VR vs. Ultrawide

[Tberg]

Hi guys,

So, any of you have gone from VR back to single monitor, maybe UW?

I've been blissfully driving AC1 in VR for 3 years, and obviously ACC is a little tough on an older system like my 1080ti/4690K.
Very much enjoying new life in AC with Sol and recent updates, mods etc, while also there's always a race to find, SRS still running strong, RD racing is fun and so on.
But, I had to try ACC with 1.2, and I really want to drive it, but regardless of settings, it's just not there in VR @45fps. And that's just hotlapping.
I've watched a few YT videos on people who prefer monitor over VR, but I haven't found any specific on VR-simmers converting back to singlemonitor. Obviously, these days the ultrawide is the new black, and it's tempting to get the ACC experience in full.

Anybody made the switch back? Thoughts?

Cheers

 

[eracerhead]

If you're using the recent official drivers for Oculus, they murder performance in ACC. current wisdom is to either sign up for the Oculus beta test branch, or backdate your drivers prior to 12.0:

https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?threads/issues-in-vr-with-latest-oculus-rift-firmware-update-read-inside-for-workaround.61524/

Also, dropping your resolution scale to 75% and upping your pixel density to 150% makes a big difference in clarity.

 

[bondyboy]

If you're using the recent official drivers for Oculus, they murder performance in ACC. current wisdom is to either sign up for the Oculus beta test branch, or backdate your drivers prior to 12.0:

https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?threads/issues-in-vr-with-latest-oculus-rift-firmware-update-read-inside-for-workaround.61524/

Also, dropping your resolution scale to 75% and upping your pixel density to 150% makes a big difference in clarity.

Yup with the new version of Oculus it was barely able to run 45fps, would see 20 or 30 fps sometimes.

Rolled back to the old version and have done all the ini tweaks in addition to tweaking RS, PD and Oculus SS for days, but only able to hotlap at 90 with pretty poor image quality

 

[jayk]

Ah ok, yes my firmware will be the latest. I'll give that a try now once my new rig is back together. What other tweeks are there, seem so many that coming in cold its hard to follow.

 

[Navoan]

Hi guys,

Do some of you have experience with the Steam valve?
From the few videos i watched about it , it seems like you won't get nausea, because the resolution is higher and the refresh rate is good as well.
Can anyone conform or deny this?

Also can my setup run the Steam Valve Index in ACC?
i7-4770k 3,8 ghz
16gb ram
rtx 2080

Worried that my old and bit "rubbish" cpu can't coupe with it.. I cannot OC it anymore i'm afraid or the system gets unstable.

 

[Kek700]

ACC was a no go for me even on triple monitors,
Then went 1440p UW , no real improvement in performance, but had g-sync ( assuming AMD free sync is the same ) made a massive difference to the using it with ACC.
Why is there no such equivalent in VR. ?
Dropping from 90 to 45 just seems ridiculous,
Is it that we become nauseous with small
changes in frame rate.
Just bought a rift, yet to try it, will be interesting to see what I think, struggling to tear myself away from a monitor.

 

[ThugUK]

Just bought a rift, yet to try it, will be interesting to see what I think, struggling to tear myself away from a monitor.

If you don't want to ruin how it feels on the monitor then don't try it in VR.
Once tried its not easy to go back for most people.

 

[Navoan]

Just bought a rift, yet to try it, will be interesting to see what I think, struggling to tear myself away from a monitor.

let me know how it works in acc! Also, what is your pc specs?

I’m currently trying to find out if I should change to UW 32-51inch 1080p or 3x screens in 1080p both of them to get 120hz. Or just get the valve index.. it’s a jungle for me pick the “correct” option because acc is so heavy for pcs and my cpu is a bit old and might be bottleneck

 

[Kek700]

I had 3x27” 144 Hz ( 1080p ) monitors with i5 6600k clocked to 4.6Ghz and a gtx 980ti
It was capable in AC of running at 144hz. ACC not so happy unfortunately.
( probably 60 to 90Hz )
Then I got a ultra wide 3440 x 1440 35” monitor 120 Hz that did not fair any better in ACC. But it was g-sync and to my surprise ran ACC with no problems especially
when I bought a gtx 1080 hybrid to aid it. ( brilliant GPU card )
Just in case you ask, loved the triples, got rid of them due to my lack of room at home, so got UW.
Missed them so much bought 3x24” ( 1080p ) curved 144hz narrow bezel free sync monitors, loved them even more.
But got fed up with the size and agro they created, sold them and went back to my easy to use 21: 9 UW.
Now have i5 9600k clocked to 5 GHz and a Rtx.2080 plus some fast ram.
Next mission is rift....
Probably did not want my life story but......

 

[DrRob]

If you don't want to ruin how it feels on the monitor then don't try it in VR.
Once tried its not easy to go back for most people.

Hmm, I beg to differ. I was mainly put off by the lack of resolution to be honest. Coming from modern high-res, low pitch displays it felt tooo washy for me. And I am comparing it to my 1080p 49" 32:9 Samsung, which is known for its low dpi. Apart from my motion sickness tendecy It reminded my of the good old i386 days tbh.

Plus if you want to have decent framerates (60+), where motion sickness becomes less of a problem you have to have a really beefy computer. Not interested in upgrading to a 2080Ti SLI computer, which would certainly be needed for ACC to run high/epic with 60+ frames. For me the compomise was either triples or an ultrawide with head tracking. I even ditched the head tracking, because I feel the FOV is enough with the 32:9.

But looking to the future.... VR could be THE thing though. But as is? Meh.

 

[o Tiger Feet o]

Im lucky enough to have owned a few different headsets and monitors, clocking up 1000 hours of gaming in VR.

With ACC ive used:

Samsung Odyssey +
Pimax 5K+
Valve Index
49" Samsung Ultrawide 5120x1440
HP Reverb

I owned the Odyssey and the Pimax at the same time. I always used the Odyssey.

I then owned the Index, Ultrawide and HP Reverb at the same time. I really like the Index, but I wanted more. ..better graphics. I then got the Ultrawide and that was my main method of playing ACC for a while. I preferred the monitor over the Index.

I then got the Reverb. That is all I use now. The extra resolution on the Reverb is a game changer in ACC. The difference between the Reverb and all the other VR headsets Ive mentioned is huge. In other sims its a 'nice' improvement but in ACC its a game changer for sure, its amazing

Side note: I happy to play at 45fps reprojected with settings cranked up on a 1080Ti.

 

[ThugUK]

Hmm, I beg to differ. I was mainly put off by the lack of resolution to be honest. Coming from modern high-res, low pitch displays it felt tooo washy for me. And I am comparing it to my 1080p 49" 32:9 Samsung, which is known for its low dpi. Apart from my motion sickness tendecy It reminded my of the good old i386 days tbh.

Plus if you want to have decent framerates (60+), where motion sickness becomes less of a problem you have to have a really beefy computer. Not interested in upgrading to a 2080Ti SLI computer, which would certainly be needed for ACC to run high/epic with 60+ frames. For me the compomise was either triples or an ultrawide with head tracking. I even ditched the head tracking, because I feel the FOV is enough with the 32:9.

But looking to the future.... VR could be THE thing though. But as is? Meh.

That's why I wrote 'for most people'.
I do appreciate that its not for everyone.

I have a 43" 1200p ultra wide and still prefer my lowly Rift CV1.
VR and motion is a match made in heaven (for me).

 

[DrRob]

@ThugUK: I just wanted to show another side of the coin.
Nice setup you have there! I think I would actually need motion in conjunction with VR to not get nauseous. Maybe I can add both to my setup in the future. Will defo not loose touch with developments in the VR market.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

But looking to the future.... VR could be THE thing though. But as is? Meh.

For ACC, agree.

 

[david92tm]

why no both

 

[Ryan Sylvester]

I have the HP reverb, however I cant get the clarity and after a while my eyes feel strained. not to mention that it makes me hot! (I don't think its to do with the headset as much as it is just me not liking things on my face!).

I've brought the Samsung 49" UW display and whilst the immersion will never be the same as VR it has been both clearer and cooler for me so I feel it is a better option for me overall.

 

[Nicoboks]

hello,

What graphic card do you advise for ACC 32/9 1440 P / processor would be amd 7/9 or i 7
want to be confortable with 100 fps in relative high settings.

 

[DrRob]

Processor power is mainly needed for running AI drivers. For MP only you could get away with even a 4 core i5 processor IMO. If you want to drive SP with 49 AI on SPA, you should go i7 8 core processor.

On all epic settings the "standard" 32:9 Samsung (4K) with 1080 vertical in conjunction with i7 and GTX2070 will display some 60-70fps. At least that is it for my brothers setup. With drastically raised pixel count with the 1440p (7K) you'd need to either need the higher end card or sacrifice some eye candy.
So, 100FPS with high-to epic settings.....go figure...

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Processor power is mainly needed for running AI drivers. For MP only you could get away with even a 4 core i5 processor IMO. If you want to drive SP with 49 AI on SPA, you should go i7 8 core processor.

Is this accurate, just wondering as in older AC CPU bottlenecks on single rendering thread, not physics calculation, adding more opponents (AI or humans, doesn't matter) increases the load due to more objects to render, not physics. VR in particular is a problem due to constraint of 11.1 ms frametime and two screens to render.
Is ACC different in that regard, as is rendering multi threaded?
Does MP perform better than SP with the same number of opponents, conditions?

 

[Ami_M3]

Processor power is mainly needed for running AI drivers. For MP only you could get away with even a 4 core i5 processor IMO. If you want to drive SP with 49 AI on SPA, you should go i7 8 core processor.

On all epic settings the "standard" 32:9 Samsung (4K) with 1080 vertical in conjunction with i7 and GTX2070 will display some 60-70fps. At least that is it for my brothers setup. With drastically raised pixel count with the 1440p (7K) you'd need to either need the higher end card or sacrifice some eye candy.
So, 100FPS with high-to epic settings.....go figure...

Just so there is no confusion, 32:9 monitor with 1080 vertical (3840x1080) is not even close to 4K resolution. In fact, 32:9 1440p (5210x1440p) is still less than full 4K
4K is 4096x2160 - needs some power to run epic settings

 

[DrRob]

Is this accurate, just wondering as in older AC CPU bottlenecks on single rendering thread, not physics calculation, adding more opponents (AI or humans, doesn't matter) increases the load due to more objects to render, not physics. VR in particular is a problem due to constraint of 11.1 ms frametime and two screens to render.
Is ACC different in that regard, as is rendering multi threaded?
Does MP perform better than SP with the same number of opponents, conditions?

ACC runs real physics for each AI car as it does for the player car, hence the CPU load. At least that is what I undestood. I am by no means an expert on this, please bear with me.
Maybe somebody else can jump in and make a more elaborate statement.

What I can tell you is, that by jumping from a i5-6600K to a i7-9700K with same GTX1070 and 16GB Ram I could up the number of AI cars considerably. Approx. 25 AI vs. 45 AI with the same frame rate on SPA.
6 cores or better 8 cores are recommended for the full field AI races. This is also refelcted in the recommended system specs (6 cores). There was a statement on this by the devs somewhere. I understood that it is less effective to blow up GHz on just 4 cores than to increase the number of cores. So yes, I would expect older CPUs to be a bottleneck, even if they were high spec in their days.

I have played only a few MP races, so I cannot comment really. But I would expect much less CPU load from the physics department than in AI races. Anybody?

Just so there is no confusion, 32:9 monitor with 1080 vertical (3840x1080) is not even close to 4K resolution. In fact, 32:9 1440p (5210x1440p) is still less than full 4K
4K is 4096x2160 - needs some power to run epic settings

Sorry for the confusion, I did not mean 4K as in HD4K, but the total amount of pixels. With 3840x1080 you push out 4 Million pixels (4K), with 5210x1440 you push out 7.5 Million pixels, almost double!
For the GPU it does not make a difference if the 4K is HD4K or 1080p Ultrawide. The load on the GPU is the same. The amount of pixels is the key. And with the newer Ultrawide from Samsung I would have needed a muich more powerful GPU than for the standard 1080p one. Same goes for triples, right?