I turn down graphics to the absolute minimum in DCS to make the sim playable/enjoyable.

[Gunfreak]

Originally posted by startrekmike:

Originally posted by Gunfreak:

Heavy headset? My G2 is light as a feather. I can use it for hours upon hours with no problems.
And DCS can run fine. Here I'm flying on Marianas (the most demanding map) with 14 helicopters, 6 aircraft dropped bombs all over the place, rockets going off and some 150 infantry firing off tracers. In VR with most settings on max.

https://youtu.be/9d0RxvQPznU

It is important to note that without giving us your general system specs or any real indication of the actual FPS (since watching VR footage on Youtube always has a choppy feel regardless of actual performance), saying it "can run fine" doesn't really say much at all.

On top of that. it shouldn't be overlooked that you are flying a module that has a notably lower overall visual detail level due to its age and lack of any significant visual overhaul to bring it in-line with more recent module releases. Performance can differ wildly depending on the module you choose.

Specs, doesn't matter as you can adjust based on your specs, I have a friend who plays DCS in VR with a 1080(well he did until he bought my old 2080ti/oc) and it works perfectly fine.
And while some moduals do need more power than others. That is still a drop in the bucket compared to the work your PC needs to run all those giant explosions and units. Nothing demands more in DCS then units. Be the planes or ground unit or even static object. And once those units start too shot, DCS will take all the power of your CPU and the CPU demand is exactly the same in VR or flat. As it is calculations that matter.

Graphics can be adjusted based on your GPU and RAM and yes if you wanna go max graphics in VR you need a big powerful PC. However,the CPU is a much bigger bottle neck as an low quality tank shooting takes just as much CPU power as a good looking tank shooting. And for that VR has no effect.

[Demolition]

Had really bad nausea from VR. Sold it, got track ir, and it's all good now. :)
For me its more convenient this way too. I don't sweat like a pig during hot summers. (sweating+vr is a problem). I can see at a glance my other monitor or my hotas, etc. It's just more..practical. Or it's just my way of coping, dno. :D Very happy with TrackIR tho.

ps: Got a very good setup, so had plenty of fps.

[startrekmike]

Originally posted by Gunfreak:

Originally posted by startrekmike:

It is important to note that without giving us your general system specs or any real indication of the actual FPS (since watching VR footage on Youtube always has a choppy feel regardless of actual performance), saying it "can run fine" doesn't really say much at all.

On top of that. it shouldn't be overlooked that you are flying a module that has a notably lower overall visual detail level due to its age and lack of any significant visual overhaul to bring it in-line with more recent module releases. Performance can differ wildly depending on the module you choose.

Specs, doesn't matter as you can adjust based on your specs, I have a friend who plays DCS in VR with a 1080(well he did until he bought my old 2080ti/oc) and it works perfectly fine.
And while some moduals do need more power than others. That is still a drop in the bucket compared to the work your PC needs to run all those giant explosions and units. Nothing demands more in DCS then units. Be the planes or ground unit or even static object. And once those units start too shot, DCS will take all the power of your CPU and the CPU demand is exactly the same in VR or flat. As it is calculations that matter.

Graphics can be adjusted based on your GPU and RAM and yes if you wanna go max graphics in VR you need a big powerful PC. However,the CPU is a much bigger bottle neck as an low quality tank shooting takes just as much CPU power as a good looking tank shooting. And for that VR has no effect.

Specs absolutely matter. They matter for software in general and games in particular (with perhaps the exception of MUCH older games that don't put any real pressure on modern PC components). In DCS's specific case, your CPU, GPU, RAM amount, and even the type of storage you use all have a MASSIVE impact on what you can do in the sim.

Let's focus this a bit for the sake of actually informing the OP. Starting with maps. DCS's maps (even older ones) are not exactly lightweight in terms of RAM, GPU VRAM, storage, and CPU usage but some are certainly worse than others. For example. Some time ago, I was using a system equipped with a GTX 1070, 16 gigs of RAM, a mechanical hard drive, and a i7 6700k. When I would run the Persian Gulf map (with no significant AI unit presence), I would get framerate issues and constant, steady, rather severe stutters/micro-freezes. After upping my RAM to 32 gigs, the stutters were less severe but still present and the framerate improved noticeably but not dramatically. Later, I moved DCS to a SSD and the stutters all but vanished and general performance improved across the board. This was on 1080p with carefully tuned mid/high settings.

In contrast, that same system with those same settings struggled significantly with the Syria map and the WWII maps (due to optimization issues). It wasn't "unplayable" or anything but it was obvious that different maps have WILDLY different hardware demands.

The same can be applied to the aircraft modules. The earlier modules that never really got a visual update (like the Huey) run really well because they are placing very little demand on your GPU and especially your VRAM. (which gets into the reason why we DESPERATELY need to abandon the long outdated notion that DCS is "CPU centric" when that hasn't been the case for a good while now). If you were to run that same test in the F-14 or (especially) the Hind or Apache, your framerates would be notably lower because those modules hit your GPU a lot harder (which is compounded on top of the impact a given map is having).

One last bit about how various parts of DCS hit hardware. The Supercarrier is another really good example of what I am talking about. Even just putting your aircraft (a Tomcat or Hornet) on the Supercarrier deck with NOTHING else placed on it, you will notice that the Supercarrier asset itself has a big impact on your framerate. It might not make it unplayable but it absolutely hits a system harder than the default carrier. I would argue that it hits hard enough that one should make sure they have a pretty stout system if they want to use it in campaigns or multiplayer scenarios where the deck has a lot of AI and player activity since that added activity compounds on the already demanding Supercarrier model, textures, animations, and systems.

Even with my currently fairly stout system, I still can tell that certain maps and modules hit a lot harder than others (even if it doesn't impact my personal framerates as severely as it might others). For those suggesting VR, that suggestion should come with a few disclaimers about one's own system specs, what settings they use, and what "can run fine" actually means in terms of average framerate count. Anything less is kinda useless since there is no context at all to go on.