What am I missing here? (VR)

[DeadlyPilot]

 

 

I apologize for this long writing, but this is something I've been spending several days trying to solve. So I would greatly appreciate any help I can get. 

I'm trying to build a PC for VR in Xplane 11. I figured since it was in VR, it would put a ton of workload on my GPU, allowing me to go for a cheaper CPU. However, looking at these videos...

 

Below are two videos have similar hardware configurations. One is running XP11 in VR, while the other is running on a 1080p monitor.

 

Looking at this video, we see that with a 6500 and 1070, the sim is almost maxed and is giving him around 20 fps.

 

Next, we look at a very similar hardware configuration, with a 6700, and a 1070. This time, he is running at 2880 x 1620, which is over double the resolution in the previous video, along with 200% 'pixels per display override', and in game settings that are still relatively high. Not only that, but looking at the GPU load, hes sitting around 50% GPU utilization (I'm guessing due to poor VR optimization, Xplane has good GPU utilization outside of VR). On top of all that, hes still getting above 30 fps constantly.

1:40 for oculus settings

3:35 for 'Fly Inside' settings (VR software)

6:30 for game settings

 

So my question.. How is this possible? We have two scenarios each with similar hardware, but at the same time, only half of the GPU is being used in the second video, still with very high settings, and hes getting an even higher frame rate than in the first video... What ever happened to VR being "7 times more demanding than standard gaming"??? Can someone please explain to me why this is happening here?

 

I hope all of this makes sense, if not let me know.

 

[Damascus]

I haven't been paying attention but Oculus recently did some sort of hardware optimization that makes it much more attainable. 

[Damascus]

Also a quick look at the videos shows that they are running on completely different video settings.  

 

The second video has a bunch of stuff turned down that will massively improve performance (ie 2x SSAA+FXAA in video 2 versus 8x SSAA+FXAA in video one.)

[DeadlyPilot]

5 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Also a quick look at the videos shows that they are running on completely different video settings.  

 

The second video has a bunch of stuff turned down that will massively improve performance (ie 2x SSAA+FXAA in video 2 versus 8x SSAA+FXAA in video one.)

I did notice that, but how is he still running the sim at 225% the resolution of the first video? Plus, hes also using 200% under 'pixels per display' (not sure what it is, but he mentioned it adding gpu workload). Also, the second video is only utilizing half of his gpu, while I'm almost certain the first video would be nearly fully utilizing his GPU, I believe Xplane 11 outside of VR has good GPU utilization (looking at the frame timings, it looks like there aren't any major bottlenecks)

[Damascus]

Just now, DeadlyPilot said:

I did notice that, but how is he still running the sim at 225% the resolution of the first video? Plus, hes also using 200% under 'pixels per display' (not sure what it is, but he mentioned it adding gpu workload). Also, the second video is only utilizing half of his gpu, while I'm almost certain the first video would be nearly fully utilizing his GPU (looking at the frame timings, it looks like there aren't any major bottlenecks)

I think you are under estimating the computational draw of anti-aliasing.  8x anti aliasing puts the first one into 4K territory of difficulty and then add the higher graphical settings...  

 

It's just a more reasonable visual setup on the second one.

[DeadlyPilot]

48 minutes ago, Damascus said:

I think you are under estimating the computational draw of anti-aliasing.  8x anti aliasing puts the first one into 4K territory of difficulty and then add the higher graphical settings...  

 

It's just a more reasonable visual setup on the second one.

I suppose I am under estimating that, but that just leaves me with not understanding the 50% GPU utilization. Unless the first video is also running at 50%, I cant imagine the second one achieving these results. I've heard from people that Xplane 11 has good GPU utilization, so I would assume the culprit in the second video would be due to non native VR support.