I disagree. You'lll be driving 3-4x more pixels on a reverb at native resolution, also rendering two complete scenes (one for each eye) and you'll need to keep the framerate above 90fps to keep things smooth. It will run, as it does on my PC, but you cannot run AC on a Reverb G2 at its native resolution with reprojection. Dropping resolution allows it to run over 90fps and therefore reprojection doesnt occur.With the vanilla version of AC (no post-processing, csp or SOL...), the gpu workload is less than 50% on a 1080ti, so I imagine my ageing 1080ti could cope with the graphical demands of the HP Reverb G2 VR headset, let a lone a 2080ti*.
I had a 1080ti when I first got the G2. Yeah, it ran AC at full resolution (Steam sets this at about 3100 x 3100 I think per eye at the default 100% setting), but not without using Steam or WMR reprojection unless you set everything in the game to the lowest possible setting and even then not in a busy game.I disagree. You'lll be driving 3-4x more pixels on a reverb at native resolution, also rendering two complete scenes (one for each eye) and you'll need to keep the framerate above 90fps to keep things smooth. It will run, as it does on my PC, but you cannot run AC on a Reverb G2 at its native resolution with reprojection. Dropping resolution allows it to run over 90fps and therefore reprojection doesnt occur.
The project is there is a lot of misinformation online and people think they're running full resolution and they're not, they're running below this and may also have a framerate below 90fps. Some may even be running the headset in 60hz (which is nasty). They may also be running some form of motion smoothing and limiting to 45fps which is another story entirely.
The native resolution for the Odyssey+ is 4.6 million pixels vs the Reverb G2 @ 9.3mp, which is just under half. Both devices have to render two scenes, and as far as I understand, the bulk of that work is taken on by the cpu. I don't know how accurate it would be, but if it helps, I could increase my resolution settings in steamvr to run @ 9.3mp and post the results?
I use a steam program called fspVR to monitor my VR performance, but Rasmus' suggestion #74 is probably the better choice.
My AC settings:
View attachment 471946
Afterburner doesn't show the same depth for vr performance so I would recommend to use bothI use a steam program called fspVR to monitor my VR performance, but Rasmus' suggestion #74 is probably the better choice.
Note that with ac only using 2 big cpu threads and one not really big one as main threads, with a 10 core cpu, you won't see loads above 30%, but still be limited by it.When I did, I never saw the CPU stressed was always GPU.
I was running FPSvr but I stopped when Nvidia published a bug with monitoring tools causing spikes in framerate, not updated drivers for a while so maybe that is fixed..
When I did, I never saw the CPU stressed was always GPU. Caveat though, these are just my experiences of different hardware. I am not an expert in graphics optimisation by any means, Rasmus' post demonstrated what can probably be done, I put the GPU in the slot, update the drivers and don't touch anything from there. Same said with the 1080ti, probably lots of performance that could have been squeezed out that too.
You settings are high, AA kills my performance. Not sure about your Steam test but logically it makes sense.
OK, so its about a third then, 6M vs 18M in total. If you are OK with the reprojection settings it will run quite well. To be honest the resolution of the HP is so good even at reduced settings it looks good. You might miss the graphical detail but you get the view distance which was the big difference to me, you really can see a lot further down the track.I assumed that the G2 would be running @ 2160*2160, not 3100*3100 in steamvr.
This is my resolution @ 120%
View attachment 471958
OK, so its about a third then, 6M vs 18M in total. If you are OK with the reprojection settings it will run quite well. To be honest the resolution of the HP is so good even at reduced settings it looks good. You might miss the graphical detail but you get the view distance which was the big difference to me, you really can see a lot further down the track.
Apparently manufacturers can implement whatever numbers they want for the 100% in steamvr.I assumed that the G2 would be running @ 2160*2160, not 3100*3100 in steamvr.
This is my resolution @ 120%
View attachment 471958
Huh, haven't seen that screen in agesThe native resolution for the Odyssey+ is 4.6 million pixels vs the Reverb G2 @ 9.3mp, which is just under half. Both devices have to render two scenes, and as far as I understand, the bulk of that work is taken on by the cpu. I don't know how accurate it would be, but if it helps, I could increase my resolution settings in steamvr to run @ 9.3mp and post the results?
I use a steam program called fspVR to monitor my VR performance, but Rasmus' suggestion #74 is probably the better choice.
My AC settings:
View attachment 471946
I'm pretty sure that unless the game engine supports stuff like single-pass stereo (AC and ACC don't, iRacing does) the scene gets rendered twice, one for each eyepiece.One note about the "2 complete scenes, one per eye": that's not really correct. In probably all modern games, the scene is rendered without taking the users perspective into account. Which is also why most modern games support any resolution you can imagine as long as the maximum pixel count isn't reached.
The renderer will need to take one fixed spot for the lods but I doubt you're seeing corrected reflections in each eye.
So the only performance overhead you have for vr is the management of the look around, adjusted perspective and splitting for the gpu.
No it doesn't, not even close although I will try some of the tests/tweaks Rasmus posted earlier in the thread. I was going to try MSFS but your sentiments echo everything else have I read..I doubt a 3090 will let us run ACC with everything on Max, guess we have to wait for at least a 4090. Don't even bother with MSFS if you like a good framerate!
I can as I still have my triple screen setup, but I just won't. Immersion is too important to me, and after experiencing what driving in VR is I just refuse to go back. I think 3080 is gonna be enough for ACC on decent medium settings (I can run it on 2080 at 60Hz or at 45Hz reprojection, but I don't like that), but I couldn't buy it at launch or after that and I'm surely not paying scalpers 3xMSRP price. If that means it is AC only for me, so be it, it is still a great sim.Its a shame there is no silver bullet like there used to be. For a long time now (VR aside), we've been able to buy a mid/high end GPU and CPU and run everything with all the settings on. But VR just makes modern GPUs look crap, mainly because we're playing old unoptimised for VR racing games like AC/ACC/PCars. I was blown away by how well iRacing ran.
I can't go back to a monitor now, i've just disassembled my racing monitor stand and screen, got loads more space now too.
It is a thing, but it would need developing for specifically and I guess VR games (or VR modes) are just not a big enough piece of the pie for developers to do this.I honestly don't understand what technical limitations prevent efficient implementation of SLI-like VR rendering on two GPUs. One card for each eye doing their work in parallel. For me, it looks like a no-brainer solution, but apparently there must be something that makes it a no-go