FS2020 ultra and vr

Yeah SLI is dead, has been for a while really but that is my point - there is no worthwhile “upgrade” from what he’s specced, regardless how much money you are willing to throw at it.

DX12 doesn’t magically use more cores, thats a common misconception. Port the engine over to DX12 without doing anything else and it isn’t an automatic performance win and all of a sudden your game can effectively utilise as many cores as you can throw at it. Equally there is nothing inherent about DX11 that prevents efficient use of multiple cores - case in point star citizen is still DX11 (Vulcan work is ongoing) but has by far the most efficient use of up to 32 cores I have seen in any video game due to the way jobs are dispatched across threads.

Also MSFS does already use multiple cores, the problem is that it bottlenecks on the mainthread so even if you add more cores it doesn’t matter, that mainthread is the one dictating your max CPU frame rate. They could effectively dispatch to more cores than they do now, but without improving the mainthread bottleneck it would have zero impact on frame rates. The good news is they apparently continue to methodically try to move things off the mainthread as time goes on (it is difficult work to ensure everything remains threadsafe) so things will improve as time goes on.

There are definitely improvements to multi threading DX12 can bring, not least in how it handles draw calls, but the really interesting stuff for DX12 is really more on the GPU side.

The last dev video mentioned some significant performance wins (such as 4x speed up on trees) during ongoing work in optimising for Xbox and DX12 so it is encouraging that there will be ongoing improvements. I’m sure as a first party their implementation of DX12 will be excellent.

4 Likes

Buy a real plane.

2 Likes

Lol what. I have an overclocked 8700k and a 3080 and even I can get 40-50 fps in he G2 with reasonable res and settings. His machine could definitely do more

8700k is not much slower in single core than 10900k (varies per game but typically you could hope for around 10%), the extra cores of the 10900k will currently be of no use in this game as compared to your 8700k (nor honestly in most games), and you are also overclocked which likely actually makes your 8700k equal or even superior to the 10900k stock in single core performance.

3090 is a little faster than the 3080, but again not by a huge amount… at most 10-15% but that doesn’t really matter here other than being able to run a bit more resolution than with the 3080 as you still hit the CPU limitations before you can comfortably punch through the 45-50fps mark.

For reference I have a 5800x (slightly faster than 10900k in single core) and an overclocked 3090 and can’t get more than 45-50fps in VR… it can also be lower depending on aircraft/location. So from personal experience, no he won’t get much more than what you are getting in terms of fps but he will be able to run with slightly better resolution or settings. Also just to note that “reasonable” res and settings is a rather nebulous term and highly subjective, but regardless at around 45-50fps the resolution and various graphical settings start to become less relevant and all that matters is the inability of the mainthread to run lower frame times.

Performance in this game also varies wildly between flying a light piston aircraft with traditional instruments vs a commercial jet with displays all over the cockpit. It will also vary significantly from a sparse rural area to a busy urban scene, or with various types of weather… so while one person says “I get 50fps” he might be flying a cessna VFR in the middle of nowhere in brilliant sunshine while another person talking framerates is flying a commercial jet into JFK on a stormy night.

Again, we can hope to see future improvements to such limitations and it is likely that a setup such as mine or his proposed one will start to extend the currently minimal performance lead over a setup such as yours, but we can currently only discuss reliably what we have now… not what might be at some unknown point in the future.

4 Likes

sure, all good points, I thought the 10900k had decently better singe core perf than the 8700 though. Maybe not.

Unfortunately (or rather fortunately for you, since your CPU is still a relative beast even a couple of years later) intel has been incredibly poor at meaningfully improving CPU performance over the last 4 - 5 years or so, in no small part due to their inability to physically realise high performance desktop parts on their 10nm node and therefore having to remain stubbornly on various revisions of their now very mature 14nm tech.

It is this lack of progress that allowed AMD to catch and finally exceed them - you could say that AMD have done very well (and indeed they have made massive strides compared to where they were pre Zen) but their current success is arguably every bit as much down to intel’s utter inability to successfully execute on 10nm as it is down to their own design successes and TSMC’s node superiorities.

Rocket lake is unlikely to dramatically reverse things, alder lake (potentially later this year) is more likely when we’ll see real improvements from a new Intel architecture and your 8700k may finally start to look a little dated.

I do indeed hope that the near future will be the NEAT future! Sorry! I couldn’t resist! :slightly_smiling_face:

Sorry, fat fingers.

Skip the Vive pro and get the Valve Index. I had the Vive Pro, and it could not attain 100 resolution without effects on my PC I9 2080TI.

I boxed up my Vive pro, and it lives in the closet now. The Index is so much nicer lot less screen door effect, almost non existent. The Blacks are not as black, but the god rays don’t seem as prevalent either. The Field of view is a bit larger as well, and runs pretty well on my system, but I can’t get near high on most stuff and keep the thing looking smooth, especially in Glass Cockpits.

But if you can lower your settings and realize there are no computers really doing this maxed out you can still have fun.

For some reason VR headsets can not attain the look of the flat panel screens and need mass CPU and GPU to even get what they get.

10850K@5Ghz + 6800XT@2.65Ghz with G2 = 40+ fps in most situation with mostly ultra (except for volumetric cloud - AO). This is with OXR at 80% and in-sim render scale at 100. I stop chasing fps a while ago. 35-40 fps with little stutter is about as good as it gets for this generation of HW. RTX4090 or 7800XT might get us to 60 or even 90, but 40fps is absolutely stunning in headsets such as G2. Try to keep the frames consistent, and you will have a really good experience. 2D monitors are sharper in resolution, but I can no longer fly in 2D.

1 Like

Thank’s very muche for theses replies !!

What do you recommend as a mask?

Vive pro, index, occulus ??? I’m lost…

You want the best sim headset available right now you are mainly looking at either an index or a reverb G2. Index gives industry leading tracking and wider FoV, G2 gives the best pixels per degree and sharpness. The resolution of the G2 makes it something of a challenge to run at 100% in many sim games even with a 3090, the index resolution is more achievable and has the option for higher refresh rates (if you can drive them).

Quest 2 shouldn’t be overlooked either and is more budget friendly, and there are also the less mainstream pimax options at the higher end of the cost bracket again.

1 Like

Not sure if this was mentioned but it would obviously depend on the headset. Better image quality = higher resolution = fewer fps.

Either of you care to share your settings? I have an 5800x, 3090 and G2 and I barely get 30fps in non-photogrammetry cities.

I believe there is a misconception with this statement which I’ve personally became aware of only lately, thanks to the latest few SteamVR 1.16.x versions.

Actually there are multiple advantages to the Index 120Hz or 144Hz refresh rates!

If your hardware can deliver up to this, so far so good for you, otherwise with motion smoothing:

  • if your hardware can’t render as much but can keep for example 60fps, you can double the frame and eliminate juddering at 120hz.

  • if your hardware is really struggling, you can motion smooth up to 5:1 (5 new frames out of 1), therefore rendering down to 24fps but looking as if 144fps (artefacts aside), or 20fps looking like 120fps.

But in addition, without motion smoothing:

  • if your hardware can only deliver for example 30fps, and you’re refreshing at 120hz, the headset will display up to 4 reprojected view (instead of 3 at 90hz) and the neat effect is to reducing the juddering when turning the head because it is displaying more frames over the same angular rotation span. In effect, with the latest SteamVR 1.16.6 it is very effective even at 30hz and I can barely see juddering in the cockpit when just rotating the head.

Not so much a misconception, I’d take 90hz native over 60hz reprojected to 120hz personally, but a very valid point that it gives you a whole lot more reprojection options to suit various games.

For example I imagine the 60fps reprojected to 120 is very useful for assetto corsa competizione where hitting 90 with good clarity can be a real challenge, 60fps is very achievable but can cause strobing and motion sickness for some, and 45 to 90 gives too much by way of reprojection artefacting to me personally to be viable.

That said I believe there have been some improvements to steam’s reprojection of late? Not just in the options available but actually in the visual quality - I haven’t tried steam’s native reprojection recently so perhaps it’s much improved.

I agree.

The point I wanted to make is that 120Hz or 144Hz is not just about rendering the game at 120Hz or 144hz, nor even motion smoothing 3 frames or 4 frames up to 120Hz. Rather, it is whatever your actual rendering fps, more Valve Index Hz = more reprojected view in the headset when turning the head and less juddering as a consequence.

Yeah fair enough, would be interesting to know how many owners run the index higher than 90hz (whether native or reprojected) - I’m sure valve have the stats.

Imagine MSFS at a true 144hz :heart_eyes:

Sorry bud - missed this.

I don’t have them off the top of my head but largely followed @CptLucky8 's guide here and then tweaked from there given the significant headroom of our setup over his reference there. To be clear I don’t play at 45-50fps, it’s just the max I could reliably get by lowering various settings before becoming mostly mainthread bound (can’t remember exactly but may even have been as low as 60% OXR res for example)… overall not happy with the visual compromise and I go back to higher resolutions/settings (generally giving mid 30’s) lock to 30fps to smooth things out and just enjoy from there. Also note I don’t use motion smoothing as I find it just makes things blurry, so a consistent 30fps is preferable to me… if you are using reprojection it can have a fairly significant overhead.

I can certainly give you more specifics when I next get the chance but I suggest there’s not a huge point in spending too long on it right now with the update about to drop imminently, I’m sure it’ll include various changes that alter the recommendations, fix some bugs (and maybe introduce some new ones!) etc anyway - perhaps worth revisiting after that.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.