Is 90 FPS in VR Possible with ACC?

[newbert]

Since, of all current racing sims, ACC requires the most computing power to run well, I though that I'd use it as the benchmark for asking this question here.

My current system is i7-7700; 16 GB Ram; Geforce 1660 video card, 2 TB SSD drive; Samsung Odyssey+ headset for VR. This configuration only gets me 38-45 FPS in VR running ACC (even just hotlapping).

Mine isn't the most powerful system, but it's no slouch either. So what kind of system components would required to run ACC at 90 FPS in VR (using a 15 car race as the goal, for example)? I figure that a system that could do that could run just about any racing sim at a high level, right?

If you're able to run ACC at 90 FPS in VR on your system, please share both your system specs and in-game ACC settings.

Thanks,
Bert

 

[BrightCandle]

I don't think you can buy a GPU today that runs the game at 90 fps in VR, a 2080 ti can't do it. Fundamentally the game has VR in the strictest sense it is in there but it doesn't perform well enough to be usable. ACC is not a VR title IMO, it fails to meet the basic bar of achieving no reprojected frames. Reprojection was meant to be something occasionally used not relied upon.

 

[newbert]

I don't think you can buy a GPU today that runs the game at 90 fps in VR, a 2080 ti can't do it. Fundamentally the game has VR in the strictest sense it is in there but it doesn't perform well enough to be usable. ACC is not a VR title IMO, it fails to meet the basic bar of achieving no reprojected frames. Reprojection was meant to be something occasionally used not relied upon.

Now that's interesting.

But what I don't understand is - if what you say is accurate - how does this guy (for example) get this type of VR performance in ACC? What kind of system components must he have to get these visuals and still record it? The visual quality that I get isn't even close!

Thanks!

 

[BrightCandle]

... this type of VR performance in ACC? ..

10 seconds of watching the VR in that video and you can clearly see it juddering all over the place. A quick check-in stats for nerds and its a 60 fps video. The cars are juddering, so that means its reprojecting 45 fps, hence the weird juddering in the 60 fps recording of the cars and track but not his head movements (because the head is being reprojected), it could even be lower than that because its really obvious big pauses on a regular basis.

If you record VR and it's 90 it has a slight judder effect because of its skipping frames but this too much for that and the frames are clearly missing and producing big jumps. So he isn't managing to run it at 90, he is at 45 fps. He doesn't show the FPS at any point.

Also, be aware he is using a Vive headset, that is a lot lower resolution than what most racers use, 1080x1200 per eye where the good visual minimum I would say is 1440x1440 or 1440x1600 like on the Odyssey+, that is going to help his performance. Despite that he doesn't manage 90 fps.

 

[steevee]

you can get 90 FPS in VR, or 80 in Rift S.... its a case of bringing the settings to a level to achieve it....

my specs are: 9900k, 16gb 3200, 1080Ti....

Obviously, if you go onto a big grid server, it'll struggle there...

 

[Jorge Villar]

With the current hardware, I don't think its possible to achieve 90FPS locked in ACC VR. Not without reducing the settings to a point that it does not look acceptably good.

This comes from someone who runs ACC on VR and loves it, but you need to accept its shortcomings.

 

[AtreX]

With the current hardware, I don't think its possible to achieve 90FPS locked in ACC VR. Not without reducing the settings to a point that it does not look acceptably good.

This comes from someone who runs ACC on VR and loves it, but you need to accept its shortcomings.

That obviously depends on what you deem "acceptable".
On my 9900K with 32Gb ram and a 1080Ti with Oculus Rift CV1 I'm perfectly capable of running the settings found bellow with OTT cranking upp SS to 1.5 and keep 90FPS pretty much rock solid with 29 AI-cars.
To me it looks perfectly fine (obviously you always want better, but it is very much driveable).

Edit: after checking a bit it actually seems like I still have some headroom left to improve settings without hitting 100% usage on either CPU nor GPU, so obviously my settings aren't as well optimized as I thought.

{
"resolutionQuality": 70,
"viewDistanceQuality": 2,
"antiAliasingQuality": 0,
"shadowQuality": 0,
"postProcessQuality": 0,
"textureQuality": 1,
"effectsQuality": 2,
"foliageQuality": 1,
"mirrorQualityLevel": 1,
"maxCarsVisible": 15,
"isAATemporal": true,
"aACustom": 0,
"pixelDensity": 1,
"mirrorDistance": 15000,
"advancedSharpenFilter": false,
"materialsQuality": 0,
"temporalUpsampling": false,
"volumetricFog": 0,
"bloomLevel": 0.10000000149011612,
"bloomQuality": 0,
"mirrorsResolution": 0,
"foliageLodQuality": 1,
"carLODSet": 30,
"hLODEnabled": false,
"shadowDistanceQuality": 0,
"frameLimit": 0,
"isMBlurEnabled": 0,
"colorSaturation": 0.79999995231628418,
"sharpen": 0.79999995231628418,
"cameraDirtLevel": 3,
"whiteBalance": 9300,
"imageExposureGain": 0.39999997615814209,
"imageContrast": 0.5,
"hmdWorldToMeters": 100,
"fpsCapUI": true,
"useLegacyTonemapper": false,
"hDRColorGamut": 2,
"hDRUILevel": 1
}