I never see much Green, even with simple scenarios. I used fpsVR to keep the Red under control. Thus the shopping spree…
According to benchmark comparison sites a Intel I9-10900K will get you 20% improved single-core speed, while a Ryzen 7 5800X will get you 27%.
I don’t know how this would translate into VR FPS, but it’s your current bottleneck, so the best thing to do…
Edit: For example this page: PassMark CPU Benchmarks - Single Thread Performance
1 Like
That’s where I was referring to as well.
For a same-gen comparison, the I7-9800X scored 2638 vs. the I9-9900K at 2977 (single core #'s) meaning that just picking the consumer chipset route instead of HEDT would have you about 12.85% ahead in single core performance.
Man, your rig is no slouch Paul, but XP11 will just bring it to its knees in VR!
I assume that’s with the Vulkan beta, in XP? Gosh, I haven’t run that in a couple of months but, it ran as well as DCS the last time I did.
It was with Vulkan, which is out of beta now. I have to say that I found it to be pretty good but I know others had problems with it.
I have been pretty happy with my PC these past two years. Generally I go three years and then buy a whole new machine, but I think I’m going to just upgrade incrementally this time around. I might just wait a bit though. I want to see how MSFS handles VR because it runs very smoothly in 2D on my setup.
1 Like
Same boat here. My 3 years is up this month. The important goodies I want though require other goodies to be upgraded; small PSU, slow-ish memory, etc.
Thats actually terrible results I would say considering that high-end hw you have. I mean FPS below 30 on medium settings.
For a while I thought that I could join the VR club next year… but I can see it now that I am still too young for VR 
A modern game can handle it better. DCS and X-Plane are both engines from before multi core CPUs became the norm. It’s extremely hard to add multithreading later.
Looks like there will soon be a new contender on the VR market to measure against. A little holiday present
I see, but XP is my main sim these days. I cant see me abandoning it anytime soon.
Even if I will play something else from time to time I will still play XP a lot.
Wouldnt it be cool to create new thread where will you, VR guys, post your setup, settings, VR HMD type and ingame performance? So we, no VR/previous gen VR guys, can track our favourite sims/games performance in relation to setup/settings?
Something to compare the size… of FPS in VR
1 Like
@NEVO I don’t know what your system is but your post made me run X-Plane again, to see where it’s come since about, oh, 3-4 months ago in the VR/Vulkan department.
It’s great in VR!
VR vs 2D isn’t really a direct comparison to me. They are, again to me, totally different experiences.
As far as DCS vs XP/VR goes, my only two sims[1]:
Comparing DCS to XP/VR/Vulkan (XP-VRv) isn’t exactly apples to apples; I’m rendering this opinion based on how smooth the experience is based on the amount of ‘stuff’ I see outside the cockpit.
XP/VR+Vulkan runs smoother with more ‘stuff’ displayed than DCS does. The FPS was similar, but it is smoother; a better sense that I’m moving through space (flying). I’m running at medium settings, a little higher in some things.
Now, there ain’t no war going on (NOTE: I don’t have much going on usually in DCS anyway), with the associated computations required, but the biggest point (concerning DCS and it’s lack of performance) is Vulkan should be (is?) more scalable; throw in a faster CPU and/or GPU and you should get, mostly, what you paid for [2].
Not so with DCS it appears.
Sidebar | I was about to pull the trigger on a new system for DCS but I’m just not seeing that the $ spent will scale, much at all. Yet.
VR, as long as we have 2 eyeballs, will never render as fast as 2D - you have to render everything twice. Even if they find a way to eliminate 2x transformations and 2x rasterization, doing something twice will always be slower than doing it once. Beyond some point though you won’t be able to notice I’m sure. But I digress…
In a nutshell, if you have the system to support VR and like X-Plane I recommend the VR experience - right now.
Here’s my specs, a 3-4 year old system (not cutting edge):
- i7 6700K (O/C’d to 4.4Mhz)
- 32 Gb RAM (RAM speed is kinda low (2400?) cuzz it’s old see below for a report on my specs)
- nVidia 1080 (non-Ti) 8GB VRAM
- Samsun Odyssey Plus VR headset; not Gen 1 or Gen 2 (Reverb G2), more G 1.5. It’s cheap but that’s about all.
[1] I have FS2020 but it’s collecting dust til I see how VR is: unless they worked some serious magic, FS020 is DirectX 11, not DirectX 12, which is more akin to Vulkan. Time will tell. Perhaps, as I wondered when FS2020 was announced, they looked around and said, “Hey, the world is multi-core, lets build this from scratch with that in mind”. They’d be the first to do it (I’m not familiar with any other sims so no ideas beyond these 3) - with the exception, now, of X-Plane. LR spent, what, a year (or three) rewriting the engine to do this. It was not playable to me before.
[2] I think XP should scale better with the Vulkan re-write but not, likely, as well as we flight simmers would like - just better (than say DCS as it is now). Flight sims, as long as we are in a niche (within the game niche), will always pay out the nose for performance. I just can’t afford to pay every year for 2 FPS.
EDIT: I just did a lap around the Empire State building (New York city, default scenery) with medium thunderstorms and rain: XP-11 + Vulkan is significantly smoother than DCS; 38 FPS (worst case, stayed around 40-42) was as smooth as DCS at 60 FPS. That tells me things.
2 Likes
Time you overclocked the 1080 you will be surprised how much you can get. 
I do, a little. Just not when I took that shot.
1 Like
thx for the thorough answer jross
My system could be considered similar to yours, just different generation
i7-9700F
32GB RAM
RTX 2070 S
Problem I see is not consistent feedback from VR users. Sometimes it is ‘wow, its great, running smooth’, then ‘here are my FPS on medium settings [FPS<30]’.
So I also goes from ‘thats promising’ to ‘too young’ rather quickly
Your FPS in XP are good I would say. But thats on O+ which is not available anymore. And definitely little bit less demanding on the system. Wondering what that would be on G2…
Could you also pls post pic of your sliders in XP settings? @PaulRix could you also post yours?
We can than compare these settings and maybe can draw a reasonable accurate picture of G2 performance in XP.
How is Las Vegas in X-Plane? That could be a good place to compare all 3 sims
Certainly:
I’m not a big stickler on graphics in VR. Or I don’t think I am. Before VR I was into the Big Iron airplanes (FSX, P3D) but XP, in VR, I’m enjoying VFR flight like never before, so that’s all I do.
Note that my FPS weren’t way up there (over New York City, default scenery, default C172, the weather I described). But it was smooth, smoother than DCS would have been at ~38-42 FPS. I even tried to ‘make sudden moves’ to see how it reacted and it didn’t stutter, or very little. Don’t know how they did that.
Didn’t know the O+ was not available. Not that I would recommend it unless you found one really cheap. Not sure what would be comparable. The newer ones might actually run better at the same resolution; newer, more efficient tech, perhaps?
Sorry but I,m a newbie, I have just downloaded DCS and havnt learnt to fly yet. On lowest settings with an I5, 8 gig ram and Nvidia 3gb, run reasonably but I do see the reason to upgrade. Rather than buy a new rig which would cost me $A3,200 I am going for a RadeonRX570 8gig and another 8gb of system ram., cost about $A300 so peanuts compared.I was looking at a 2070 at $700 but not sure wheather this would work with just an I5. Any ideas. By the way you will only be changing hardware ( not HDD) so cant see any reason Windows would know the difference so IMHO should be Ok.
Changing cpu and or mobo requires reactivating windows. Also DCS will need modules reactivated too
Actually Windows check very thoroughly the hardware and can absolutely tell whether one piece or another have been changed.