Posts by whitav8

    The reprojection setting file you need to edit (and possibly if there is a SteamVR update ) is in the following location:

    XX:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\MixedRealityVRDriver\resources\settings\default.vrsettings


    and mine looks like:

    {

    "driver_Holographic" : {

    },

    "driver_Holographic_Experimental" : {

    // Motion reprojection doubles framerate through motion vector extrapolation

    // motionvector = force application to always run at half framerate with motion vector reprojection

    // auto = automatically use motion reprojection when the application can not maintain native framerate

    "motionReprojectionMode" : "auto", <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-------------------------------------this is the only edit (remove "//" )

    //Use next for DCS

    // "motionReprojectionMode" : "motionvector", ......................................


    This sets it up so that it will run at 90Hz when it can without adding an interval frame by shifting pixels and 45fps when the new frames drop below 70 hz or so. You will see some object artifacts then.


    Using Aerofly for VR is so wonderful because you don't have to remove many high settings. I like the Q400 at ORBX Monterrey best.

    nickhod ,

    I just wanted to be sure that you have read my "little" writeup on the Reverb:

    VR Flight Sim cockpit review of the HP Reverb


    If you have any questions or tests that you want me to run, I would be glad to help. It really is hard to make these VR HMD choices when we can't try them on. I bought mine from the HP store for $499 (the consumer version ) with the idea in mind that if it just didn't work well for me, I would send it back for a full refund. My previous HMD was an Odyssey+ so I had all the WMR software and knew how to best set it up.


    Thanks for all your Aeroscenery efforts!


    Dave W.

    GrahamD ,

    It's obvious that each person who tries a VR system has varying responses. Unfortunately, some of the variance can come from not having "tuned" your system - like just what SteamVR beta version you are running and what SuperSampling value you are using, which Nvidia or AMD driver you are using, what version of Windows 10, what KB fixes you have, what version of the WMR portal you have. Also, for the flight sim itself, what AA, Aniso settings, which setting are you using for reprojection (ASW). There are SO SO many settings to check. I've scoured the forums in order to set up both my Odyssey+ and now the Reverb - a lot of work. Also, I have two pairs of glasses that I use and I get different results in clarity. No wonder we each have different responses - and then there is our IPD........ As I tried to portray in my report, I believe there is a wide variance in how we scan our instruments - I am willing to move my head some to read gauges that are away from center - others just aren't. It's a habit that I got from flying real planes and from the fact that I've worn glasses all my life.

    I'm glad that there are quite a few VR systems to try - and that each of us can try to find what fits us best. Check out the Pimax 8K+X (I would sure like to try it but it is $$$).

    In summary, at least for some of us, we can read our instrument panel very clearly. A great step for VR. It seems that RGB stripe at 2160x2160 is here and will be used by other VR systems - all for our benefit as flight simmers.


    Dave W.

    This is not a complete review of the Reverb - just how it feels to me with respect to being at the pilot's eyepoint and using the cockpit instruments primarily.


    I have had an Odyssey+ since last Thanksgiving and really have enjoyed it - except for the lack of clarity. Actually, that issue has improved over the last two months with some of the Microsoft and SteamVR improvements having to do with "RenderTargetScale" and other similar issues. I have a great CPU - a 9700K at 5Ghz - and a medium speed RTX2070 - so I ran the SuperSampling up to about 2000x2500 and used SteamVR "auto" reprojection for a minimum of stutter when looking out the side window at an airport full of static airplanes. Still my experience was I had to "lean in" to read gauges that weren't really close to me - some cockpits were fine but most airliners weren't - I could see the numbers on a PFD for speed and altitude but I had to know what I expected it to be and the numbers were fuzzy - a bit of strain. The Odyssey+ color vibrance was great - just makes the scenery really beautiful and especially black for night flying. With the SDE filter, it was very difficult to see pixels. When the Reverb was announced with 2160x2160 native along with the higher number of subpixels, my interest became very strong. I waited through all the introductory problems and looked for mention of clarity and performance. Then I saw chiliwili69's analysis of the Reverb and Index on the IL-2 Virtual Reality and VR controllers forum. His through-the-lens photos and comments (and benchmarks) on frametime performance really captured my interest. I waited and waited - would Samsung produce a similar resolution system with OLEDs? Then just days ago, the HP Store dropped the price $100 USD and I ordered the Reverb and after a few days use, I wanted to encourage all the flightsim pilots with a very brief report.


    First off, the installation was very easy since I had all the WMR / SteamVR software already and tested/updated with the Samsung. Unplug one, and substitute the other. I was using a powered ValveLink box for the USB3 and HDMI cables without problem. I used the ValveLink USB3 port, added a 6 foot Display Port extension cable, connected to the last Display Port of my RTX2070 (I have three HD monitors), rebooted just for luck, and all was working immediately. OMG - the clarity in the WMR CliffHouse was what I needed to see right away - just like an HD monitor - the edges were sharp and text far away was readable. I have eyeglasses that are 130mm wide and they fit inside the Reverb (carefully) until I can get the inserts from vroptician (widmovr was sold out). I am adding KlearKare lens protectors as well so that when I have friends with glasses try the Reverb, I don't have to worry. I set the SteamVR Supersampling at 2160x2116 (also tried a little more - no apparent change).

    Now for the real issue at hand. There was a lot of discussion about both physical sweet spot (how do I fit it on my head to see clearly - I have 64.5mm IPD fortunately) and then the gaze sweet spot (how clear is the display as I look to the edge of the field of view). For me, the physical sweet spot for seated VR is fine - I do have to push it around a little but maybe a little less than for the Odyssey+. The gaze sweet spot is the critical issue - how much can I see clearly so I can really read it before I have to move my whole head and re-center. My informal testing of both WWII fighters (IL-2), modern fighters (F18 - DCS and P3D) and Q400 (Aerofly FS2) airliners is the following - I get approximately 50% of total field of view away from center that is remarkably clear - crisp numbers and text in general. If the gauges outside of that are needle pointers or caution lights, I can grasp what they are indicating ( as clear as the Odyssey+ straight on was ) without changing my head position - otherwise I do move my head. As one who has worn their eyeglasses since sixth grade, I naturally move my head to center my foveal vision (about +- 5 degrees) anyway so I can carefully discern the gauge value. The center scan for most aircraft (speed, altitude, vertical velocity, heading, and possible moving map ) is all clear without moving my head! I built flight sims for big companies in my career and I know what the EFIS displays look like - just like this. For the Q400 at the left seat eyepoint, I was impressed that I could even read the right seat PFD speed and altitude numbers. The EICAS in the center, the comm panels, and even the CDU flight management display is easily read WITHOUT leaning in.

    Are there some cons - from the cockpit view arena only? A couple: the daytime scenes are a little less vibrant but probably more like real life - but the edge clarity of terrain and mountain textures, buildings, and static planes on the ground is much better. Other AI / MP traffic is clear - formation flight is better. Night-time is more gray pixels due to the LCD displays which make the ground and parts of the cockpit look washed out - but some scenery areas like Innsbruck in FS2 look very real - the building textures and lights are just so clear. The performance as compared to the same SteamVR pixel dimensions (for Odyssey+ versus the Reverb ) seem about the same (maybe 10% less) - I am testing that right now using IL-2 chiliwili69 benchmarks. Obviously, a RTX2080ti would help - but $$$. There is some minor SDE in the clear blue sky. Not sure about the need for AA yet - the clarity shows the edges.

    There are other pros and cons covered in a lot of other reviews (FOV, comfort, pupil swim (I don't notice it the cockpit), godrays,etc.) - but I am just very impressed with the clarity which was such a drag to explain to my flight sim friends who stuck to their monitors. This is really a great step forward for VR.


    chiliwili69s report:

    https://forum.il2sturmovik.com…hrough-the-lens-pictures/

    I still enjoy the ORBX Monterrey DLC the most in VR. So realistic as an airport and great nearby scenery including SFO. VR performance is great with the Q400. Wish i could add some other aircraft for “life”

    I wonder if it would be possible for some talented 3D modeler to build a prototype detailed cloud model that has super highres, photorealistic textures like we are used to seeing in other sims. If we could then control it's orientation, size, and lonlat position with altitude in a TSC file , we could make a sample. beautiful cloud system just for test purposes over our own select airport area - like some thunderstorm buildups over Dallas for example. Perhaps this is not possible because it needs to have special geometry features not available in a static model without a shader script.

    ZoSoChile

    +1

    The older rendering engines of Prepar3D (FSX/ESP ) and DCS just need a serious code review so as to speed up the rendering by at least a factor of 2. But don't hold your breath - they are committed to legacy code that someone else wrote a long time ago. I have noticed that Combat Air Patrol 2 ( still under development Mission-wise ) has great framerates like FS2 - it can be done.

    OK, y'all

    Here is my personal clarity test for AFS2. I like to use the Q400 at Monterrey 10R (not important for the clarity test but a great test for smoothness and minimal artifacts for very ( 200ft AGL) low passes by the runways and looking out the side window at airport buildings and aircraft ).

    The clarity test is to first look straight down and see just the front half of the seat (right over the notch ) to make sure you are at the pilot's eyepoint. It might seem a little close but look at the eyepoint locator on the center window frame. Check your PFD to see that the "zeroes" look "comfortably clear", and the larger font numbers on the center EICAS are "fuzzy, but readable" and then select the PERF page on the CDU and you should be just able to read your weight (e.g. 24821 ) which I can read "comfortably clear" (without leaning in ) if I push my Odyssey+ onto my face (when I look down it tends to pull away a little ). I up the RenderScaleFactor until I get these clarity results but then when I fly low passes back and forth over the Monterrey RWY 10, I can look sideways at the airport buildings and they don't stutter (this is with reprojection=motionvector ) - if they do, reduce RSF (I run at 1.3 to 1.5 )and maybe some other graphic settings (shadows??? - mine are set at "high"). When you get clarity and sidewindow smoothness, I am just really pleased. AFS2 is the only flight sim where that is easy to achieve due to it's impressive performance (>400fps in HD single monitor mode, not VR, at same condition - at the numbers for 10R )

    After you have done those adjustments, try the King Air C90 - those EFIS instruments should really be clear! I wish all the other glass cockpits were so readable.


    If others have their own clarity test, please post them. I realize there is an element of subjectiveness and Spit40's ideas are good. I have to allow for not having the same pixelized edge as a real monitor, but the readability of "comfortably clear" is a generally common notion. I used to have to guess a lot and lean a lot but the recent improvements have given me hope that even our "gen1.5" HMD's can be very useful. I do want more clarity but the other elements (comfort, price, reliabilty, vibrancy, tracking, etc... ) are also important. My system is a 5Ghz 9700K with an RTX2070.

    Spit40 ,

    That isn't the latest default.vrsettings - the start of mine looks like:

    {

    "driver_Holographic" : {

    },

    "driver_Holographic_Experimental" : {

    // Motion reprojection doubles framerate through motion vector extrapolation

    // motionvector = force application to always run at half framerate with motion vector reprojection

    // auto = automatically use motion reprojection when the application can not maintain native framerate

    // "motionReprojectionMode" : "auto",

    "motionReprojectionMode" : "motionvector",


    // Automatic motion reprojection indicator to display the mode currently selected


    My SteamVR (beta) is 1.6.9 and I am running Win 10 1903 with several KB fixes including KB4505903 and KB4507453 (this latter one is the most important) and as I said, I run with 160% SteamVR SS and 1.3 to 1.5 RSF inside Aerofly FS2.

    Don't forget that this newest *yesterday, July 25 ) version of SteamVR for WMR updated the default.vrsettings file so as to remove the reference to RenderTargetScale - and therefore turned off reprojection. We need to edit the file again.

    I am running the SteamVR SS at 160% with reprojection=motionvector and it seems pretty clear and side-window smooth on my Odyssey+ (9700K@5Ghz + RTX2070 ). Most instrument panels don't require leaning in anymore.

    I have to say that I am very impressed now with the Odyssey+ clarity. It has come a long ways from release back at Thanksgiving. I still want a working Reverb for my flight sims but the O+ blur is almost gone. This shows that the raw video content that we feed to the HMD needs to be inspected somehow - the "monitor" window doesn't cut it. Also, the fact that this video image is much clearer now points out just how important the image processing software that provides SuperSampling, antialiasing, anisotropic filtering, sharpening, FOV distortion, etc is to the final result. We were adjusting this and that and coming to the conclusion that we needed to return the HMD. I'm glad I hung in there eight months - had to do a lot on leaning in to get by.

    Rich ,

    I agree that the SS percent values are really confusing in that the final pixel values are what we really want to know - however, with the sliding scale SteamVR printouts, that doesn't include what can be set with Render Scale Factor inside of Aerofly FS2. With my early Oculus use, I was able to run the Oculus Debug Tool HUD which provided a final value of the pixel dimensions of the render buffer and other performance graphs while actually flying since it was a transparent overlay on the app. I would like it if fpsVR did that but I don't think it adds up all the factors - both Steam VR Video and Application plus the in-game scale factor.

    What I was trying to show was an example of starting up several times (both the app AND SteamVR must be restarted ) and trying to find the fps breaking point for a given VR app, like Aerofly FS2, the 90fps point and maybe the 60fps point for use with reprojection. I also wanted to pick a repeatable view with an instrument panel and scenery. Then finally to pick a noticeable but difficult clarity measuring point - would be different with each aircraft - but for the Q400, it is now something on the CDU for me (without leaning in ). Obviously, it is still subjective but at least it is obvious to me that the recent KB fix has made some real improvements for the Odyssey+ . For each WMR HMD, the results will be different and with each PC CPU / GPU combination!


    Dave


    Ken - it's hard to really tell, but I do see a difference from 1.1 to 1.5 RSF but whether it's necessary is left up to the user.

    Just for comparison sake, I measured frame rates to find what combinations of SS and RenderScaleFactor (after the 1903 update + blurriness fix) I could use with AFS2 at Orbx Monterrey with the Q400 - again I have a 5ghz 9700K and an RTX 2070 and my Odyssey+. I am sitting at the numbers with 10R and the default eye position (hit the space bar) which shows the left hand instrument panel. SS is set with SteamVR Video tab and Application tab= 100%


    max for 90 fps--------------max for 60 fps (expecting to use reprojection)

    ===============================

    SS---------RSF--------------------SS------RSF

    150%-----1.3-------------------150%---1.65

    200%-----1.1-------------------200%---1.50


    Personally, I would rather operate at 90fps because reprojection seems jumpy right now. My clarity test is to read my weight on the Perf page of the CDU without leaning in. Shadows are High, Building and Tree density at medium - rest at Ultra - and I am using Vulcan, HQAA off. The improvement of clarity with the scenery is impressive as well as with the instrument panel.

    I was on Windows 10 Version 1809 waiting for the clarity fix that came out yesterday. My update to 1903 surprised me initially by apparently wiping out all my Desktop icons and Documents folders. I couldn't get the WMR portal to start either so I decided to uninstall it. After rebooting my PC, everything (Desktop and Documents ) came back as before and the WMR Portal started installing itself and it remembered my boundaries. I then checked for updates and finally KB4507453 wanted to install. I checked out IL-2, P3D, and Aerofly FS2 which all seemed remarkably clearer ( the "0" zeroes seem really easy to read ) but the reprojection:motionvector seems somewhat an FPS killer but with reduced artifacting (maybe) - better with it off though. I will need to spend some time trying various combinations of SS (I use 180% and 1.25 in-game )and repro options as well as in-game graphics options. For an Odyssey+ user, the clarity seems remarkable ( Aerofly FS2 at Innsbruck especially seems much better ) - and it must be stunning with a Reverb. I do notice especially now the sweet spot effect of the Odyssey+ (I have the widmovr lenses instead of glasses ) so that I can aim the center of my VR vision at the FMS CDU and read it well without leaning but not unless it is in the center of my view. The scenery in the distance is also clearer which helps immersion.