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

 

[Ami_M3]

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?

I blame screen manufacturers for the mess they created, people are so confused. As you rightly noticed the amount of pictures is the factor here, and it would be better if instead of 1080p, 1440p and 4k they listed the resolution by Megapixels - just as they do with digital cameras for instance. So FHD 1080p would be approximately 2Mpx, 1440p would be about 3.7MP, etc.
Everybody knows what 10MP means, however very few know what 4K really is (4K is 2x2 1080p monitors stacked, BTW)

However for the GPU it makes the whole world of difference whether it has to process 4K or 1080P Ultrawide.
4K is about 8.3 Megapixels
1080p 32:9 Ultrawide is 3840 x 1080 = 4.1 MP (not 4K)
1440p 32:9 Ultrawide is 5120 x 1440 = 7.4MP (not 7K) - close to 4K

You could say for GPU there is not that much difference between 32:9 1440p (not 1080P) Ultrawide and 4K

It's a mess.

 

[DrRob]

@Ami_M3 you cought me there! Made a mistake. Mea culpa. Thanks for correcting.
The main theme remains though: You have to be aware of the amount of pixels the hardware has to push out. It's easy to overlook this...and yes...it's a mess.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

ACC runs real physics for each AI car as it does for the player car, hence the CPU load.

This is what AC does as well. Physics calculation was was never a huge CPU load contributor in AC, not as much as opponent cars rendering.
FpsVR lets you see how much of frametime is spent in GPU and CPU.
When adding more cars CPU starts taking bigger portion of frametime until it can't keep up with FPS target.
I believe ACC is still single threaded rendering, but accordingly to Stefano AI physics got managed by multiple cores.

Test: CPU Core count and RAM scaling in ACC, AC1 and R3E

Hello guys Couldn't find decent data so I did these tests myself during the holidays. Max settings @ 720P (Max distances, Max shadows, Max mirrors etc) to push for the max cpu drawcalls. Heavy duty multiplayer race replays were used, with 20~30 cars. 1 entire lap per test. With the camera set...

www.racedepartment.com

 

[Robin Cook]

I have both ultrawide and a VR headset, albeit a low end Lenovo Explorer. I never really got on with VR, at least not so far. It makes me feel a bit nauseous and I don't like the messing about to get the thing working. I just want to hop in and go. So I went for a 49" super ultrawide. With that I get great immersion and I can be up and running instantly (particularly given how quickly ACC starts up). So personally I prefer it. I haven't yet ruled out VR, and when I upgrade my PC in a couple of years time, I might look at it again, but right now I'm very happy with my massive monitor.

Just gone down the 49" uws curved route.
Tried vr but glasses made it uncomfortable.
Massive improvement over my old monitor.

Used to have a 3 screen setup back in 2012 but sold up when I moved back to the mainland as tools took priority.
Feels more immersive than triple screen did.

 

[After_Midnight]

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.

I wouldn't suggest any 4 core Cpu when its comes to ACC. Even for MP only you'll run into heavily issues with 4 cores / 4 threads only.

This is what AC does as well. Physics calculation was was never a huge CPU load contributor in AC, not as much as opponent cars rendering.
FpsVR lets you see how much of frametime is spent in GPU and CPU.
When adding more cars CPU starts taking bigger portion of frametime until it can't keep up with FPS target.
I believe ACC is still single threaded rendering, but accordingly to Stefano AI physics got managed by multiple cores.

Test: CPU Core count and RAM scaling in ACC, AC1 and R3E

Hello guys Couldn't find decent data so I did these tests myself during the holidays. Max settings @ 720P (Max distances, Max shadows, Max mirrors etc) to push for the max cpu drawcalls. Heavy duty multiplayer race replays were used, with 20~30 cars. 1 entire lap per test. With the camera set...

www.racedepartment.com

The linked tests are meaningless. The tests are done in replays so the physics are not calculated at all.
Source:

Test: CPU Core count and RAM scaling in ACC, AC1 and R3E

Hello guys Couldn't find decent data so I did these tests myself during the holidays. Max settings @ 720P (Max distances, Max shadows, Max mirrors...

www.assettocorsa.net

 

[Deleted member 197115]

The link was to Stefano's post regarding multicore use for AI physics calculation.

 

[After_Midnight]

The link was to Stefano's post regarding multicore use for AI physics calculation.

"In case of AC/ACC then it's not really very representative of the actual online playing."
Maybe I got the post wrong but @kunos was talking about ALL physic threads and so the tests are not even useful for the MP (without AI ).

I believe ACC is still single threaded rendering, but accordingly to Stefano AI physics got managed by multiple cores.

It doesn't matter what you're believing in.
And it's up to you to proof your claim. Everythings else is just senseless.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Once more, the link was specifically to Stefano's post, has nothing to do with the actual test in the thread that only tested rendering pipeline.
If you have information on rendering threads count, please share with the rest, based on my and others tests it seems to be single threaded still.
To recap:
- AI Physics calculation - multithreaded (confirmed by Stefano)
- Rendering - based on tests, presumably single threaded, need confirmation from Kunos.

 

[After_Midnight]

Maybe I just don't get your point
The tests are supposed to simulate multiplayer racing. But using the replay for testing don't include any physic calculations at all. Not for the player car, not for the cars of the opponents in MP. Because not only the physic of AI's needs to be calculated ingame, also all the cars in multiplayer are using the same physics as the player car do and have to be calculated also.
So the difference between SP and MP is not that much different.

ACC is heavy on both, rendering and physic calculation.
- i5-4670K@4.1GHz stuttering all over the place in SP and MP
- i7-4790K@4.4GHz much better than before but still CPU bottlenecked
-i9-9900K no problems anymore, now I'm GPU bottlenecked

I've done also HTT on/off test with the i7:

https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?threads/huge-fps-drops-and-cpu-usage-warning.55972/#post-1046379

 

[Deleted member 197115]

I think we are talking the same thing.
It's rendering of opponent cars, AI or MP doesn't matter, that kills performance as other players physics is calculated on their respespective systems, you only receive rendering.

 

[After_Midnight]

...as other players physics is calculated on their respespective systems, you only receive rendering.

That's the point where I tend to disagree. AFAIK every client have to calculate other players physics as well.
I might be wrong here but I think I've read a statement of @kunos about it.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

That's the point where I tend to disagree. AFAIK every client have to calculate other players physics as well.
I might be wrong here but I think I've read a statement of @kunos about it.

Do you have link to this, really interested to learn how it works as to my understanding physics calculation should be on the same system where interaction with that physical model via user input takes place.

 

[After_Midnight]

Do you have link to this, really interested to learn how it works as to my understanding physics calculation should be on the same system where interaction with that physical model via user input takes place.

I already tried to find anything about it. But without any success
So I asked in the off. forum for it

Assetto Corsa Competizione - 2020 Generic discussion

Crash gt3 free practice & Qualifying 2 ;) free practice : Bentley Continental & Ferrari 488 GT3 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=226346661698855...

www.assettocorsa.net

 

[Kurvz]

I personally do not think that the GPU headwear is fully up to the job on ACC, I have a RTX 2080 it over clocks like a possessed demon, but still not enough power for ACC, my friend has a RTX2080TI and still underpowered, when I can drive with fast clean, clear, and smooth graphics on VR im 100% in.

Meanwhile, I will tinker with VR in AC PC2 and RRE at least they can run to an acceptable level, and when all is good there will be no really reason to use a monitor(s) as VR is amazing just not ready yet, and I do not want to compromise so much to race