It's time for DLSS support, and DFR Quadviews support (VR)

With DLSS 3.7, DLSS in VR has seen another nice improvement. In DCS World, it's a very nice forward step with significantly reduced ghosting and clarity on fine text/needles/gauges. I know early on, DLSS implementations in other titles (ACC) caused strange shimmering, etc. However, things have progressed quite a bit.

As well, DFR support & Quadviews rendering is hugely important for the future of VR Simming, and AMS2 would greatly benefit from support here.

With new headsets standardizing around 2800x2800 native resolution, - a 70% increase in total pixels over the Reverb G2 - the GPU demands are high. Especially since these HMDs often perform best at 150% scale (which is considered "100%"). And they aren't stopping there - the Somnium VR1 for example, despite its panel resolution of 2800x2800, will need to upscale even more pixels than the Pimax Crystals to hit its high FOV of 120+.

All this to say, we cannot rely on a $2k GPU every 2 years to drive performance. Doing the math, even an RTX 5090 won't be sufficient to drive a Somnium VR1 at high FOV with high graphics / MSAA on AMS2.

We could really benefit from full DLSS support, including DLAA as an AA option (which looks as good as MSAA but performs better, for those wary of an upscaling), and we nee DFR/Quadviews support to get a massive FPS gain on these high resolution headsets.

Please Reiza, help us enthusiasts out! DLSS is mature at this point; Quadviews is a god-send; and even unreleased GPUs will struggle with the newest batch of HMDs. And for those of us less on the cutting edge of tech, we could use these performance boosting solutions all the more.

 

I don’t think the Madness engine is capabel for that implementation. Would be nice to see DLSS in AMS2 of course.

 

DLSS needs TAA I think and back in pC2 days I asked Ian Bell for TAA to help all the shimmer and he said it's not possible on this engine.
I hope he was wrong.

 

IMO AMS2 has a lot features which I wouldn’t have imagined if I was looking at PC2. Reiza have shown they can do a lot of things which might not seem possible in some people’s eyes

 

Let’s Hope you’re right.

 

I would hope at this point they would be able to add DLSS to the engine!

Beyond that, I don't know any reason they couldn't get Quadviews support, it would be a massive frame boost. In DCS world it can add 30fps to performance, and this would allow high res headsets with high FPS and high graphic settings.

One final note: opencomposite works fine, but it really would be nice to get official native OpenXR support as well.

 

What other sim looks as good and performs as good as AMS2 with a large range of PC abilities?
Im pretty happy with opencomposite and my G2 for now. Quadview would be nice though.

 

As brilliant as v1.6 is, the only downside is a performance reduction, I took quite a heavy hit on my my end. So yeah a DLSS integration (if possible/feasible) would be most welcome to get that performance back and with those lovely visuals.

 

Just wait till Reiza update the AA and shadows they talked about! Then we are so going to struggle.

 

It would be interesting to see what Quad-Views can do for VR performance. I have the Pimax CL running pretty good right now but, sure wouldn't mind turning up a few of the details.

 

Not sure DLSS would buy VR users much.

The premise here, I believe, is simply : 1080p on a flat screen gives you a readable text and very playable game (a fact many of us still using 1080p monitors notice - and so we run games at 1080p and they run at high fps, no DLSS required on mid range hardware)

But not VR. VR needs a significantly higher resolution to still look worse than 1080p. If it weren't for the fact that it's better in every other way we wouldn't be using it.

But DLSS using a ML model to increase that 1080p image gives you a 4k image that's readable on a flat screen, it might fool us that it looks a bit sharper than the original c/w a few artifacts - and, of course, closer to the 1080p framerate - but it's solving a problem that didn't really exist (like most so-called 'Machine learning')

1080p in VR is a blurry mess. That's what you'd end up with using DLSS in VR : a faster running blurry mess.

 

It will buy a lot IMO, looking at Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 & 2024 there can be huge gains made with performance & DLSS usage, whilst the blurriness does become a factor using the latest DLSS driver + Quality Setting does go someway to alleviating that blur alongside the possibility to increase render scaling.

Besides as I've seen with MSFS20/24 it's very much a personal thing as VR tends to be, some people are perfectly fine with a blurrier image and higher FPS, others not so much. So in essence simply having it added (if possible) so it becomes an Option is the best outcome for all.

 

Well you can lower the resolution of the image you see in VR now as well as using various ways to cut down the size of the image rendered.

What DLSS pretends to do is that you can magically lower the image without causing any difference in quality. If you accept that isn't the case in VR (it isn't the case in 2d either but you can fool some of the people all of the time) then why do you need DLSS to lower the resolution and get blurring?

Although I'm wondering if some of these performance issues are things other than the game as we had one guy with 2 headsets complaining bitterly about stuttering but today he seemed relatively happy on his other headset. That could just be that there's big variances between tracks. Or it could be (as he thinks) that there's some meta issue compounding the issue.

For myself, I had GTX1070 when 1.5 was released with a Rift S and coming from AC my expectations for VR were already that I had to lower settings and run a smaller field - I'm also pretty much unfazed by the frame rate halving.

Someone gave me a 3060 TI + newer cpu when they upgraded their system but I started playing 1.6 with all of my cut down settings and it ran fine. Although I wouldn't really notice if it's 80 or 40 fps so long as AWS does its thing.

I've actually been slowly upping the settings and with the new preset thing ran a couple of 32 fields and I'm not having a terrible experience with stuttering or performance. I'm practically on ultra for everything now - although it's not a massive difference because the resolution of the headset is the most striking thing regardless of whatever detail or shading there is on the car models. It's like I'm driving in the world but it's a lower resolution world than the real one and no settings ultra, high or medium change that.

So it surprises me that people with 4080 are having issues. Although I guess the rift S is low resolution comparatively to the newer headsets many of you are using. So I guess I'm doing, by using a rift s, what you're suggesting some people might be happy with - using a lower resolution and having a more blurry image.

My solution for the blurry image in the distance is simply to put things closer to the foreground to look at instead. I know people tell you that you have to look at the distance to drive fast but it's not true - and certainly not in a sim where you can drive at 150mph sipping a drink with a straw and fielding questions about whether you want pasta or rice for tea being shouted from the other room.

It's like if you're playing Half life Alyx on a rift S you don't think anything looks blurry because the game is designed to show VR at its best visually - it all happens in your face. Like the cockpits in a sim all look great but there's no point looking at the cockpit when you're driving.

In the racing game on an empty track if you're looking down the track that's the worst scenario for VR. So I look at something else, usually AI or a TT ghost, at the corners I look at the apex, and that's enough close up detail to distract me from the limitations of VR in the distance.

I think the quadview and other VR specific stuff sounds interesting. At some point though if you're going to keep buying headsets with more resolution you have to render more pixels and that, as the guy at the top of this page suggests is something that hardware simply cannot do yet, if ever. Making a higher resolution screen and putting in front of your face can be done and that's why they're doing it, but if a 4090 can't run it there's no real point - and even less point if you lower the resolution back down. The 'well we can't run high resolution big but we can do it where you're looking' sounds more feasible to me.

 

It's a different kind of "blur" altogether when simply lowering resolution compared to DLSS, hard to explain but through my extensive tests but there's a big difference and that's on 2 different HMDs.

Again it's personal choice, settings preferences are different, resolutions are different, people's vision is different, what you may see as blurry the next bloke doesn't etc etc.

Ultimately what matters is that performance may be improved with DLSS so, again, the Option to have it would be the best for everyone that's all I'm asking.

If not DLSS then something needs to be done as AMS2 has regressed in performance in VR gradually over time, up until V1.6 where it's been quite a big step backwards (unfortunately) in what is a brilliant update overall.

(Renato should you read this; I've lowered settings and am happy racing, please do not perceive the above as a moan, merely an observation)

 

Yeah, I mean your specs vs mine suggest a 2x-4x higher resolution (I believe? Depending if you use a cable or not) with a GPU that's 13% better? If you were getting that then 1.5 ran really well.

Hopefully they can find some optimisation to get back there.

 

Options, the more the better.

 

Ray Tracing

 

I personally wouldn't use RT in a racing sim other than I guess shadows but yes more options the better.

 

Pimax Fixed Foveated Rendering improves both performance and image quality (Stunningly good) however, there are some very obvious artifacts that appear to be screen-tearing or something similar.

Does anyone know if there are other sim-titles with FFR support (Quad Views) that I can test?

 

The madness engine is capable of 90 fps even on older hardware so I'm also not so sure why people would need support for a complex technology that lowers the image quality in exchange for more fps.