for me as said above, now with su3 beta, quad views is decreasing fps in vr by about 6-7 for whatever reason (5090 oc)
UPDATE: this drop is more like 15 fps
With eye tracking it is impossible to see the border 
I temporarily disabled eye tracking to even check if it is working, or not
1 Like
Certain situations the box becomes pretty obvious for me even with eye tracking, at night and certain types of clouds for example.
2 Likes
In general using QV implemented nativelly in MS Flight 2024 gives me only +10-15% of FPS ( similar to DCS native implementation and Pimax QV ) but HUGE increase using QuadView Companion and OpenXR and MBuccia SW ( BTW: You are Legend in VR )- I can easily achieve +75% boost ( even using 200% pixel in center view in QVC - with perfect clarity ) This is VERY good guide and really a game changer ! https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Yt6MJMyte3Y but wish to set up this same in MSF2024 to use QVCompanion - if this would work, I could also setup everything to MAX in Crystal Super UW ( waiting preorder ), not sure why not working as it works perfectly in DCS… I already maxed every settings to High/Ultra in DCS, with Pimax Quality set to 1.0 ( using Crystal OG native 4300x5100 huge resolution ) and keeps solid 90FPS in DCS in Syria/Caucasus ( Only in Cold War Germany map + AH-64 module - less then 70 and SS turns 45/90 fps ). RTX5090/9800x3D.
MSFS has implemented it in engine rather than in the OpenXR compositor - companion etc are not relevant here and the settings, currently at least, have no way of being modified by the user.
It has theoretical advantages doing it this way, but the major downside is lack of user customisation. Hopefully their QVFR implementation is something they will continue to iterate on and improve as it’s currently far from perfect and not making the most of the potential.
1 Like
DCS has also nativelly implemented FR/QV in EDGE engine ( also without any option to adjust in Game its settings ), but parameters are adjustable using QV Companion and OpenXR ( on different layers ) giving endless possibilities to achieve HUGE impact on FPS and perfect experience to user and removes HW limitations, so question remains may a small tweak in source code unleash the power of FFR/DFR ( better with Eye tracking / Dynamic - also to hide from user inner/outrer view ) to enjoy MSFlight sightseeing on Ultra details with smooth gameplay instead of slideshow due to GPU high demanding resolution calculations limits. Mbuccia has proven that single talented and dedicated SW engineer can achieve more then many DEV teams ( workaround to many games on market ) using best possible but important really SMART solutions and I am sure that Asobo listens to customers and wants everyone to enjoy their hard work more and make Flying more available to everyone
You’re misunderstanding what “naively implemented in engine” means.
There are nuances.
DCS implements quad views foveated rendering by relying on the OpenXR extensions to retrieve the viewports information and to submit the rendered views. Because they do that, it’s possible to insert somethings in between the game and the VR runtime, which is how you can tweak settings.
MSFS2024 doesn’t use the OpenXR extensions. Instead their engine does all the work, ie they calculate (inside the engine) the dimensions, resolutions and other parameters of the viewports, then they “pre-composite” (they “merge”) the inner and outer views into a stereo image.
Because MSFS2024 implementation is all in-engine, there is no injection point to alter parameters that the engine uses.
Additionally, MSFS2024 uses a fairly rigid approach for rendering the 4 views, by using a “texture array” which imposes some strong limitations on what they can easily do. More about this here: Quad Views Foveated Rendering for MSFS 2024 - #195 by mbucchia
Tl;dr, anything labelled “quad views OpenXR” tools such as my Quad-Views-Foveated mod or the Quadviews Companion are 100% unused with MSFS2024.
2 Likes
Thank You for clarification, by internally I meant internal EDGE development and option in settings - but never digged deep enought into implementation details ( as I am software engineer but not in QV unfortunatelly so very limited information ) - so Asobo did it more right way in engine, but this also limits cooperation with external API/tools, now I have better understanding why this do not work - but basically if MSFS could just export/store this settings in any configuration file it should be quite easy ( please also correct me if I am wrong ) to make simple workaround to tweak basic geometric shapes / important parameters, then using .NET application with front-end may be used to tweak those settings to find best performance/quality - similar to QV Companion options ? I am just trying to figure out simplest solution not involving much effort and dev workhours. Other issue You mentioned is too much internal CPU/calls - still room to reduce load/usage - code optimalisation.
Is there news from Asobo that they still are working in this to make it better?. So better, is it to use their engine or OpenXR extensions?
Anyone waiting on a fix for the eye tracking inversion with MSFS and Motion compensation, the wonderful Buzztee has fixed it:
Please don’t forget you can donate a little something to him to thank him for all the work he does in letting us use our ridiculously expensive toys
1 Like
I have a 5090 and CPU 7800x3d
I always had quad views activated thinking it should be better, but something is wrong (Im on su beta 3)
Yesterday I deactivated it and my surprise was that I had like 7-10 Fps more??
Then I activated the foveated rendering from openxr toolkit and had even better perfomance.
Anyone getting better perfomance with QV on SU beta 3? (also using DLSS 4)
@mbucchia I have just been playing with the latest iRacing update where they were talking about adding quad views.
The update just dropped and it’s pretty interesting… it’s FFR, but in engine and enabled through a graphics menu option. GPU frame time dropped from 14-15ms to 8ms and even more interestingly the CPU frame time dropped from 10ms to about 5ms with all the same settings.
I note however they call it MVR in the settings menu and this sparked a memory of Nvidia showing off Multi View Rendering back in 2018. I’m hearing that this supposed “quads views” feature is currently Nvidia only which seems to confirm that it is in fact Nvidia’s Multi-view rendering that they are using.
I’m just curious as to how, other than being a proprietary nvidia API of course, MVR differs from the Quad Views we know, and why you think this is the first time (that I’m aware of) we’ve seen this used? I see no reference to eye tracking in the docs, which makes me suspect it’s not something supported in MVR.
I find it very interesting that comparing the Asobo implementation (which of course has the advantage of being GPU agnostic) and the iRacing one we see such a huge difference in performance gain and more interestingly the CPU frame time drop which is not at all what I was expecting.
Sorry for the slight divergence but I’m just curious as to your thoughts on MVR vs Quad Views given your expertise.
MVR is just the precursors of the view instancing that exists in DX12 generically now and that MSFS2024 uses in some places. The problem is the “in some places”, if MSFS used it everywhere, then it would also not incur noticeable CPU increase. Last I checked, MSFS used view instancing for about one third if its draw calls.
BTW if you observed a drop in CPU it’s probably because you did not have Nvidia SPS enabled before? (In other words, that drop isnt related to quad views)
In iRacing, you have now these 3 scenarios
- no SPS: each view is rendered sequentially
- SPS on: parallel rendering in stereo, hence greatly reduces CPU
- MVR foveated rendering: same as SPS but also does foveation which saves on GPU
As to why the first time, it’s mostly just that writing code with view instancing/SPS/MVR requires deep integration in the shaders. Doing that is a lot of work. Between MSFS2020 and 2024, Asobo migrated one third of their rendering pipeline to do that, and that’s a large effort.
1 Like
Oddly no it was from SPS to MVR that I observed the CPU drop which is why I was somewhat confused.
Is MVR able to add eye tracking? I haven’t seen any reference to it and all demos I’ve found seem to be static multi view displays.
Have to say other than it being iRacing visuals, the implementation is impressive in terms of performance. In the quick test I did I could run a Crystal Super at full 6000 whatever x 6000 whatever res at 8x msaa, high settings and sub 12ms frame times on the GPU, sub 5-6 on CPU.
Just sucks to have an AMD GPU since it (seemingly) leans on VRworks I guess.
I am sad that we don’t yet see such incredibly significant gains for MSFS.
On the iracing forum, he mentioned that he sees no reason why eye tracking couldn’t be added to the MVR implementation.
1 Like
Yeah that’s really weird ^^ i can’t explain that one.
1 Like
That’s good.
Other than excluding AMD GPU owners at this point it’s a great way of doing it it seems (at least from first impressions).
You can even configure the foveation levels/size in the config files easily.
And it’s compatible with OXRTK unlike “normal” quad views.
If this sort of thing starts to become more common we will really have turned a corner in VR performance. Big if, but it’s a great start that such a big sim has added such a VR specific optimisation (though I suppose it likely benefits triples too)
I can only hope that one day MSFS’s version reaches such gains (and indeed configurability by the user is nice).
Excuse my ignorance but would this software bring anything to quest 3 users?
Exactly the same issue here . Quad views on , big fps drop in dense scenery in SU3 . Toolkit working well as always . RTX 4090 using DLSS .