The “no display resolution override” starting point in OpenXR Toolkit for Crystal OG is 4312 x 5102 per eye.
You can check the resolutions by yourself by enabling the FPS overlay in the MSFS Developer Mode.
ah thanks, i guess ill start there and slowly incrase, though not sure how to make sure the ratio stays the same between the two numbers if i increase it.
ie: 5312x6102 i guess as one example
I find that number strange the 4312x5102, if the native is 2800x2800, i guess its to account for fov or some other factors being larger and uneven?
It accounts for the complex aspherical lens distortion profile.
If you override resolution in OXRT it will automatically ensure correct proportions, you will be changing both horizontal and vertical resolution simultaneously.
As an aside, your GPU is definitely bottlenecked by your old CPU. I just upgraded my 3600 to a 5700X3d. Not a pricey upgrade, but a large performance increase, and a CPU that will be good for a few years to come… keeping you in the AM4 world.
So I guess it depends maybe on what headset you run. I cheched all again did the whole DLSS tweak thing preset F etc etc. With a Quest pro it is just not working like that. DLSS performance upscaled to 4700/4700 which is about the max i can do is uncomparable to TAA at 3400/3400. Which runs briljant with me EHAM from flysoft which is a heavy scenery steady 30 fps on the ground.
I run at 72hrz and on the Pro that is just amazing.
Once airborn I am getting 35/40 fps and the view is the best I ever seen in any sim or fs2020.
Just amazing sharp, fluent with zero stutter even at approach with al setting at high/ultra and traffic to medium. So a lot of airtraffic.
I just love 2024 and Quest Pro (fovehead rendering active) with TAA in my config is a winner 
1 Like
I meant in the sense that the “native” resolution (e.g. what’s defined as 1.0 rendering by Pimax or Meta) usually doesn’t equate to the X by Y physical pixels.
So which one is the “native” you are talking about? The number of actual pixels or the “barrel correction resolution” defined by the vendor in their software? If you meant the physical pixels, yes in that sense the panle obviously as a true native resolution. But that’s usually not too relevant when talking about VR since people, when they say “native HMD resolution” usually seem to mean the “1.0” rendering scale resolution prescribed by vendors, which is always higher than the physical panel resolution.
Somnium VR1 for example has no “native” resolution (in the software sense) at all because the (rendered) FOV is also freely definable in software. That general principle applies to all HMDs I’m aware of.
Thanks for the advice , was thinking of upgrading my CPU in the near future and mother board as mine are 4 years old now
“Native” to me always means physical resolution of the panels. Every headset has it, even the Somnium VR1. Whatever you do beyond that, whether it is moving the lenses or the panels or oversampling for distortion and/or AA, highly affects what is shown and at what quality but it always ends up on those same panels, which have an immutable, defined, physical, “native” resolution.
Anti-aliasing != supersampling.
Supersampling comes with baked-in anti aliasing but ALSO includes extra detail which is perceivable and based on graphics theory. Because of this, you can clearly see it in VR when you try.
Antialiasing’s sole purpose is to reduce jagged lines that are actually straight, and does not inherently include more detail. However not all antialiasing techniques are equal and some look better than others.
1 Like
I mean every panel clearly has a physical resolution that one could describe as native in the monitor sense, that goes without saying 
But the context I was replying to was:
This statement doesn’t really make too much sense to me if we assume that the intention was “native = panel resolution” here. Since people aren’t usually running their HMDs at panel resolution.
When people ask “what’s the native render resolution of HMD X”, as they often do online, they obviously don’t mean the actual panel resolution, because that’s a simple fact that’s in the specs to begin with.
1 Like
If you are going to do your motherboard, go with a newer AM5 chip obviously. I just went the cheap way to get a few more years out of the AM4 board I have.
Native clearly means 100 percent render resolution which is set by the HMD manufacturer. The render resolution when using 100 on TAA is native.
1 Like
But that was exactly my original point! And I said that in this sense, HMDs don’t really have a “native” render resolution in the same way as monitors, where the native render resolution is the panel resolution.
But then you came in with the “native resolution being panel resolution” for HMDs.
2 Likes
So I just installed Windows 11 onto a new 2TB drive because my original C drive was kinda on it’s last legs and I was tired of trying to clean scraps off a 128GB to keep if from running out of space…
ANYWAY that forced me to reinstall all my software for VR, and I found that having:
- Meta Quest link on 72hz 1.0x resolution in the app (which is not actually native from what I read online)
- using the Oculus Debug Tool to apply 1.5x pixel density, forcing ASW ON
- using DLSS with Balanced or Performance in-game
This produces some pretty good results overall! Not quite as smooth as I would like, but the instrument panel and the world in general look great. It may have also helped having the fresh install of windows to really clean everything out as well.
To clarify the point about native resolution for Quest 3, it is a bit weird, because 1.0x would be what is assumed to be native, but in the meta app you have to move the slider all the way to the right (1.4x or whatever) and that resolution is the actually native resolution of the headset. Seems like using the pixel density in the debug tool produces the same result anyway.
yeh i think because your headset resolution is so low, about 1/3 of the number of pixels in, say, and aero, you’re able to get to its max native resolution (around 2x native at 3400px) with TAA and a framerate you think is ok.
Makes sense, its a pretty low res headset.
Super glad you’re happy, tbh, but if you tried a higher res headset it would be night and day.
Also, you still would likely be better off locking the FPS at 1/2 the headset hz, always, in all circumstances rather than have it fluctuate, and using motion reprojection if you can.
I think what I’m saying is, although it’s good you’re happy, and thats the most anyone can ask from any gaming experience:
- your resolution is on the low end
- your FPS is on the low end
- your FPS is varying which is not good for VR
- you probably have headroom for motion reprojection which might look better
- your experience means you dont really see the issues that 2024 brings to those with higher end setups, and likely you benefitted from some CPU optimizations they did in 2024 so it ‘feels’ smoother.
enjoy!
Only if by native you mean the headset manufacturer’s software setting, not panel resolution.
Here is “native” resolution on the Crystal OG using TAA 100, with no resolution override set in the Toolkit. In the Pimax Play software resolution is set to 1.0, again, no override. As you can see it’s 4312 x 5102. The actual panel resolution is 2880 x 2880. Also notice the lousy FPS on a 4090 in TAA.
Same spot with DLSS Performance, again no override of resolution. Note render resolution is the same on screen and post at 4312 X 5102, while render is 2156 x 2551 (50%) and hence performance gain.
Finally DLSS performance WITH resolution override, super-sampling to 4,500 x 5325. Performance drops a bit but clarity challenges TAA mode while near doubling performance.
4 Likes
Agree, And since the sim is so demanding I am happy because I think I rather wait a bit with going Higher res if we have more GPU power available.
Which soon will be the case.
And for the record I think you might be surprised what even a low res headset can do at TAA native.
I came from a Reverb 2 so the upgrade was massive. But I seriously see people going back from products like pimax light to quest 3 and describe that the experience is not perse so much better. Dont forget that Meta has one of the beste lenses out there.
Concerning motion reprojection. I really cant stand it and honestly in my case it does not makes things better.
And on fps youre right. But I am enjoying now the beauty the sims offer. And it does not bother me.
Since its so fluent and stutterfree. There where times we said FS needs only 25fps.
Know that VR is different but I can deal with what i experience now. And its easy to lower the render a notch and I am in 40ish.
Its simple nick, when the 5090 will be there I am going to see what next step I will make in headset.
Sofar I have not seen anything that tick my boxes what Meta has done sofar.
Talking comfort, FOV, eyetracking, build in sound, lenses and then final the resolution.
Resolution is not key to me. Not if I have to make quality consession. And I used DLSS in 2020 for years. strangely I did not use TAA in 2020.
I thought that high res DLSS was the way to go.
With 2024 I changed that view. And after conducting the test again yesterday. Its clear that for my personal situation TAA oushines DLSS at least for now.
I am following most headset news and GPU news and cant wait to go a step higer in Res.
And yes I think that as a lower res headset i dont suffer so much in 2024.
Visualy for me its a massive upgrade.
Which technically I think it also is.
I have been doing this for 20 years maybe but never I saw what I saw when I fly over the Netherlands. And btw againg the fps I gave you is on the most heavy scenery available for 2024.
Just like Heathrow from inibuilds which I also tested. when a 737 is doing these numbers there the sim runs easy 40ish and up everywhere and for sure with small planes.
But everything I see is just so well done. Cities, roads little details. I love it.
So I think that its normal that we have not really better performance with what this sim gives in visuals. Read well, with me. I cant see what others see I only have my 2020 as a reference.
So I am positive because I know new GPUs are coming and this is just the start of 2024.
Anyway its clear in this discussion we need to be sure that we do apple with apples thats clear to me now. I hope things will improve for all of us.
And I am sure we will.
But we should not forget that what we can do today in a sim is just stunnishing compared to FSX for example. It has taken a long time but finally I see that sims really start working. Traffic out of the box is just so good now in 2024.
I remember what we needed to do to see an airplaine in fs2020.
So were getting there.
I wish you and all of us a great and exiting 2025 VR year to come. Be safe, be happy and dont crash 
Its very clear that there is no GPU that can run youre native resolution native in FS2024.
And its so logic. You simple dont have the render capacity to do it. Unless fs2024 will give you a massive upgrade.
Here my example of a quest at native with TAA
Just after take of EHAM in an 737 max.
To do this you need least a 5090 I guess.
My 4090 just can pull of this thing.
And thats withhout displayport of course.
Buf funny enough I can see in stats what the encoding and decoding takes from my card and that so less worse then I expected.
But if DLSS is doing the trick no for you why not I have been doing if for years and was happy with it since its not bad at all.
Right now, for my current headset and a 4090, compromises have to be made to make FS 2024 performance acceptable at such high resolutions. That’s flying GA aircraft in rural areas without live weather, or multiplayer etc. Add in high density areas in more complex aircraft and higher in-sim settings and it’s not up to what I want.
I agree though that what 2024 offers now and into the future is remarkable and I am enjoying the view.
Reluctantly, I have decided that I need to upgrade from my 5800x3D to a 9800x3D (or a higher core count x3D should that prove better in MS 2024) along with a new motherboard, memory etc, sigh. I will also be getting a 5090 (probably the GPU first, when it is available).
Don’t tell my wife!
2 Likes
I’m using a Quest 3 with a 4080 Super via VD and have pretty decent performance in most situations. I normally fly the Fenix A320 and with some oversampling the displays are well readable. With mostly medium in-game settings I get about 40 FPS in most scenarios, even on ground with traffic.
But whatever I try, I cannot run the game in VR at London Heathrow (EGLL). Even with all settings to low and AI traffic disabled the game freezes and crashes within seconds - it seems that VRAM overruns the 16GB of the 4080 even with the lowest settings. I think I tried all permutations of drivers and settings now
Is anybody able to have VR with a 4080 Super in an Airliner at EGLL?