Please bring Skyrim VR to Quest store.

[Morrow]

I played Skyrim with Steam Link on Quest 2, both wired and wireless. It wasn't the best, but it was playable. Now that 3 is out, I'm confident Skyrim VR would run decent-great on 3 and 3S.

[Fistandantilus]

Seems like you have no idea how powerfull the hardware of a Quest 3 is compared to that of a PC.

Performance comparation:

Quest 2: 0.96 teraflops
Quest 3: 2.4 teraflops

Minimum performance that this (steamVR) version of SkyrimVR demands (no mods and the superlow resolution of the 1. gen headsets from 2016): 3.5 teraflops
recommended to play without mods and th low res 1 gen headsets from 2016): 7 teraflops

Gaming PC in the year 2024, around 1000 Dollars: 22 teraflops
Fastest Gaming PC that money can buy in the year 2024: 84 teraflops

Decently modded SkyrimVR, played with Quest 3 connected to PC:
12 teraflops: playable but not great
22 teraflops: fine, but not perfect
84 teraflops: almost perfect, but could be 100 teraflops please.

So... Quest 3 may be 2.5x as powerfull as a Quest 2, but even a 1000$ PC is 10x as powerfull and a 3000$ PC is 35x as powerfull as a Quest 3.

[Fistandantilus]

Hmm, now that I read your post again....

You are aware that back when you played it with the Quest 2, it was actualy your PC that run the game and your Quest 2 was just a MONITOR and the game was not running on that Quest 2?

[Morrow]

Originally posted by Fistandantilus:

Hmm, now that I read your post again....

You are aware that back when you played it with the Quest 2, it was actualy your PC that run the game and your Quest 2 was just a MONITOR and the game was not running on that Quest 2?

I knew it was streamed but I also thought that the device's power mattered as well. However I'm a 90s gamer so I grew up when games were 20fps or lower. So as long as it is a stable frame rate, I don't mind if it's 30 fps. Or are you saying that the Quest 3 would be so weak that it wouldnt even run 30?

[buttmunch]

Originally posted by Morrow:

Originally posted by Fistandantilus:

Hmm, now that I read your post again....

You are aware that back when you played it with the Quest 2, it was actualy your PC that run the game and your Quest 2 was just a MONITOR and the game was not running on that Quest 2?

I knew it was streamed but I also thought that the device's power mattered as well. However I'm a 90s gamer so I grew up when games were 20fps or lower. So as long as it is a stable frame rate, I don't mind if it's 30 fps. Or are you saying that the Quest 3 would be so weak that it wouldnt even run 30?

I originally tried running it on a valve index, I5 3570 + rx580 8gb gpu. Even with all ingame settings at minimum it ran poorly like 40-45 fps. Editing the .ini for even lower graphics settings didn't help much either. The game is highly CPU bound. It also looked like complete garbage.

Keep in mind the Q3 runs a few year old mid tier phone chip with some VR tweaks.

Q3 also has a much higher resolution than the index so that would make it even harder to run.

Even if the hardware was capable of running it I don't think bethesda (or whoever is in charge now?) Would want to spend the millions to port it over. It would require a complete rework like the switch version.

[Morrow]

Originally posted by buttmunch:

Originally posted by Morrow:

I knew it was streamed but I also thought that the device's power mattered as well. However I'm a 90s gamer so I grew up when games were 20fps or lower. So as long as it is a stable frame rate, I don't mind if it's 30 fps. Or are you saying that the Quest 3 would be so weak that it wouldnt even run 30?

I originally tried running it on a valve index, I5 3570 + rx580 8gb gpu. Even with all ingame settings at minimum it ran poorly like 40-45 fps. Editing the .ini for even lower graphics settings didn't help much either. The game is highly CPU bound. It also looked like complete garbage.

Keep in mind the Q3 runs a few year old mid tier phone chip with some VR tweaks.

Q3 also has a much higher resolution than the index so that would make it even harder to run.

Even if the hardware was capable of running it I don't think bethesda (or whoever is in charge now?) Would want to spend the millions to port it over. It would require a complete rework like the switch version.

Never doubt Bethesda's willingness to milk Skyrim. They put it out on a bloody Alexa even. 360, Ps3, Nintendo Switch, Ps4, Xbox One, Alexa, Steam VR, PC.

I'm fine with 30 fps as long as it isn't constant frame drops that make it jarring. Zelda OoT was 20 fps and to this day it's one of my favorite games of all time. It's not about how high, it's about how stable. Ys 8 is 60 fps on Ps4 but 30 fps on Switch. I played it on Ps4 but beat it on Switch. Didnt notice any difference. (gameplay wise. visually it was a lot worse.)

[buttmunch]

Originally posted by Morrow:

Originally posted by buttmunch:

I originally tried running it on a valve index, I5 3570 + rx580 8gb gpu. Even with all ingame settings at minimum it ran poorly like 40-45 fps. Editing the .ini for even lower graphics settings didn't help much either. The game is highly CPU bound. It also looked like complete garbage.

Keep in mind the Q3 runs a few year old mid tier phone chip with some VR tweaks.

Q3 also has a much higher resolution than the index so that would make it even harder to run.

Even if the hardware was capable of running it I don't think bethesda (or whoever is in charge now?) Would want to spend the millions to port it over. It would require a complete rework like the switch version.

Never doubt Bethesda's willingness to milk Skyrim. They put it out on a bloody Alexa even. 360, Ps3, Nintendo Switch, Ps4, Xbox One, Alexa, Steam VR, PC.

I'm fine with 30 fps as long as it isn't constant frame drops that make it jarring. Zelda OoT was 20 fps and to this day it's one of my favorite games of all time. It's not about how high, it's about how stable. Ys 8 is 60 fps on Ps4 but 30 fps on Switch. I played it on Ps4 but beat it on Switch. Didnt notice any difference. (gameplay wise. visually it was a lot worse.)

Thats just it though, its not stable. Beth games are not well optimized and CPU frametimes vary wildly. Also VR really sucks at low framerate. I've cranked SS up to 400% on the index and ran games at 40fps reprojected to 120. Its not smooth at all. There is zero playerbase that would accept a game that runs at 30fps in VR.

On the bright side a midrange PC will run SkyrimVR much better than a highend PC did at release.

[Morrow]

Originally posted by buttmunch:

Originally posted by Morrow:

Never doubt Bethesda's willingness to milk Skyrim. They put it out on a bloody Alexa even. 360, Ps3, Nintendo Switch, Ps4, Xbox One, Alexa, Steam VR, PC.

I'm fine with 30 fps as long as it isn't constant frame drops that make it jarring. Zelda OoT was 20 fps and to this day it's one of my favorite games of all time. It's not about how high, it's about how stable. Ys 8 is 60 fps on Ps4 but 30 fps on Switch. I played it on Ps4 but beat it on Switch. Didnt notice any difference. (gameplay wise. visually it was a lot worse.)

Thats just it though, its not stable. Beth games are not well optimized and CPU frametimes vary wildly. Also VR really sucks at low framerate. I've cranked SS up to 400% on the index and ran games at 40fps reprojected to 120. Its not smooth at all. There is zero playerbase that would accept a game that runs at 30fps in VR.

On the bright side a midrange PC will run SkyrimVR much better than a highend PC did at release.

Well I guess I'll stick to streaming it to my headset then. I had only minor issues. Overall it played decent. Yeah, then I'd agree that is bad. Stability should always be one of the core focuses on gameplay. I'd accept STABLE 30 fps in a VR game. But I'd obviously prefer 60.

Thanks for the info. I'm new to the VR scene so my knowledge is limited.

[FriendCalledFive]

Originally posted by Morrow:

Originally posted by buttmunch:

Thats just it though, its not stable. Beth games are not well optimized and CPU frametimes vary wildly. Also VR really sucks at low framerate. I've cranked SS up to 400% on the index and ran games at 40fps reprojected to 120. Its not smooth at all. There is zero playerbase that would accept a game that runs at 30fps in VR.

On the bright side a midrange PC will run SkyrimVR much better than a highend PC did at release.

Well I guess I'll stick to streaming it to my headset then. I had only minor issues. Overall it played decent. Yeah, then I'd agree that is bad. Stability should always be one of the core focuses on gameplay. I'd accept STABLE 30 fps in a VR game. But I'd obviously prefer 60.

Thanks for the info. I'm new to the VR scene so my knowledge is limited.

30FPS in VR is horrible. It sounds like you are equating VR to flat monitor framerates, and they are very different.

[Morrow]

Originally posted by FriendCalledFive:

Originally posted by Morrow:

Well I guess I'll stick to streaming it to my headset then. I had only minor issues. Overall it played decent. Yeah, then I'd agree that is bad. Stability should always be one of the core focuses on gameplay. I'd accept STABLE 30 fps in a VR game. But I'd obviously prefer 60.

Thanks for the info. I'm new to the VR scene so my knowledge is limited.

30FPS in VR is horrible. It sounds like you are equating VR to flat monitor framerates, and they are very different.

Wouldn't 30 fps PC framerate streamed to VR be the same as 30 fps from a headset? You're seeing 30 frames either way right?

[buttmunch]

Lower framerate = higher latency between your physical movement and the display updating to match said movement. Valve, MS, HTC etc... targeted 90fps as the MINIMUM comfortable fps for most users. Anything less and and motion sickness, eyestrain, headaches etc.. make VR unusable for too many users.

Q1 ran at 72 fps because they used a cheap display and chip that could not run it any faster. Q2 display can run 90 and even 120 although most standalone games still run at 72 because the chip is weak.

ASW and re-projection allow the headset to re display a previous frame updated based on the head position of the current frame. Basically runs at 1/2 or 1/3 framerate. This is great with a high refresh headset like the index that can run 144hz or 144/72 in re-projection. This requires 1/2-1/3 the power to render. However, it sucks at 90/45, head movement is smooth but everything else looks choppy. Go any lower and its terrible. Running a game at 90/30 is basically unusable.

TLDR faster is better. 30fps = vomit

[Morrow]

Originally posted by buttmunch:

Lower framerate = higher latency between your physical movement and the display updating to match said movement. Valve, MS, HTC etc... targeted 90fps as the MINIMUM comfortable fps for most users. Anything less and and motion sickness, eyestrain, headaches etc.. make VR unusable for too many users.

Q1 ran at 72 fps because they used a cheap display and chip that could not run it any faster. Q2 display can run 90 and even 120 although most standalone games still run at 72 because the chip is weak.

ASW and re-projection allow the headset to re display a previous frame updated based on the head position of the current frame. Basically runs at 1/2 or 1/3 framerate. This is great with a high refresh headset like the index that can run 144hz or 144/72 in re-projection. This requires 1/2-1/3 the power to render. However, it sucks at 90/45, head movement is smooth but everything else looks choppy. Go any lower and its terrible. Running a game at 90/30 is basically unusable.

TLDR faster is better. 30fps = vomit

Ah, that makes sense now that you explain it like that. Thanks for the info. So the weak chips are probably why the Quest series is always so affordable. It's like the Switch of VR.

[SickOveRateD]

i play the game on the quest 3, but using steam vr, i have around 90 to 100 mods, i capped the fps to 90 on the nvidia panel, i got a i7 10700kf, 3080ti and 32 ram, sometimes i gotta put an alarm or i spend the entire day playing, the mod that lets you interact with the world is so ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ good, its a crime that the vanilla game doenst have.

[Mr Eos]

screw the quest... psvr2 for the Eye Tracking and oled.
When Meta learns to keep up......

[Morrow]

Originally posted by SickOveRateD:

i play the game on the quest 3, but using steam vr, i have around 90 to 100 mods, i capped the fps to 90 on the nvidia panel, i got a i7 10700kf, 3080ti and 32 ram, sometimes i gotta put an alarm or i spend the entire day playing, the mod that lets you interact with the world is so ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ good, its a crime that the vanilla game doenst have.

I never modded a Bethesda game before haha. I enjoy them vanilla enough that I dont feel the need to. I didnt buy and play 4 until it was -mosty- fixed. Although I do want to play that new world mod for Skyrim and Fallout London.

[Morrow]

Originally posted by Mr Eos:

screw the quest... psvr2 for the Eye Tracking and oled.
When Meta learns to keep up......

PSVR is a gimmick. Sony doesn't care about it, and many VR devs dont either. Most usually go for Oculus or Steam for their VR titles. I will say they are treating 2 a lot better than they did with their first 'attempt' at VR.

Quest has over 600 games. PSVR2 has 250-350. Quest isnt about power, its about freedom and affordability. No wires, and the cheapest true vr headset you can find. I stuck exclusively to Quest VR and I have never felt like I missed out. In fact you should try Quest for Journey of The Gods. It's an amazing VR game. I just have a decent gaming laptop to take care of any PC VR titles.