Search Results for 'Just Cause 3'

[panterarosa2]

Hello,

I purchased because VR is important for me but I cannot find an official cpu benchmark comparison and I do not know which CPU I should buy for best perfomance.

I am talking about getting best perfomance using geometric 3D.
For example ryzen 3600X + 3080 did not get 90fps (even at 720p, probably due to bottleneck) on Resident Evil 2 when using geometric 3D as it is a 3D person game with high graphics.

You once said that most important is single core performance, however since there are new ryzen X3D cpus which have “lower” single core perfomance but higher fps on regular games, is not clear for me if it will be better to have a X3D or worst.

Also, intel VS amd have a very different benchmarks on enconding/encryption/compression so do not know if this is relevant or not.

So I would prefer to have some security when purchasing an expensive CPU, because I am buying a more powerful CPU and GPU just for this.

[Cless_Aurion]

Thanks for answering back so fast Ralf!

Actually, I’ve been overly cautious, since you said to take seriously this as a proper Beta and not what companies do (also because I can’t live without it <3 )
So I actually did keep a copy of my previous VorpX installation files on a different hard drive. Its from the previous beta (the January one) that worked flawlessly on my system (UE4 games included).
So, just now I deleted the latest beta and put the older beta files there instead.

When I use that version, 100% of the issues with UE4 games disappear (I checked just now, and all the games I told you run exactly like they should). Would that indicate it has not been a change on my system that is affecting them, but something the new beta is doing instead?… no idea what though, you are the pro there!

[Ralf]

If not even the Cyberpunk gestures are to your liking, which even include hand aiming, then the feature is not for you. :( For me stuff like aiming down sights/grenades/wrist flip interaction etc. have become second nature so much in the meantime that going back to pressing buttons is an outright ridiculous thought.

Even without gestures using motion controllers is so much better than a gamepad just because you have your hands free instead of standing/sitting there like a squirrel nibbling a nut… Add gestures to that and it’s not even a fair comparison anymore. What I give you – and not an inch more :) – just as you had to get used to your gamepad, you have to get used to gestures for a while. Then there is no way back.

Make sure not to accidentally disable DirectVR to try them. CP comes with a fairly complex mod integration that among a lot of other things switches gesture sets based on gameplay context. Reset the profile default, let vorpX install the connection mod, read the hints in the start room, and don’t tweak any vorpX setting manually except what the start hints say might be tweaked (resolution + 3D if you prefer Z3D). Plus in your case maybe the sync options to deal with Pimax issues.

Non-hooked games running through vorpX Desktop Theater Mode (whatever you want to call it) do NOT respect vsync.

That is officially weird. If vorpX isn’t hooked into the game, it obviously doesn’t affect VSync. You must have disabled it elsewhere.

[Ralf]

@ Tambora:

Does the AFR3D method (DirectVR in the menu) not work anymore? That should actually be better than the prior G3D since it works with all shadows.

@ petey:

Windows loves to shuffle around desktop icons when resolution or the display config changes. The virtual display manager already tries to deal with that by creating/restoring icon layout backups, but how Windows decides to place icons in case of config changes is so intransparent and weird that I can’t rule out occasional glitches like that entirely.

@ Heon_X:

I got the dual monitor primary/secondary glitch here myself once during multi-monitor testing, but not really replicable. Shouldn’t happen unless things go totally wrong and vorpX can’t restore the display config backup it created. Fairly weird issue. Multi monitor setups are too rare to consider that a show stopper for the whole virtual display, but I’ll try to figure that one out on some rainy Sunday.

I do not get the admin crash here. You shouldn‘t do that anyway unless you are running older games that require admin rights themselves, hooking into games/apps that require admin rights themselves is the only reason you would ever want to run vorpX as admin.

Hooking: if you have trouble hooking practically all DX11 games, there almost certainly is something running on your machine that also hooks into games and causes a conflict. A lot of tools/utilities hook into games.

If you didn’t do that already, please first try to install a hook helper. The option to do that pops up in the ‘Attaching To…’ dialog after a while in case hooking fails. Can often help without having to get to the bottom of hooking conflicts. If you already did that and it didn’t help or you don’t even see the ‘Attaching To…’ dialog: remove everything you may have running in the background. Everything.

Same for your 20% GPU utilization issue. You should ideally avoid maxing out the GPU since the game, vorpX and finally the headset runtime all need some GPU time, which becomes increasingly difficult when the GPU utilization nears 100%. Things falling apart at 20% on the other hand is just plain wrong. BTW: If you happen to use the Windows task manger to monitor GPU usage, try nVidia Inspector (precise, but doesn’t hook games) to cross check. Task manager used to display imagined values in the past occasionally.

In general: I can’t really provide specific help based on vague forum posts: if you encounter severe problems, create a trouble shoot archive in the config app after running a few problematic games and send it to support at vorpx com. Can‘t promise that’ll clear up every potential issue, but at least that way I have some hard facts I can look at. Without some insight there just is no way at all to tell what might be wrong.

[Ralf]

When vorpX hooks into a game, it overrides VSync anyway, so in that case the major advantage of the virtual display is making it much, much easier to run games at higher resolutions than your monitor allows. Prior you had to manually add a dozen of resolutions to your GPU driver, and with bad luck had to repeat that after each driver update. Also there is no way to freely add resolutions for AMD GPUs. Now you don’t have to know or do anything about that anymore. You don’t even have to know about the virtual display. Things just work as intended by firing up the desktop viewer and putting on your headset.

May sound a bit unsexy for tech savvy 4K display owners among you for whom adding resolutions to their GPU driver is a matter of course, but is in fact the biggest improvement in terms of user friendliness since ages because it removes a major hurdle you had to not only know about, but also (tediously) overcome before you were even able to use vorpX in the best possible way.

The refresh rate topic is an added benefit for playing games with the desktop viewer itself. e.g. when you want to play games that can’t be hooked because they have some form of anticheat or when you want to use an external 3D solution. There are quite a few desktop capture apps, but as far as I’m aware none tackles this issue. Getting that right just wasn’t possible at all before, so this one is also of interest for those of you who might have fallen asleep when reading the above. ;)

As far as your hooking issue is concerned, that should indeed just work as always. Can’t recommend anything else than always in such a case. Check the trouble shooting guide in the technical support sub forum for potential conflicts you might want to look into.

[Heon_X]

Let me see if I understood the concept of Virtual Monitor correctly:
1. Launch desktop viewer
2. Put on your headset –> Virtual monitor kicks in, now Windows runs on a new monitor with the same refresh rate of your headset (which is good to avoid conflicts when your physical monitor has a different refresh rate) and a resolution set by the user (to be able to match it in game without messing around with custom resloutions)
3. Run a game –> vorpX hooks into the game normally (for supported games) like without virtual monitor, with the added bonus of being able to set the resolution in game to whatever you set as your resolution in Windows monitor settings. Plus having the game run on a monitor that has the same refresh rate as your headset greatly improves syncing issues and micro-stutters.

Is this correct? Cause so far I’ve been able to to make the virtual monitor work, but vorpX doesn’t hook and the game doesn’t even start (I tested Rocket League which is definitely supported and working on 21.3.3). If I pause the watcher the game just runs on Steam Theater mode and not in Desktop Viewer (my monitor reactivates and I see the game there too).
So I either understood wrong the utility of Virtual Monitor or I need to find a fix for the inability to hook…

[Ralf]

There already is a generalized way to actually aim with motion controllers, BUT: it only works good enough for games where head tracking is handled by other means than mouse emulation. A bit difficult to explain, but if head tracking is done via mouse emulation, head tracking and hand aiming interfere with each other in unwanted ways.

Works great however when it’s possible, and I’ll add it everywhere I can for sure before the final 23.1.0 release. You can currently try it e.g. in the standalone Cyberpunk mod, which does head tracking by changing the actual game camera and thus can do true hand aiming.

This Switch method sounds super interesting though, might work in cases where true hand aiming doesn’t. I’ll definitely look into it. Thanks for the hint!

On a sidenote: as soon as there are general shooting gestures, you more or less automatically start to move your hands while aiming, just because it feels right. So the usual head aiming doesn’t feel too different. No excuse though for not doing actual hand aiming whenever possible, of course.

[Ralf]

Just to be clear before this turns into a ‘will vorpX die?’ discussion: there is no reason for any such fear. Wouldn’t have been possible to provide a decade of free updates if vorpX had been at the verge of collapsing at any time, obviously. At some point there has to be some monetization of updates though, that was planned way, way earlier originally. Since the OP asked a related question and incidentally I’m currently weighing more concrete options anyway, I considered this a good opportunity to slowly prepare you for the unthinkable. :)

As far as the VR focus is concerned: that’s what vorpX has always been about. S3D output has been added because some of you wanted it. Maybe there will be a few extra output modes at some point that are currently missing, which would be easy enough, but not more. Unless something fundamentally changes in regard to popularity of S3D-gaming again that’s how far as I’m able to take things.

[mr_spongeworthy]

A complex subject for sure. I could see several routes, and am personally happy to pay a bit more for vorpX over time. Nobody here wants to see vorpX go the way of other 3D products. As a general rule I dislike subscription software, and even though it does make those companies plenty of $, it also drives away a lot of potential future users, as well as a lot of long-time users. Take Adobe as an example; no longer a part of any workplace I’m associated with, but was at one point absolutely dominant. Users have moved to products like Pixelmator Pro, which may not offer 100% of the functionality, but offer a very compelling feature set in a product that can be purchased for a reasonable price and then maybe have a small upgrade cost on a major revision only.

I’ll try to keep my thoughts brief (hahahahaha, right…)

1) Charge a small amount per-game for the profiles users actually use. It could be built into the vorpX client (a real PITA I bet). So a customer has bought the base product for a reasonable price, and if they don’t really use it for many games they aren’t out a lot more $. You could include an ‘out of the box’ base number (100?) of supported games, and then charge for the additional profiles. The user would click the game title, see “Basic Z3D Profile for Starfield: $1.99”, or “Advanced G3D & AFR support for Starfield: $5.99” or something like that. Enter the card data (have it stored) and *bang* they’ve got the profile. You could even figure out a way to monetize profiles created by users, IF they wish to take part. If RJK builds 10 perfect G3D profiles, maybe 50% goes to Ralf and 50% to the profile creator when a users buys a customer-created profile? You get the concept. (I expect implementation of this might really suck though.) This would also be a way for Ralf to feel like he isn’t wasting his time refining profiles, since those profiles would immediately produce at least a small return. (I would be happy to pay for perfected G3D profiles for games that already have Z3D only, or a less-than-perfect G3D experience.)

2) Charge for major product upgrade cycles. So much simpler than my first suggestion, but with some downsides. For example, no matter how good your product is, some people will have problems with the new revision, and/or simply like the prior version better for whatever reason. These people will be VERY vocal about their dislike to the new version they “paid for.”

3) Charge a very small subscription fee for a certain tier of the product only. For example, maybe all Z3D profiles are included, but all more advanced profiles (G3D) are subscription based. IMHO this would have to be a fairly low price-point as people are getting overwhelmed with subscription services of all kinds.

@RJK: I’ll try some more of your profiles if you get time. I admit that I notice rendering issues that many people overlook or just don’t seem to care about. I would be *overjoyed* to find properly working G3D profiles of some titles (no shadow issues, no disabled shadows, no lighting issues, etc.) If I use some profiles that work really well I’m absolutely happy to donate. If I haven’t donated already it’s probably because I haven’t found a G3D profile that works as I wish for any title for which I needed one.

@Ralf: You are basically the last 3D solution out there for old 3D systems as well. I know you’re full-speed-ahead into the VR experience, but there is an untapped / abandoned market out there. Add a few more G3D profiles and more 3D modes for old displays and projectors, and hopefully the word will get out in those communities that used to rely on other products.

[Ralf]

Thanks for the super nice ‘rant’! The forum software considered it spam first, but I could salvage it before it was gone. As an additional way of support maybe Patreon is worth thinking about, but as a sole way of distribution it just isn’t what I want to do.

Patreon is absolutely the right tool for artists, podcasters, YouTubers etc. But for selling software, and that’s what it is in the end, it’s just too close to today’s rental models because you pretty much force your customers (or followers if you like) to pay for even the smallest update or bug fix. Not my thing. Although I’m slowly starting to get old, so maybe it’s just me. ;) What looks like cynicism to me, apparently looks way nicer to others for some reason.

When I did more 3D and GFX work than programming back in the day, I happily paid Adobe, Autodesk etc. hundreds of Euros each year for updates, thousands in case of Autodesk actually, but the moment they decided it’s a good idea (which business wise it probably was) to enforce that via a subscription, I was out right away. Would feel odd to do something fairly close to that myself now…

If you want to invest some time creating profiles, shoot me a mail to support at vorpx com, I can help with that. Would be awesome.

[mr_spongeworthy]

Ralf wrote:

The next beta will auto switch to the virtual monitor by just launching the desktop viewer and putting on your headset. vorpX will take care of switching off physical displays. Was quite an endeavour to ensure that the display config can’t get messed up permanently under various worst case scenarios when doing that, but now I’m reasonably sure to have that covered.

That sounds great Ralf. I really look forward to giving it a try. Sounds massively useful for games like FO3 (which I still routinely play through vorpX), in-which I have to continually muck about with the ini files and manually edit my preferred mode and resolution (because FO3 will “auto detect” and overwrite your edits over and over again due to perfectly normal activities such as updating your drivers.)

I guess I haven’t really looked yet, but my understanding is that the gesture system will be semi-universal? I’ll be able to create my own gestures if I wish, in titles like the aforementioned FO3? Or am I better off waiting until you have added custom gestures on a title-by-title basis? (Speaking of Aliens and gestures. I still have a working AvP on my Atari Jaguar. Someone needs to remake that for VR. Scary.)

Finally; as long as the vorpX virtual monitor isn’t loaded at windows start, wouldn’t a hard restart (not that we want to have to do that very often) always fix any “worse case” monitor config issue? Bios would detect the physical monitor as usual and Windows should automatically choose the only detected monitor to display on? At least, that would be the behavior I would expect.

[giant.turnips]

ToxicMike wrote:

The industry is generally GARBAGE and too scared to try other formulas let alone trying something rather NEW and so we have dozens of GTAs, hundreds of CODs, thousands of FAR CRYs, millions of ASSASSINS CREEDs and billions of PUBGs.

The big/huge games companies are like this yes (Ubisoft, Bethesda, RockStar EA) but we have loads of great titles coming out too. These big companies don’t consider games as art, they don’t make to be fun, they make games that tick the most money-making boxes which formula will be the easiest to digest for most people.

ToxicMike wrote:

Also, people always complain about UBI, but what is actually ROCKSTAR doing so great, besides releasing “GTA Games” every couple of years while improving graphics but sadly not the games, so then you have an open world game with great graphics but repetitive and boring gameplay.

Ubisoft are on a whole new level though. All Ubisoft open-world games are copied/pasted with terrible cohesiveness. They don’t introduce enough mechanics or variations of the same mechanic to fill an open world. FC6 is a perfect example, every single roadblock is exactly the same, the same number of guards, the same patrol routes, the same buildings, and the same rewards. The only difference is that the level designers just rotate the model slightly. RockStar at least put some effort into the filler content, I’m sure Ubisoft just pick the first 3 mechanics they like and then say stick 50 of those into the world, 100 of those, 30 of those. Done – ship it!

A good example of an open world done right (although not without some repetitiveness) would be Horizon (ZD & FW), and my personal favourite Days Gone. The world in Days Gone was much smaller than FC6 but each base was designed specifically for the location it is placed, FC6 just flattens the terrain and plonks the generic base there.

Ubisoft arent just repeating the formula, they are taking the formula and stretching it out to four times its sustainable size, then filling the gaps with repetitive garbage. The world would be better without them IMO.

/rant.

ToxicMike wrote:

Regarding RDRII

You know, I really appreciated the visuals of that game, the detail of the environment, the thought they put into every single area. However, I could never get into it, it just didn’t click for me. I felt no connection to any of the characters except the horse, I finished because I wanted to finish what I had started, but after the first 4/5 hours I played only the main missions just so it would end sooner.

ToxicMike wrote:

So INDIES are our only hope, forget those AAA franchises and companies, those titles take 180 hours to complete with 100%, but are actually fun for approx. 3 hours.

Again, I will agree with what you say here. The only difference for me is that sometimes I just want more of the same. If a game style clicks with me I want more of it. Obviously, I would like to see advancements in that formula such as better AI, better branching stories, and so on and so forth. Perhaps a procedural generation algorithm which can produce a meaningful world that can also contain an actual story, I mean we have AI that can produce a fairly decent short story now, surely we can integrate something like that to give us more gameplay in the same world/universe.

[ToxicMike]

The thing is, when i am looking/focusing at the center of the screen (with maxed out size/distance settings) then i also can still “see a little too much” of the edges of the immersive screen and i got the idea if screensize could be inscreased by another 30% or even 40% percent of its current max size, then i guess the screensize would be perfectly right for the used max distance and the games where i am using those max settings (of course i am not playing all games on maxed out distance and screensize).

And well, the immersivescreen edges would be still there and visible but “less in my view” then.

MarcDwonn wrote:

Are you using a Pimax with a crazy high FOV, combined with RTX 4090

Oculus and a GTX1660Ti

MarcDwonn wrote:

Otherwise i don’t see how the current size would not be big enough.

Oh, it actually is big enough but I just can´t stop thinking of how certain games are probably an even better immersive-screen-experience if i could increase screensize for just those 30 or 40 percent.

MarcDwonn wrote:

I have tried a bigger size Immersive Screen and in the end i got back to a smaller one, because the resolution was just not high enough, and/or the FOV wasn’t high enough, and/or the FPS got too low.

I´d say that strongly depends on the game one is playing and of course also depends on each ones “taste”.

[mr_spongeworthy]

@Ralf. Thanks for your feedback. I work in K-8 EDU and admit that often leads to “thinking things through” out loud (here) instead of privately. I will try to avoid doing this so much in the future.

To be clear, even if I don’t go through my entire testing process I DO rigorously test with controlled benchmarks (in-game when possible). I *always* start at the basics when encountering a problem; Has something changed in my BIOS, have I installed anything new (even just a driver update), is my cooling still working properly? I use benchmark software (historically Cinebench and Furmark, but currently I usually just run 3D Mark to do the “extreme” GPU + CPU stress test) to double-check that performance has not degraded for some unknown reason or an instability crept in. I don’t believe anything I see just once.

I, do, however, keep coming back to Cyberpunk after long lapses in playing it, and I forget about all the Cyberpunk-specific foibles. Or maybe I’m just overly-optimistic that somehow they have finally been fixed. (hahahahaha, right…)

I have tested this particular behavior (GPU usage with the vorpX virtual monitor enabled) and although I noticed that in Cyberpunk I belatedly realized it’s a terrible title in which to do any testing. In Cyberpunk my performance will alter dramatically simply by switching from real screen to virtual, or back, or back and forth. Using the built-in benchmark I repeatably see my max fps drop by 10-20fps. Sometimes my minimum and average also simultaneously go up. I have to Quit and re-run the game and all is good again. It’s just a completely and utterly unreliable title to try and use to figure out anything (other than figuring out “this is a Cyberpunk problem”). Like many (everyone?) even in 100% vanilla Cyberpunk I see repeatable, slowly decreasing performance just from entering and exiting menus, or even when visiting certain locations which will then cause performance to drop everywhere until you reload or quit and reload. It’s just the worst.

BUT, I do also see performance differences in the only other title I currently have installed that has a built-in benchmark: Far Cry Primal. That title consistently and repeatably benchmarks FASTER on the vorpX virtual display than it does when on my physical monitor. Every time. Identical settings. Absolutely repeatable. As you’ve said, this does not seem to be vorpX related in any way. vorpX was just the first thing that came to mind because it’s been so long since I’ve run multiple screens on any game rig. I *think* what I’m seeing is typical of 3D acceleration on Windows machines with 2 or more monitors, especially if those aren’t running the same refresh. It’s been probably 12 years since I used multiple displays on a gaming rig, but it definitely used to cause a bit of unanticipated behavior.

(BTW; if you ever do implement a longer edit window I’m one of those forum users who will go back and edit my original posts with more concise info. For example, I would have edited the post where I initially noticed the differing performance with something like “EDIT: For anyone else seeing differing performance on the virtual monitor I have now tested further and this does not appear to be vorpX related but rather a game-specific issue with Cyberpunk, which was the title in use when I first noticed this behavior.”

Looking forward to the next Beta!

[sdd1965]

Far Cry 6. The depth in Z3D is uncommonly strong; just as strong as G3D in any other game, yet still very fast. Unfortunately, without an official Vorpx profile, the UI elements can’t be seen in Full VR mode. Cinema mode is still very fun, but full VR mode would be especially nice in this game because it has so much detail everywhere you look.