90fps Download Ios

[Lida Rick]

Justtried taking off from Kandahar Afghanistan in the cold and dark quick mission (hornet). This is a heavily populated mission around the airport and depending one where I am looking I get below 90fps. 90 FPS and above all is well but below 90fps the dynamic foveated renderring box (centre) jumps when moving your eyes. very disorentating. completely fine at 90fps though.

There is a workaround to YOUR bug in Quad-Views-Foveated, but it looks for the application name being "DCS World", but it looks like you changed that string to "DCS", so the workaround doesn't kick in.

Note that the bug is specific to ED'S multi-threaded code (they are submitting data from the wrong frame, a blantant violation of the OpenXR standard), so the ST version of DCS isn't affected (someone confirmed to me that it worked).

Also, if you are on Varjo, you could disable Quad-Views-Foveated and instead use Varjo-Foveated, because that tool did not have the conditional check on the app name (unlike Quad-Views-Foveated, the Varjo-Foveated tool is pretty much only useful for DCS, so I never checked which app is running before activating the workaround).

I completely understand, and appreciate your frustration. @BIGNEWY I know you've submitted this as a bug to the team, but can you please ensure they understad the context and the detail as outlined by @mbucchia and the fact that in the MT binary version they are doing OpenXR "wrong" and are not compliant with the standard. There are a large number of VR users thast rely on this implementation by Matt to achieve acceptable performance in VR. It would be a real shame to let this one drag on, as it has been and absolute blessing for many many months.

@mbucchia Frankly, given what you've already done I'm sure the community who have been reaping the benefits of your work for the last couple of years would be able to cover the code signing cert cost plus some Kickstarter!

1) ED needs to provide the real fix, as explained in March 2023 and again in December 2023. If the real issue had been addressed at the source, this wouldn't be happening today (since there would not be a need for a game-activated workaround). Changing the name in QVFR only opens the door to it breaking when ED decides to use "Digital Combat Simulator" as the app name in the future. Always activating the workaround creates a maintainability issue where the workaround could potentially break non-DCS apps.

2) I don't have a code signing certificate today, so any release I'd make would break anti-cheat software (not in DCS, just ANY OpenXR game installed on your machine), which isn't something I'm going to do (cause then that is more fallout coming in my direction, for something that isn't even my problem). Acquiring a code signing certificate with Cloud Signing is >$1000 AND also several hours setting up a token vault and all of the other goodies that the digital government now requires.

Not really sure what is the point of me spending hours of my time writing all this this stuff and explaining best practices and making detailed bug reports, pointing out issues, if this work just goes down the trash can without probably being read at all

2) I don't have a code signing certificate today, so any release I'd make would break anti-cheat software (not in DCS, just an OpenXR game installed on your machine), which isn't something I'm going to do (cause then that is more fallout coming in my direction, for something that isn't even my problem). Acquiring a code signing certificate with Cloud Signing is >$1000 AND also several hours setting up a token vault and all of the other goodies that the digital government now requires.

How can you not have anyone with a Pimax Crystal on your testing team. Painful - i have a Quest 2, Reverb G2 and a Crystal sat on my desk for god's sake and im not even an IT company or have any professional interest in this sphere.

You like to say your embracing the future and VR is important (as per wags interview some time back) how can you credibly say this without even testing the basics - ONCE AGAIN the internal testing team have let game breaking issues through to release, and its not like we even have the option to revert to "stable".

Thanks Matt, I found the issue. I checked OXRTK and DCS.EXE was indeed enabled , because guess what, it used to be called DCS World and it was automatically enabled as a result of the name change! That's going to catch a few people out I suspect.

Read @mbucchia's excellent wiki on his GitHub page and it will all be good. If you have 3080/90 I would recommend 39ppd in varjo base, 1.0 focus and 0.6 peripheral in the config file with DLAA to quell the shimmers.

Before continuing I need to state: I'm fully aware that OpenXR will halve my frame rate if it drops below 90fps to lock on at 45fps. (So if DCS is hitting 85fps, I fully expect motion reprojection to downgrade to 45fps while on, and 85fps if it's off - I'm fine with that). However this post is not about performance increase from 45 to 90, but rather staying above 90 far more frequently vs dropping below 90 (whether that be 80fps with MR off, or 45 on).

I noticed now that turning MR off has me running at a solid 90FPS, (with another 30-50% overhead available according to the OpenXR toolkit display in the VR window). As soon as I turned MR on... I drop to 45fps for the majority of the time and only hit 90fps occasionally.

Even more confusing, while trying to search the internet to confirm my findings, I'm seeing suggestions that SteamVR is better to use now, and it has asynchronous motion reprojection (meaning that if you drop below 90fps to say 85fps - it will only use motion reprojection for 5 frames to get you back up to 90, so less ghosting, and more use of your GPU, as opposed to Open XR where it cuts the GPU and your frames to half and uses motion reprojection for every second frame).

Because I switched from SteamVR to OpenXR quite some time back, and found OpenXR far better than SteamVR, right down to 30fps, I have never looked back to SteamVR. Now I'm wondering, is anyone able to confirm if this has now changed? Is OpenXR (with Motion Reprojection on) now the 'runner up' to SteamVR with MR on? Has anyone switched from OpenXR to steam and noticed an improvement? Is OpenXR moton reprojection now inferior to Steam? And why would OpenXR MR be forcing me below 90fps so often with it turned on, when I hit 90fps and have 30-50% overhead available when it's off?

MR can be confusing. With MR on, you should always be running at 90 fps. If you cannot run natively at 90 fps, MR will generate say filler frames in between so that your eyes will always see 90 fps, even though the fps counter says 45. I would not worry too much about what the counter says, what counts is how it looks to you.

I used the open XR VR toolkit and hit Shift+CTRL+F2 in DCS to bring up the toolkit menu in game. Navigated to the tab that contains motion reprojection, and turned it off. Here's an example of what I see in VR (which I flogged off the internet, but is basically the same thing).

Thanks for your reply, but you're referring to a different issue with MR to what I am in my OP. When I'm talking FPS, I'm talking about DCS generated FPS. (That's what the counter refers to in Open XR VR Toolkit). DCS generates 90FPS easy with MR turned off (with 30-50% overhead available - the GPU isn't working flat out). But DCS can only generate 90FPS on the odd occasion when I enable MR. Mostly it drops below 90FPS causing MR to kick in, dropping DCS to 45FPS and then it reprojects the other 45 frames. I thought this should only occur during the times when DCS is incapable of producing 90FPS.

Within the toolkit, you can choose to display stats in the VR window. This is one of the stats that display. While I'm not 100% sure that's what overhead means, it appears from my GPU's sensors that it still has room to move and as I get into more dense areas with higher GPU demands or further away, it appears to change accordingly.

3a8082e126