I'm rocking the new gigabyte Aorus 1080ti OC ....even with that vr in rf2 is just not there ...the only sim that I keep on going back to is Assetto..runs butter smooth with everything maxed out...also the cars in AC are simply amazing...the detail...and the sound..it's the whole package that makes it the most immersive sim for vr...for now I'm back to triples in rf2..it looks very nice and runs very good...not sure if it will ever be the same experience in vr as AC
Honestly I'd wait for the next round of cards. You can't go off theoretical performance numbers either, each VR game is treated differently and there really aren't any BIG VR games that have been made from scratch with VR in mind so its really hard to gauge, performance vs poor optimization. If your really stressed about having VR settings on ultra the only real solution is to go from a 1070 to Titan XP which is a large investment but you won't have any issues holding 90fps in a well optimized game. I use a 1070 and I've had very good luck with most of my VR games. Rfactor 2, DCS world, Elite dangerous, Live4speed, Pcars, iracing, and a ton of various small VR games all can get 90fps. You just gotta play with it here and there. This is exactly the reason 4K VR headsets are not going to be around for awhile, there's nothing strong enough to push them yet besides using some sort of trickery, like eye tracking, or being able to use SLI or crossfire. A lot of players who haven't tried VR don't seem to understand that.
Re.AC vr In cockpit it doesn't look as good as rf2 ( better official rf2 tracks say line rock or the updated dx11 ones) +total dynamics is present in rf2 like no other sim Also the physics/ffb in rf2 is much richer -there's more going Rf2 has to be dialled in right of course AC takes the crown for great looking replays though -actually zero replays in rf2 in vr right now )-:
I am having a bad time with AC. I to love the smooth VR experience and the interiors are best but the physics are horrible for me. I notice DX11 in rF2 feels simular. Turn back to DX9 and physics are the best again. For some reason my system isn't running smooth enough for AC. Even lowering everything doesn't help. i7 4790 16gigs ram 980Ti. AC has no weight transfer coming into the corners and brakes are an on off switch for me. I made a few videos but can't figure it out. Just wondering how you find AC?
AC has the best weight transfer in corners to every sim in my opinion. If i compare iracing = most understeer to rfactor 2 = most oversteer Ac is between both on a good way. Now this is for high downforce car and i don t know if rfactor 2 just don t have the correct car data most are mods. on low downforce cars like skippy rfactor 2 is correct where iracing is a complete joke on this car.
Hey! I got heck on for using the word "joke". Once you get used to no weight transfer in AC I can go like hell you just have to slow down for the corners earlier but I can fuel earlier because the weight stays on the back. Hills and curbs are almost non existing. I also have latency in the wheel with AC but VR is the best by far. I'm going to get a 1080Ti and see if that helps?
SLI does not work for VR at this time as far as i know ....but maybe in the future......2 years ago i had sli and always a problems
trouble is that to much weight transfer will mask other subtle ffb detail, not that (imo) AC has much subtle ffb detail to mask
I dont know if some one already mentioned but: GeForce GTX GPU's that meet the performance requirements of VR Ready include GeForce GTX 970, GTX 980, GTX 980 Ti, TITAN X, GTX 1080 Ti, GTX 1080, GTX 1070, GTX 1060. NVIDIA partners that meet these standards display a "GeForce GTX VR Ready" badge on their systems and graphics cards And found these links because i lost where was installed one tool i had that tested my hardware. Cant remember if it was from nvidia or what and dinĀ“t found anything on the site. Anyway... http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910/SteamVR_Performance_Test/ worked
RF2 isn't designed for VR. You'll hit CPU latency limits before the GPU cannot draw frames fast enough (with a 1080 ti). Would be nice if the engine was upgraded to be a more efficient renderer
Interesting, because the CPU hardly limits rF2 in non-VR use at all. But if I remember correctly, rF2 uses only one CPU thread to feed to GPU and one to calculate physics, so presumably better multi-threading would be one solution here, after all today we have consumer CPU's even with 16 threads. If your presumption is true, it doesn't make much sense to buy the most expensive GPU's for rF2 & VR, as long as the CPU bottlenecks. Hm, surely it uses the same physics in both DX9 and DX11. I get a much bigger impact from turning off things like v-sync and windowed mode, those really add a lot of input lag. DX11 itself, not so much, especially after this week's patches. I didn't see a difference in lap times.
I don't know about lap time, it was the wheel time that I noticed. Losing the direction of the front tires when getting lose in a corner.
I keep reading this, but it contradicts what I experience, on my PC all 4 cores of my CPU are used (pretty evenly, around 85%) when I play. Can anyone shed light on this matter?
25 Games Tested - 1080 Ti VS 1080 VS Titan XP I think this would help a lot VR performance of GTX 10xx cards: https://forum.studio-397.com/index.php?threads/simultaneous-multi-projection.55630/