Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'rFactor 2' started by Paul Jeffrey, Oct 1, 2018.
This is golden! Thank you so much. Game changer. The way it's meant to be played
I tried it and got it working but found fps to be much the same but visual clarity went down substantially ! Even using open composit at 1.8 was no match for Steam at 170% ???? So ive stuck with Steam running and Oculus as administrator !
Yes it is incredible the boost I got , you will see this will eventually make it in the offical game I’d say , after testing / bugs sorted and that it’s legal .
SteamVR @ 170% is WAY higher than 1.8x SS in Oculus or the .dll. 100% SteamVR slider is actually 1.41x SS when viewed with the Oculus overlay. So you're definitely warping (45fps) when using that slider value. No matter what. 170% Stream SS would be over 2.0x SS, probably closer to 2.2 - 2.3x SS.
I didn't know the SS conversation between both was so different ?
But I'm not in ASW 45 and have dialed it so I only get occasional stutters at the start of the race but qualifying and practice its solid 90 !
I dont how the SS adjustment is so different and VR is so messy and complicated !
There's no way any card is running 2.5x SS effectively without warping, @ 90hz, no less.
It's just asking too much in processing. I run 1080Ti and if you go above 1.5x with 2 x MSAA and even medium settings, you're either warping or stuttering like mad if you've disabled warping.
If it's smooth, it's 99% warping, or you have an alien video card that no one else has.
SteamVR have changed their SS algorithms so many times I've lost track, I eventually settled on 250% before the OpenVR dll came along.
I don't know what 250% equals in Oculus SS terms (I've simply forgotten), but I know my system would grind to a halt at anything over 2.0 so it's nowhere near that.
250% in Steam VR is close to 3.0x SS, or even more. If 100% = 1.41x SS, we can work it out.
100% = 1.41x SS = 41% increase
250% x 41% increase = 352%
That's UN-doable with any graphics card. I doubt that even brainwarp would help here. Clearly SteamVR numbers are a guessing game. You can just look at the render target resolution in SteamVR relative to the % you have it set at, and compare it to the native resolution of the Rift (which escapes me at the moment).
That's what don't get as 3.0 wouldn't run on my system at all, 2.0 is a slideshow effectively so 250% must be closer to 1.4/1.5 range when I compare to oculus ss and fps.
SteamVR just made it too complicated for no apparent reason other than to justify their Vive over oculus.
I have MSI Afterburner running all the time and it shows 90fps as does the in game overlay showing 10000-12000 or similar on the CPU/GPU render time with 89 min , 90 average and 91 max
I think youve got your number wrong somewhere !!
Here is a very quick and dirty vid to show you 179% SS in Steam and a solid 90 FPS when ASW is Off !
In the pits here at Lakeside it needs a bit of optimisation as it very early WIP but after i Ctrl 1 to unlock ASW you can see i get a solid 90 FPS when it counts (on track) !
If you've read anything from me on the rF2 forum you would know i always need to Alt Tab to get smooth FPS for some reason that no one has been able to help me understand and you can see here i am Alt Tabbing to get the Ctrl 3 at first to lock ASW on so i can then see when its unlocked (when Ctrl 1 works) by the GPU usage in the MSI afterburner graph on the bottom right of screen !!
Lovin the new graph in Steam showing frametimes
Sup to you now to believe whatever you want but i have Steam at 170% as you can clearly see here and 90 fps especially on official tracks it's even better . I just did Lakeside because its hot and the track is my local and its just so sweet and more people need to know about it !
Brisbane's Brands Hatch
Look at the render resolution per eye of my SteamVR @ 100%. Don't forget that is PER EYE.
8,603,926 pixels rendered at 100%. Whatever your slider says is irrelevant. My point is, pixels are pixels and asking a graphics card to render more of them is going to affect frame rate.
For point of reference, 3840 x 2160 (aka 4K) is 8,294,400 pixels. Try running any game at that res at 90hz, screenshot it and then come to collect the thousand AUD I'll give you for proving me wrong.
I know hardware. Ask the V3 forum members.
I still dont understand what your saying ?
Im at 1732x2065 per eye ! So 3,576,580 per eye or 7,153,160 total over both eyes and getting 90 fps as you can see in my video !
What is it your trying to say and how will you pay me these thousands of dollars ?
Edit : i don't know hardware ! just ask me and i'll tell you , lol
Haha. My point is mate, is that you're running at 170%, yes? Well, 170% for me would be 7,310,100 pixels PER EYE. That's 14,620,200 pixels total that need to run at 90hz for me to run what you're showing me, in terms of the SLIDER.
Like Marc was saying, the way SteamVR works out the render target is idiotic, at least to me. It's different for different headsets so it makes comparing settings with others very confusing. Just like now! We can barely run 4K @ 60fps now on monitors with the fastest grapics hardware available on earth. That's a touch over 8 million pixels. Your slider settings would require me to run nearly DOUBLE that at 150% the frame rate that we can BARELY achieve currently.
So you can see, the numbers are most definitely wrong. Not your fault or mine, but we can certainly see now where the confusion lies now. I can do what you can do, no worries, but my slider will be at 100% to achieve the same rough amount of pixels rendered as your slider.
Here i raised the resolution to 200% , 1878x2240 ! So 4,206,720 per eye or 8,413,440 total and its still 90 !!
BTW thanks for pointing out im at 4k resolution ! So i should be completely fine with Pimax 8k+
So how are you going to pay me ?
You need to go into the Video tab to have the same slider as me !
Its not that hard to compare as long as we are all on the same page ! Literally in this case , lol
And im am still running a resolution that you said was impossible and you would pay me thousands of AUD if i proved you wrong ! So how you gonna pay up ? lol
I said 4K on a monitor at 90hz. Not in low settings in rFactor 2. I love rF2 but in order to collect you need to run a game that doesn't look 15 years old.
Also, Pimax 8K is not 4K. It's 1440p PER EYE, upscaled in the HMD to a faux 4K per eye.
Pimax 5K+ is the same screen render size but no upscaler in the HMD, it only receives a native 1440p image PER EYE. So, you really need to be able to render around 7.5M pixels for a native image and be able to achieve 90hz with that. The problem with the 8K is from some reports it seems we will need to run the PiTool (Oculus Debug Tool equivilant) at a 1.5x SS to achieve a desirable image quality. So, over 11M pixels. @ 80hz for the 8K. So, I wouldn't be getting overly excited about it just yet.
My settings arent Low But rather a mix of Ultra , High , Medium , Low and Off but AA is Medium and SS is High !
I havent tried rF2 in 4K for a long time but im quite sure it would do 90 judging by these numbers !
Also you didnt specify settings but rather said this
Quote "Try running any game at that res at 90hz, screenshot it and then come to collect the thousand AUD I'll give you for proving me wrong"
I did the resolution and framerate on a game , any game so in my opinion that counts ! But i'm a pretty lenient guy so just give me a $100 Steam credits
I have read and watched all pimax videos , so i do know all about it ! Thats why i actually said 8K+ not 8k or 5k+ .