Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Left/right are almost certainly the actual screen edges that you now see because you took the gasket off, top/bottom however may be caused by the capped zoom value. In some games vorpX automatically caps the max. available zoom because a game’s FOV can’t be set high enough to still match the headset FOV beyond the capped value. In a few select cases also for performance reasons.
Most (almost all) games can become CPU limited when their main render thread utilizes an entire core of your CPU. Games don’t scale endlessly with the amount of CPU cores, CPU wise the maximum performance usually hinges on a main thread. Since Geometry 3D more or less doubles the workload on the main render thread, it’s fairly easy to run into a CPU limited scenario where it doesn’t matter anymore how fast the GPU is.
One other thing: Unreal Engine games may be capped at max. 62 FPS fer default. That’s true for most UE3 engine games at least. UE4 games like Abzu usually aren’t, but it still makes sense to check whether an Unreal Engine game can reach more than 62fps at all.
To be somewhat more clear, since the funny and the friendly way apparently weren’t clear enough: this is not a discussion, it’s a moderator’s warning that there is no place here for calling others morons and worse as you did above. That’s all there is to say. Thanks again.
If in doubt, just don’t post anything that could be interpreted as being offensive. The OPs posts surely aren’t the most coherent ones I’ve read here recently, but he didn’t even talk to you. So there was no real reason for you to accuse him of anything in the way you did. Thanks.
Always stable 36/36 should also be OK. Not what I would like to see ideally since I’d always like vorpX to do the upscale from the game’s 36 to the headset’s 72, but if the Oculus runtime decides to throttle to 36 and you see stable 36/36 in the vorpX fps counter, the headset runtime will do it later. At least in theory that should also feel smooth. If not, try to reduce graphics details a bit more until there is enough headroom for 36/72.
I’m afraid I’m out of useful tips now in that regard.
The trick in case of lower framerates feeling choppy is to enable FluidSync. FluidSync caps the game framerate at exactly half the headset refresh rate. In your case that would be 36. Provided you can keep up these 36fps fully stable, sometimes that can feel smoother than a higher framerate fluctuating between for example 40 and 60.
Also, just in case: use vorpX’s built in fps counter (ALT-F). I will show you two framerates. With FluidSync enabled it should ideally always show 36/72 in your case, 36 being the fps the game runs with and 72 the fps vorpX uses for sending the final image to the headset.
So far every update for the last seven years has been free. At some point in the future there *may* be a paid upgrade, but you can be sure that you will receive free updates for quite a while.
@ ToxicMike: I perfectly understand how tempting a little bit of teasing and trolling can be on the internet, but I‘d very much like the vorpX forum to be one of those odd places where we all do this boring, old fashioned stay-nice-and-respectful thing as much as possible. ;) Thanks!
It all depends on the game, the one you picked as an example above (RE2) is a pretty bad candidate. For newer games the impact may be heavy, older, less resource hungry, games on the other hand may run perfectly well at for example 1440p/90fps with your rig. That‘s just the nature of the beast, rendering everything twice like G3D does obviously costs a lot of performance. There‘s a reason why the typical native VR game doesn‘t look like the latest and greatest AAA title.
You can‘t have it both ways, it‘s either (almost) the 2D framerate with Z3D, or accepting the performance impact of rendering everything twice with G3D.
Like said above, aim at something like 45fps for newer, more resource hungry games with G3D. vorpX is designed to work perfectly well that way.
like I Said, G3D doubles the workload compared to playing a game on your monitor since everything has to drawn twice (once for each eye). That alone cuts the framerate in half, depending on the game engine sometimes even more. On top of that there is a small additional overhead for rendering to the headset.
Expecting to run recent AAA games with G3D at 90fps is just unrealistic, regardless of the PC you have. You have to decide whether you want G3D at the price of roughly 50% of your FPS compared to playing in 2D, or less realistic but much faster Z3D.
Shoot for 45fps with G3D in newer and thus demanding games. G3D and 90fps are only realistic for older games.
G3D essentially doubles the load on a game‘s main render thread since everything has to be drawn twice. Sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less, depends on the game engine. RE2/3 are pretty much the worst games I recall recently in that respect BTW. You probably can go higher with the resolution. If a game is CPU limited, there usually is room for that since resolution mostly affects the GPU. In a CPU bound scenario primarily lower settings that affect the general render workload: draw distance, NPC/vehicle density, stuff like that.
60fps are by no means unplayable. The way vorpX works, you are still perfectly good at half the headset refresh rate (typically 45), and even below. If a game doesn‘t render at the full headset refresh rate, artificial frames are created in between either by vorpX or the headset runtimes.
In Immersive/Cinema mode even occasional dips to 20 are tolerable. for FullVR mode things depend a bit on how prone to motion sickness you are. 30-40fps, although not ideal, should still work for almost everyone, below 30fps things start to become really sluggish in FullVR mode, so that should clearly be avoided.
Slightly odd discussion, but I think we are talking about games here, where the 15% percent are a fairly good estimate of what to expect on average. For the sake of not confusing the OP or anyone else who reads this any further, please leave out a single special case that has nothing to do with games at all.
I stand corrected, didn’t check the actual CPUs, my bad. The 15% where just what I remembered as the general increase from the last to the current Ryzen generation at the same clock speed.
50% is way too much though. The usual CPU comparison websites say something slightly below 25% for comparing both CPU’s raw single core performance as measured by benchmarks, translating to anything from 5% to 25% in games. So although based on a completely unprecise foundation, the 15% incidentally aren’t that bad as a simplified average for games. ;)
All profiles in the local profiles list are automatically active, you don’t have to apply them. If a game already is listed under local profiles, you just have to start the game.
If vorpX doesn’t attach to the game, there probably is something getting in the way. In that case check please the trouble shooting guide (either in the help that comes with vorpX or here), especially the part about conflicting programs.
That sounds odd. Are you by any chance using a multi monitor setup? In that case the custom resolutions would have to be added for the monitor that games are running on (typically the primary display).
I can’t really suggest much more than what I suggested above. I think with your 5700XT the better goal to aim at is having a stable framerate of half the headset refresh rate by using FluidSync. If you want a completely stable full frame rate at high resolutions in RDR2, your GPU may be just little bit too slow. That’s a goal more suitable for a cutting edge high end GPU.
One thing I noticed is that you changed the ‘Headset Sync’ to safe. That can be better latency wise, but on the other just as often causes a pretty noticable performance dip (up to 20%), so better leave it at fast if you aim for maximum performance. Also most of the time leaving ‘Async Rendering’ on will be the better choice. No harm in trying, but typically you don’t really want to touch these settings at all actually, in most cases the defaults are what works best for a given headset.
Thanks for the Crystal Image hint. Might be a good idea to handle this a bit differently for Quest headsets with their additional video compression stage in the Oculus runtime.