GTX780 > GTX1080 enough vor Rift?

J van E · January 18, 2017 at 7:37 PM

I am reading more and more enthusiastic reports from people who are flying in Aerofly FS 2 with the Oculus Rift. I currently have an i7 4790K@4.5, 16 GB RAM and a GTX780 with 6 GB VRAM and I am thinking about getting the Rift for Aerofly FS 2.

Now I've read that going from an 4790K@4.5 to a 7700K@4.2 or OC'ed to something like 5 (and of course a new motherboard) will make a difference but not a huge enormous difference since the Ghz are pretty close. Replacing my GTX780 with a GTX1080 however should have a bigger impact. I am used to GPU upgrades NOT having an impact but that is with FSX and P3D... It seems that for modern games and I think also for Aerofly FS 2 the upgrade to a 1080 will make a difference. And it would also make my computer good enough for the Rift.

Long story short: is upgrading my 780 to a 1080 enough to enjoy the Rift to the fullest(!)? Or do I really also need to get a new CPU...? The latter would mean I have to get an entire new PC plus the Rift... If possible 'only' getting a 1080 with the Rift sounds better (and expensive enough already).

Any ideas on this? Someone here who has experience with a similar switch?

John Hargreaves · January 19, 2017 at 2:04 PM

I went from a GTX970 to a GTX 1070 and it was really worth it. The 970 was right on the edge of being powerful enough for VR, but the 1070 breezes through most things you throw at it. Most modern games in 2D can be run on max settings, anything from Tomb Raider/The Division graphically intensive games through to sims like project cars and Dirt Rally. FSX and its offspring are certainly limited by the age of the code, but any proper modern title will be coded with modern hardware in mind, so the GPU is definitely made full use of.

I think there is plenty of life left in an i7 at 4.5ghz, as cpu power is only increasing by a trickle these days each new generation, and there are some quite modern games that still don't make full use of multi core processors (DCS I believe).

In VR we are still a way off having powerful enough systems to eat the thing for breakfast, but you will certainly have a very good experience with a 1080. I think cpu/gpu makers have become a bit complacent in recent years as there has been little to demand greater firepower from them; who cares if you get 100 or 200 fps in Crysis 3?

FS2 is a nice modern game engine, and on my system I have recorded up to 450fps (in 2D) when flying high over mountains, and it still looked beautiful, so there is plenty of headroom for adding more objects/clouds/weather etc.

In short, I would upgrade to the 1080 now and do the cpu next time round.

Sycosys · January 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM

I have essentially the same computer you do, 4790K, 16gb ram and a 1080 (was a 780). Aerofly runs smooth as silk in oculus VR with everything on ultra and flying through downtown New york city. The 4790K is going to be a great game cpu for a very long time to come, i wouldn't worry about that.

J van E · January 19, 2017 at 7:11 PM

Ok, thanks! Good to hear also from someone with a similar system! Think I will indeed upgrade my GPU, get the Rift after that and who knows the CPU in the future when it has a really big noticable benefit.

EDIT
The 1080 is on the way! Unfortunately the Rift isn't easy to get over here. But well, then I will have the time to install and test the 1080 without being stressed because the Rift would be crying for attention. I will probably be able to order the Rift this weekend and have it deliver at my work. I am soooooooooo looking forward to experiencing AFS2 in VR! (Mind you, AFS2 is the MAIN reason why I am spending all this money!)

John Hargreaves · January 19, 2017 at 11:48 PM

You'll love your new toys I'm sure. Just for a laugh, when you get that 1080 installed, take a high flight over Northern California, I bet you'll top 500fps in places with that card in FS2.

HiFlyer · January 20, 2017 at 12:54 AM

Quote from John Hargreaves

You'll love your new toys I'm sure. Just for a laugh, when you get that 1080 installed, take a high flight over Northern California, I bet you'll top 500fps in places with that card in FS2.

500? Here is me at over 600 :cool:

[Blocked Image: http://imageshack.com/a/img921/3083/5wjAzJ.jpg]

John Hargreaves · January 20, 2017 at 1:41 PM

Niiice :cool:

J van E · January 20, 2017 at 7:01 PM

Installed the 1080! In XP11 fps went from 23 to 30 using a saved situation with settings from med to high. In Aerofly FS2 the fps went from 160 to 300...! Clearly AFS2 actually uses the GPU! This is how a modern 'game' should react on such a hardware upgrade! That is an 90% increase versus a 30% increase! Above the desert I can get 600 fps indeed, but for that I have to use an external view: I was using the Airbus and when I looked down at the cockpit the fps crumbled (LOL) to a still whopping 290!

I am almost thinking about buying New York again (which I refunded) for testing purposes...

Anyway, I think I am ready to order a Rift!

EDIT
What is the most demanding part of the US southwest default scenery (with the high res pack installed)? I'd like to know for testing purposes. I just flew around SF with the Airbus and can't get the fps below 200 (using 1080i, of course).

whitav8 · January 20, 2017 at 9:20 PM

Demanding test for Southwest hires: Test Settings (ULTRA, Full Zoom Out, inside A320 cockpit)
- visibility = high-1 cumulus density=low+1, height = high, cirrus density = high, height = high) UTC = 15hrs

1) KSFO RWY 28L ready for takeoff, - San Francisco visible in distance ______________________ 132fps__________Nvidia 970 (CPU@4.2Ghz)
2) San Francisco - short of Bay Bridge south of downtown - HDG=280 alt = 1600ft ____________ 114 fps
3) KLAX RWY 06R ready for takeoff - LA in the distance ___________________________________150 fps
4) West of LA downtown - HDG = 070 alt = 1600_________________________________________ 119 fps

J van E · January 20, 2017 at 10:48 PM

Quote from whitav8

Demanding test for Southwest hires: Test Settings (ULTRA, Full Zoom Out, inside A320 cockpit)
- visibility = high-1 cumulus density=low+1, height = high, cirrus density = high, height = high) UTC = 15hrs

1) KSFO RWY 28L ready for takeoff, - San Francisco visible in distance ______________________ 132fps__________Nvidia 970 (CPU@4.2Ghz)
2) San Francisco - short of Bay Bridge south of downtown - HDG=280 alt = 1600ft ____________ 114 fps
3) KLAX RWY 06R ready for takeoff - LA in the distance ___________________________________150 fps
4) West of LA downtown - HDG = 070 alt = 1600_________________________________________ 119 fps

My results with nVidia 1080, CPU@4.5

1) 225 (clouds and visibility high 180fps). My regular zoom and settings give me 250 fps.
3) 252 (clouds and visibility high 223fps). My regular zoom and settings give me 300 fps.

Since I can't really copy 2 and 3 I'll leave it at this. I have to say I am really SHOCKED to see how just a few of those fluffy clouds hurt performance...! This is really bad! The circle of clouds is very small and enabling has a far to big penalty imho.

I have to add something odd happened. When I did my first tests my fps was a lot lower. Still above the 970 but well, not TOO much. After ending the test I decided to reset my zoom to my usual using the Cessna. After that I went back to the Airbus. I noticed my fps was a LOT higher, higher than just a change of zoom would result in. So I decided to test things once more, zoomed all the way out again... and suddenly fps was higher all over and I ended up with the numbers above. Odd... I will keep an eye on this and check of somehow changing planes results in different fps or so...

HiFlyer · January 20, 2017 at 10:56 PM

The devs have warned us more than a few times that the clouds are heavy on frames. Be sparing when using cumulus until they've had a chance to address the issue.

J van E · January 20, 2017 at 11:03 PM

Yes, up to know I've only flown without clouds. I only turned them on for this short test. They are heavy indeed. But anyway, I am very happy with how AFS2 performs on my new 1080! I just gave XP11 another try and ended up with an fps of 22... for a sim like that it doesn't seem to matter what you buy...? Luckily AFS2 is different. Can't wait to give it a try with the Rift!

whitav8 · January 21, 2017 at 3:02 AM

@J van E,
Glad you were able to run the tests - yes, #1 and #3 are the easiest to run since they are at takeoff position - #2 and 4 are simply pointing at the downtown buildings from just a couple of miles away at low altitude so the city fills the windscreen and as soon as the flight starts, I pause FS2. BTW, when I listed the setting for Zoom "all the way out" - I hope everyone understands that I mean with the widest possible field of view so we see the most possible of the cockpit and scenery (which is how it is set with VR). I too hope that cumulus clouds can be done with less performance drop.
For VR, initially you want to choose FS2 settings that consistently give you double (due to Stereo imagery) the 90Hz required for the goggles - so maybe 200FPS. But then, because you want to set Render Scale Factor (or Super Sampling) at least at 1.5 and as much as 2.0 for much improved clarity, you might need performance nonVR to be at least 250FPS - otherwise you have to count on Asynchronous Time or Space Warp to try to provide a 90Hz capability - which, for me, doesn't work well in that the image stutters and has distortion or ghosting (double images when at very low altitude). I am thankful that FS2 (unfortunately not FSX/P3D, DCS 2.X, nor XP11) provides the ability to see fluid flight in VR which allows a wonderful aerobatic and low altitude maneuvering experience.

J van E · January 21, 2017 at 12:11 PM

Yes, zoomed out was clear. It does make a lot of difference to the fps so I am curious how my upcoming Rift will perform... When I get my Rift, does it automatically go to the proper zoom when I run the Rift version of AFS2? Can you still zoom in and out with the Rift? Are there any specific settings, apart from SS that I have to take care off? I do understand that in order to prepare AFS2 for the Rift I should find out which settings work best with an all zoomed out view, right...? And that SS setting, can it only be seen when you have the Rift on your head?

Pardon the abundance of ??? but I'd like to be ready for when my Rift arrives.

I will at least experiment with the shadows because somewhere else I read they can really hurt performance too and going from the max to meet already makes a huge difference. If I actually need 250 fps I see Iam on the edge already... (How the heck do people run XP11 and P3D in VR...?!)

HiFlyer · January 21, 2017 at 12:40 PM

Quote from J van E

Yes, zoomed out was clear. It does make a lot of difference to the fps so I am curious how my upcoming Rift will perform... When I get my Rift, does it automatically go to the proper zoom when I run the Rift version of AFS2? Can you still zoom in and out with the Rift? Are there any specific settings, apart from SS that I have to take care off? I do understand that in order to prepare AFS2 for the Rift I should find out which settings work best with an all zoomed out view, right...? And that SS setting, can it only be seen when you have the Rift on your head?

Pardon the abundance of ??? but I'd like to be ready for when my Rift arrives.

I will at least experiment with the shadows because somewhere else I read they can really hurt performance too and going from the max to meet already makes a huge difference. If I actually need 250 fps I see Iam on the edge already... (How the heck do people run XP11 and P3D in VR...?!)

You can press the spacebar to recenter the rift viewpoint, and you really don't need a zoom function when you can just lean forward or side to side to see something..... Aerofly does allow you to adjust the size of the virtual space, but unless you feel like being an ant in a giant plane, its best to leave that setting alone. Pixel density will give you a clearer appearing image but can be hard on framerates.

What did I miss.......

By the way, you don't always need double the framerate.... Creating the stereo image is actually not as intensive as you might think in most cases, and if you can reach a steady 120/130 fps or so, you're probably safe for the full 90 in the rift. And even if you fall a bit short, ATW (asynchronous time warp) will most likely save you.

By the way, Flyinside is a clever use of ATW to make a really low framerate appear to still be smooth, and without it FSX, P3D and XPlane would be pretty much dead in the water for VR. I kind of think they still are, even with it. :p

A quick Video:

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

J van E · January 21, 2017 at 2:11 PM

Cool, thanks for the info, HiFlyer! Good to know about the steady 120/130 being good enough in general: I was beginning to worry a little already LOL

Interesting video btw, thanks! So VR is almost the same as 4K rendering, if not heavier... oh boy... now I am worrying again LOL

whitav8 · January 21, 2017 at 5:21 PM

@J van E,
Getting ready for Rift issues: (you are really going to like it!)
1. Which joystick do you have - one of the most important issues! I have a Thrustmaster HOTAS 4 ($55) - it has minimal deadzone around neutral, a POV hat which I use to move the eyepoint forward/aft/left/right after the first recenter as you startup (on the Controller Setup->View->Move buttons), and then 12 buttons to use for flaps up/down, gear, speedbrakes, trim elevator up/down, ESCAPE. etc. You really want a separate throttle for the left hand. You won't be able to see except for the FS2 view so you have to do as many of the things you normally would with the keyboard with the joystick buttons.
2. Before setting FS2 up make sure you test out some free game or demo from Oculus and know how to make that work in VR
3. There will be an additional VR tab in FS2 to set Render Scale at 1.5 or higher (start there). Some cockpits look clearer than others - most of them with old "steam" gauges (dials and needles) look really clear but electronic displays don't look quite as clear. Move the seat (eyepoint position) forward as much as is reasonable so you don't have to lean in often.
4. FPS - HiFlyer is correct about being able to fly OK with lower rates (though as I said I don't like depending on frame interpolation (ATW/ASW) because there are visual side effects) so I would still test an area in NonVR, set your graphic options less than Ultra (and minimal cumulus - lots of cirrus) in order to get at least over 200fps most of the time - I use Limit Frame Rate = off, custom, high,high, medium x 3). Then you will start with a very smooth flight and you can always try other settings as time goes on.
5. Get connected with the Oculus forum if you have any issues with the Rift - start with just one sensor when using FS2 to keep it simple.

HAVE FUN!! Try flying the Pitts at Sedona doing some aerobatics or down in the Grand Canyon with the F15 - WooHoo!

jk1895 · January 21, 2017 at 6:30 PM

Quote from whitav8

because there are visual side effects

This is very exaggerated. Yes, there are artifacts but mostly when you do very fast maneuvers. It depends on what you fly/do. Well, when you only fly the Extra then it could be worth to mention it. But when you prefer the big "slow" planes you will never see these artifacts.

J van E · January 21, 2017 at 7:16 PM

Thanks for all the tips, whitav8! I have a simple Logitech Extreme joystick with a seperate throttle and some 10 buttons or so... I think I can come a long way with that for starters. I probably will also have to program some easy to reach keyboard keys.

And I do prefer the slower planes, jk1895, so I think that'll work out fine.

jk1895 · January 21, 2017 at 11:04 PM

To make it clear. There can be artifacts even in slow moving planes. But only if you overdo it with your settings. Everything on ultra does not work (with clouds on and pixel density at 2.0).Set your settings wisely so you always have 90 FPS (With occasional FPS drops). And everything is good...