Apr 13, 2016 at 8:01pm #100885
I was trying to get vorpx to work on Fallout 4, but when I am on the main screen I am averaging about 42 game fps according to the Alt+f statistics that vorpx provides. But when I run the game outside of the rift I average well over 2100 fps on the main screen. I have everything optimized from the config file and have tried changing and lowering the resolution but I just cannot seem to get it to go above the 40 range. I can tell the fps is low because it makes you deathly ill very fast from the jagged head movement. I have tried changing the geometry to z-adaptive but the fps remains the exact same. I tried saving the settings and restarting and it has not helped.
I also tried it with oblivion and I cannot get oblivion to go above around 50fps ingame while in vorpx, but then I get around 410 fps ingame without the rift and tried changing the modes as mentioned before as well.
Both games are 100% vanilla, fresh install.
Using Vorpx 16.1.2. Oculus SK 1.3.1
GPU : GTX 980
CPU : i7-3930k overclocked to 4.5ghz
Mem : 64gb
OS : Win 10 64bitApr 13, 2016 at 8:21pm #100886
Not sure about Oblivion, have to look at it. Fallout 4 however is very demanding. Too demanding for most PCs to play it comfortably in Geometry 3D, which renders everything twice. It’s highly recommended to switch the 3D-Reconstruction in the vorpX menu to Z-Normal in Fallout 4 and lower graphics settings in the game options to medium.Apr 13, 2016 at 8:25pm #100887
I have the games set to low and I have tried on z-normal and its still roughly around 50fps on the main menu and around 40fps in game inside a building. Shouldnt the main menu be way higher since outside of the rift the main menu averages over 2000fps?Apr 13, 2016 at 8:28pm #100889
vorpX will never display frame rates like 2100. it always syncs to the headset. A frame rate of 2100 in the menu is pretty meaningless BTW., as obviously nothing is really rendered there.Apr 13, 2016 at 8:30pm #100890
aye, but the headset has jerky head tracking movements at the main menu. Does that mean I have something setup wrong probably then since nothing on the main menu is really rendered?Apr 13, 2016 at 8:32pm #100891
For perfectly smooth gameplay you need about 50fps, better 75 (DK2) or 90 (CV1).Apr 13, 2016 at 8:37pm #100892
aye, im using a cv1 thats why im trying to get the fps up to 90 without having any luck. I know the video card can render it a lot higher then it is.Apr 13, 2016 at 8:41pm #100893
Certainly not in Fallout 4. Keep in mind that vorpX not only renders in 3D, which alone is more demanding than rendering to the monitor, there is also a second rendering process going on in parallel that renders the game to the headset, which also costs computation time.
You will never see the same performance with vorpX that you get when just do good old monitor gaming.May 29, 2016 at 8:55pm #103024GeomanParticipant
I only get 35 to 50 fps in Oblivion too. 75 When I face a wall.
And that with a R9 Nano in 960×1080.
If I open the taskmanager, I see that CPU #1 is at 100%, the other cores oscillate around 20%, so you can say the CPU brakes the system: Phenom2 x6 1100T 3,7 GHz.
So the CPU is the culprit here, or DX9 coding if you will. All of the Oculus demos run butter smooth at 75 Hz, so when playing older games you need the newest CPUs with high single core performance. Newer stuff utilizes the cpu better.
BTW Vorpx’ performance is very good, because the framerates are nearly the same whether using DK2 or TFT.
Concerning FO4: My System gives me around 40fps on a normal TFT with 3840×2400. And in ultra quality in 1280×1024 on the DK2 around 30 — so Oblivion really is an old ‘piece’ of software.Jun 1, 2016 at 6:59pm #103118alegseParticipant
Yes I agree that the CPU single thread rating is one of the most important things for games with VorpX.
I have a gtx 980 and I found big problems with AMD athlon x4 860 CPU. When I changed to an Intel i-7 I got huge improvements.
Check PASSMARK https://www.cpubenchmark.net/ Single Thread Rating to judge your CPU. I would recommend a single thread rating above 2000 (which there unfortunately are NO such AMD cpu’s)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.