The projection itself can take more or less computational power depending on depth rendering, anisotropic filtering, texture resolution and name it. What is important is the number of pixels to compute, and those depend not only on the resolution of the VR headset but also on the chosen antialiasing protocol and supersampling for instance. Computationally speaking preparing 2 images with a different projection doesn't take more time than making a single projection with twice the number of pixels. But in the end you are not making much more pixels for VR than for a 4k screen. Of course, the more pixels you are going to prepare, the more time it takes. That is because preparing the frames for rendering is only a part of the whole rendering process. In other words: You can´t catch up, VR will always have to look "sparse" compared to 2D. The crux is - when we get those advances, we will also apply them to the 2D picture which will look even better then. We need further advances in both hardware and rendering techniqueīefore we can enjoy the same visual fidelity in VR that we enjoy in 2D. With Vulkan and the latest hardware that got bumped to maybe 45 - nice and fluid - for 2D. So while there are "some" synergies to be had (texture loading, smaller field of vision, less resolution, etc.), essential the framerate for VR gets pretty much halved.Ī few years ago we considered ourselves very lucky if we got more than 30fps over a dense city with weather. If you look at a cube that is right in front of your face you can see why - one eye might be able to just see one side of the cube that the other eye can´t see. There is quite a bit of truth in that (slightly exaggerated) statement.ĭespite what people say, to render images for two eyes for steoroscopic vision you need to render the same scene twice - from a slightly different position with slightly varying geometry. Oh well I guess I might just keep on flying my space trucker in Elite are going to need 8Ghz CPU’s before we’ll get that kind of “meager” performance, lol! Again.Īlso if any of you guys flying both XP and MSFS have found an MSFS payware plane that flies like a plane and not a brick let me know. And add things in one at a time until I at least have some ortho to fly over but don't bog down my computer. I guess I am going to install a vanilla XP version just so I can at least fly a plane again. There is nothing simulator about it.įlyinside has great looking and smooth VR but looks like a cartoon.Īnyway just venting. Its like flying a brick through nice scenery. MSFS 2020 VR is promising and pretty, and it works easily with WMR obviously.but the flight dynamics are #. Yesterday opened in the default 172, everything on medium settings.and getting a choppy and unplayable 25-28 fps with a 2070 Super, i9, and 32GB DDR4 RAM.I swear a few months ago I was getting 100 fps in pancake mode and 45 fps in VR. Hadn't opened XP in a month or so because of the frustration. Using WMR, Steam, the quirkiness and failures and bugs, etc.I love XP when its working but I feel like my results have gotten worse and worse as the releases have advanced. In XP I have a jittery mess on my hands right now.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |