That worried me a bit at first, but don't be concerned. The 1280x720 is just the desktop mirror, the HMD output will always use the native resolution.
When inside Elite's settings, the UI should say something about desktop resolution not applying to the HMD.
Elite: Dangerous
-
Narf the Mouse
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:32 pm
Re: Elite: Dangerous
Googling says ED's supersampling is pretty poor:Interkarma wrote:That worried me a bit at first, but don't be concerned. The 1280x720 is just the desktop mirror, the HMD output will always use the native resolution.
When inside Elite's settings, the UI should say something about desktop resolution not applying to the HMD.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/ ... _settings/
Suggestion seems to be set ED's supersampling to minimal (0.65), and compensate/go over with SteamVR's supersampling (minimum 1.6).
Gonna try that.
Previous experience tells me it's very easy to misunderstand the tone, intent, or meaning of what I've posted. If you have questions, ask.
-
Interkarma
- Posts: 7242
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:51 am
Re: Elite: Dangerous
Yeah, I just use SteamVR's supersample - don't use ED's at all. Sorry should have clarified that.
-
Narf the Mouse
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:32 pm
Re: Elite: Dangerous
There is some difference in text between 1.0 and 1.5, but it's still hard to read.
Anyway, *distracted by kitty*
Anyway, *distracted by kitty*
Previous experience tells me it's very easy to misunderstand the tone, intent, or meaning of what I've posted. If you have questions, ask.
-
Narf the Mouse
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:32 pm
Re: Elite: Dangerous
Giving some more thought to this than "I hope CV2 is better and cheaper"...
Currently, *1070+ is minimum to run most games at close to full settings, at full resolution, at 90 FPS.
If we get the usual (conservative) 30-40% generational improvement with GTX 20X0/**VEGA, then:
We could get an average of 16% more width and depth in CV2, for the same settings and same FPS.
We could get an average of 35% ***"better graphics settings", for the same resolution and FPS.
We could get most games up to 90 FPS.
More realistically, more games will get some of each, and a GTX 2060 will probably be generally-equivalent to a GTX 1070 for the same or today-equivalent titles. Lower the barrier of entry, so to speak.
The generation after GTX 20X0 (30X0?) is where it starts getting really interesting. Even with a minimal increase each generation (unlikely; multi-chip GPUs alone seem like a major increase), that's a minimum of 69% better, and a ^conservative max of 2x.
Using 10X0/CV1 as a baseline, that gets us:
An average of 35% more width and depth in ^^CV3, for the same settings and FPS.
An average of 84.5% ^^^"better graphics settings", for the same resolution and FPS.
Almost all games up to 90 FPS.
Probably some split between "more pixels" and "more FPS", with a bit of >extra detail. At this point, a GTX 3050 is probably somewhere between a GTX 1070 and a GTX 1080, and a GTX 3060 is probably, as may be guessed
equivalent to a GTX 2070. At this point, VR games will start to really take off, I think. A bit better resolution will help, but most people being able to hit the nausea-(reducting/eliminating) 90 FPS with their rig will help move VR out of the "enthusiast space" and into the "general gamer space", AKA >>"casual gamers".
By GTX 40X0, with a minimum of +120% and a max of +174% (conservative), VR will be becoming widespread.
Either that or it's Christmas time at ground zero.
* I have a GTX 960 4GB...
** VEGA high-end seems to be between 1080/1080 TI, but no real info at this point. RX 480/580 are slightly better than the 1060, mostly because of 4/3 more RAM, AFAIK.
*** Honestly, I see games topping out in graphics settings at this point; we've pretty much hit photorealistic, and the remaining is filling in holes and extending the pavement, more or less.
^ The sum of the square of the hippopotamus...
^^ Which is even more speculative than CV2.
^^^ At this point, "ultra settings" may equal "more grass way off in the distance." Elder Scrolls VI, whatever it may be, may be entirely delighted. Unless it's in Elsweyr, in which case grass may be scarce. Distant dust/sand?
> Except for things like FPS's and boxing simulators, where there really isn't much to add other than things like sweat droplets and such.
>> Who are, ironically, by far the largest category.
Currently, *1070+ is minimum to run most games at close to full settings, at full resolution, at 90 FPS.
If we get the usual (conservative) 30-40% generational improvement with GTX 20X0/**VEGA, then:
We could get an average of 16% more width and depth in CV2, for the same settings and same FPS.
We could get an average of 35% ***"better graphics settings", for the same resolution and FPS.
We could get most games up to 90 FPS.
More realistically, more games will get some of each, and a GTX 2060 will probably be generally-equivalent to a GTX 1070 for the same or today-equivalent titles. Lower the barrier of entry, so to speak.
The generation after GTX 20X0 (30X0?) is where it starts getting really interesting. Even with a minimal increase each generation (unlikely; multi-chip GPUs alone seem like a major increase), that's a minimum of 69% better, and a ^conservative max of 2x.
Using 10X0/CV1 as a baseline, that gets us:
An average of 35% more width and depth in ^^CV3, for the same settings and FPS.
An average of 84.5% ^^^"better graphics settings", for the same resolution and FPS.
Almost all games up to 90 FPS.
Probably some split between "more pixels" and "more FPS", with a bit of >extra detail. At this point, a GTX 3050 is probably somewhere between a GTX 1070 and a GTX 1080, and a GTX 3060 is probably, as may be guessed
equivalent to a GTX 2070. At this point, VR games will start to really take off, I think. A bit better resolution will help, but most people being able to hit the nausea-(reducting/eliminating) 90 FPS with their rig will help move VR out of the "enthusiast space" and into the "general gamer space", AKA >>"casual gamers".By GTX 40X0, with a minimum of +120% and a max of +174% (conservative), VR will be becoming widespread.
Either that or it's Christmas time at ground zero.
* I have a GTX 960 4GB...
** VEGA high-end seems to be between 1080/1080 TI, but no real info at this point. RX 480/580 are slightly better than the 1060, mostly because of 4/3 more RAM, AFAIK.
*** Honestly, I see games topping out in graphics settings at this point; we've pretty much hit photorealistic, and the remaining is filling in holes and extending the pavement, more or less.
^ The sum of the square of the hippopotamus...
^^ Which is even more speculative than CV2.
^^^ At this point, "ultra settings" may equal "more grass way off in the distance." Elder Scrolls VI, whatever it may be, may be entirely delighted. Unless it's in Elsweyr, in which case grass may be scarce. Distant dust/sand?
> Except for things like FPS's and boxing simulators, where there really isn't much to add other than things like sweat droplets and such.
>> Who are, ironically, by far the largest category.
Previous experience tells me it's very easy to misunderstand the tone, intent, or meaning of what I've posted. If you have questions, ask.
-
Narf the Mouse
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:32 pm
Re: Elite: Dangerous
According to *3DMark, my GTX 960 4GB is "Better than 16% of all results."
...Well, that's gone down quite a bit since I bought it. Granted, most people who run (or know about) 3DMark are probably enthusiasts, but still...
Will edit with PCMark results shortly. Took longer than I expected, but I got rather good results given my **GPU, and 73.4% of the top scorer, who has a GTX 1080 TI.
Will edit with VRMark results shortly sometime. "Better than 15% of all results. You should have a good experience with the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift. The system outperformed the Oculus Rift minimum spec, but it fell short of the target frame rate. A VR headset will compensate for missed frames but you should try before you buy since the results can vary. "
Could be I'm just prone to VR nausea. Which I strongly suspect, and is disappointing if true.
And one last note, I think: If anyone's wondering if turning off background processes makes a difference:
Cinebench OpenGL (Processes off): 133.59 FPS
Cinebench CPU (Processes off): 1002 Score
After reboot:
Cinebench OpenGL (Processes on): 142.21 FPS
Cinebench CPU (Processes on): 972
tl;dr - A little better CPU score is expected. But...Lower FPS? wut? I guess Geforce/Logitech/etc stuff actually helps?
* Run with task bar empty and explorer task-killed.
** GPUs do indeed affect app execution speed.
...Well, that's gone down quite a bit since I bought it. Granted, most people who run (or know about) 3DMark are probably enthusiasts, but still...
Could be I'm just prone to VR nausea. Which I strongly suspect, and is disappointing if true.
And one last note, I think: If anyone's wondering if turning off background processes makes a difference:
Cinebench OpenGL (Processes off): 133.59 FPS
Cinebench CPU (Processes off): 1002 Score
After reboot:
Cinebench OpenGL (Processes on): 142.21 FPS
Cinebench CPU (Processes on): 972
tl;dr - A little better CPU score is expected. But...Lower FPS? wut? I guess Geforce/Logitech/etc stuff actually helps?
* Run with task bar empty and explorer task-killed.
** GPUs do indeed affect app execution speed.
Previous experience tells me it's very easy to misunderstand the tone, intent, or meaning of what I've posted. If you have questions, ask.
-
Narf the Mouse
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:32 pm
Re: Elite: Dangerous
Played a quick mission today.
Notes:
Turned the quality setting down to "VR Medium".
Turned off interleaved reprojection, on the advice of Google that it induces nausea.
Observations:
Supersampling 1.5 helps with text. Galaxy map is still bad, though. Maybe being able to move the GUI panel would help? I can see how even 25% more pixels (+11.8% horizontal and vertical) would be more helpful than the raw numbers would indicate.
Less nausea this time. May be due to higher FPS; may also be due to turning off interleaved reprojection. May also be getting used to VR.
My previous delivery was data from a system authority in a Federation system to a Federation company in an Independent system. **Hmm...
* I've heard that the CV1 lenses are designed to blur the pixels a bit, to make them less obvious.
** First, you hollow out a shoe out of a block of wood...
Notes:
Turned the quality setting down to "VR Medium".
Turned off interleaved reprojection, on the advice of Google that it induces nausea.
Observations:
Supersampling 1.5 helps with text. Galaxy map is still bad, though. Maybe being able to move the GUI panel would help? I can see how even 25% more pixels (+11.8% horizontal and vertical) would be more helpful than the raw numbers would indicate.
Less nausea this time. May be due to higher FPS; may also be due to turning off interleaved reprojection. May also be getting used to VR.
My previous delivery was data from a system authority in a Federation system to a Federation company in an Independent system. **Hmm...
* I've heard that the CV1 lenses are designed to blur the pixels a bit, to make them less obvious.
** First, you hollow out a shoe out of a block of wood...
Previous experience tells me it's very easy to misunderstand the tone, intent, or meaning of what I've posted. If you have questions, ask.
-
Narf the Mouse
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:32 pm
Re: Elite: Dangerous
Went to Blufort(sp?) Station? in the starting system (LHS 3447) for nostalgia, and got myself an agile little Eagle fighter to learn combat on. Kitted it out somewhat, then flew around some asteroid belts. Found almost nothing to fight, and nothing at my level; and few asteroids. Headed off to Sereborov station to get some better guns, and now I'm really thirsty and a bit nauseous.
Yaay for adjustment.
Edit: Kept my cargo hauler/exploration ship. It's worth 1 MCR, which is cool. Didn't realized I'd broken the 1 mil barier, although probably should have.
Will probably get two front lasers and one top gimbal cannon or missiles, on the advice of Google. Probably missiles at first, to keep things easier.
Yaay for adjustment.
Edit: Kept my cargo hauler/exploration ship. It's worth 1 MCR, which is cool. Didn't realized I'd broken the 1 mil barier, although probably should have.
Will probably get two front lasers and one top gimbal cannon or missiles, on the advice of Google. Probably missiles at first, to keep things easier.
Previous experience tells me it's very easy to misunderstand the tone, intent, or meaning of what I've posted. If you have questions, ask.
-
Narf the Mouse
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:32 pm
Re: Elite: Dangerous
Did not learn combat. Did get blown up several times. Decided to go back to hauling cargo. In the meantime, months of computer trouble.
Did some cargo hauls today, got some money. The commodities market is still not very useful, AFAICT - You'll easily make more money playing missions. Which is sort-of the point, because people are paying you for that specific cargo, rather than whoever. But the tipping point seems too far towards missions. For example, if I hauled 12T of Micro Controllers from McKee Ring, GD 219, which makes them, and sold them in Cleve Hub, Eravate, I'd make about 8,500CR. Or I could do a single cargo mission, which would net me a minimum of about 30,000CR.
And...Not just idle speculation, here. My last mission was sourcing Micro Controllers for a company at Cleve Hub, Eravate, which I purchased from McKee Ring, GD219. I got 128,000CR for 8T for that mission. Then sold the remaining 4T as commodities for about 2,800CR.
Still love playing the game, though. Some good points:
* Visuals. Very pretty.
* I like the free-roaming nature.
* Saw what looked like a Neutron Star or Pulsar. Not sure; the jets coming off it were small. Pretty.
Just wish they'd do more to balance and open it up. There's some key issues, here, that still seem to be present:
* Commodities Market is effectively just a place to source stuff for missions.
* Combat is opaque in both effective play and difficulty. Harmless locations, aren't.
* I have no idea how to really get into the game. I should probably join multi-player and ask for tips, but I don't want to get blown up by trolling players in "PVP almost everywhere."
* Who are these corps? Why are these corps? Which corps are friends/foes/neutral with which corps? When a mission says "more likely to boom in this system", how much effect is my 100,000CR cargo delivery having on a million-credit company on just the local station?
* The galaxy map is a pain to use. I don't know how to fix it, but Stellaris can fit 1,000 stars on the screen without causing GUI issues, and Elite Dangerous has trouble with 20.
The tl;dr is that I feel like I could get as lost in it as I do in Daggerfall. But currently, I'm as lost in it as Daggerfall without map functionality.
Did some cargo hauls today, got some money. The commodities market is still not very useful, AFAICT - You'll easily make more money playing missions. Which is sort-of the point, because people are paying you for that specific cargo, rather than whoever. But the tipping point seems too far towards missions. For example, if I hauled 12T of Micro Controllers from McKee Ring, GD 219, which makes them, and sold them in Cleve Hub, Eravate, I'd make about 8,500CR. Or I could do a single cargo mission, which would net me a minimum of about 30,000CR.
And...Not just idle speculation, here. My last mission was sourcing Micro Controllers for a company at Cleve Hub, Eravate, which I purchased from McKee Ring, GD219. I got 128,000CR for 8T for that mission. Then sold the remaining 4T as commodities for about 2,800CR.
Still love playing the game, though. Some good points:
* Visuals. Very pretty.
* I like the free-roaming nature.
* Saw what looked like a Neutron Star or Pulsar. Not sure; the jets coming off it were small. Pretty.
Just wish they'd do more to balance and open it up. There's some key issues, here, that still seem to be present:
* Commodities Market is effectively just a place to source stuff for missions.
* Combat is opaque in both effective play and difficulty. Harmless locations, aren't.
* I have no idea how to really get into the game. I should probably join multi-player and ask for tips, but I don't want to get blown up by trolling players in "PVP almost everywhere."
* Who are these corps? Why are these corps? Which corps are friends/foes/neutral with which corps? When a mission says "more likely to boom in this system", how much effect is my 100,000CR cargo delivery having on a million-credit company on just the local station?
* The galaxy map is a pain to use. I don't know how to fix it, but Stellaris can fit 1,000 stars on the screen without causing GUI issues, and Elite Dangerous has trouble with 20.
The tl;dr is that I feel like I could get as lost in it as I do in Daggerfall. But currently, I'm as lost in it as Daggerfall without map functionality.
Previous experience tells me it's very easy to misunderstand the tone, intent, or meaning of what I've posted. If you have questions, ask.
-
Narf the Mouse
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:32 pm
Re: Elite: Dangerous
Some wonderful people made a career chart for Elite Dangerous:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous ... eer_chart/
And now I'm not sure what to do, for an entirely different reason.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous ... eer_chart/
And now I'm not sure what to do, for an entirely different reason.
Previous experience tells me it's very easy to misunderstand the tone, intent, or meaning of what I've posted. If you have questions, ask.