has anybody experience with VR goggles ? Does anybody play arma with VR ? (or some other games)
has anybody experience with VR goggles ? Does anybody play arma with VR ? (or some other games)
I do on an HTC Vive. Its very fun but more an experience than actual gaming. My eyes get exhausted quite quickly, so I will never play for more than 90 minutes. Arma itself does not have official support for VR. There is a mod that enables it but I would not recommend it because Arma is not know for its high frame rates and you want for VR a constant 90FPS without any dips.
Thank you Flo.
Roger, its basically still generally better to own screen than VR, as most of the basic games are not VR compatible.
I was checking my games and there is only one actually supporting the VR. So, lets wait for next 2 years
(I ve recently got gtx1080 and some games run 140fps - IL-2 BOS, Rising Storm, CS GO ±300fps…) So it s waste of GPU on my 10yo 60mhz screen) But, yep, the Arma stays between 45-90.
I saw some videos on youtube with UHD 4k monitors and gtx 1080 running smooth stable 50-70 fps, even multiplayer… CPUs around I-7 6700K… but who knows if it can be trusted.
The UHD big screen monitors 34"-45" are pretty interesting, just Im affraid about the FPS, but the 27" started be somehow small and it s possible see the age.
So, simply, the "bottleneck" of VR is that games usually does not support VR and that it s exhausting for eyes. On the other hand VR give you more "Live" feeling like you are there but screen is more like watching something on tv.
I have been looking for better screen solution for some time… so the most upgrading thing looks like the UHD 34" - 45" monitors.
From what I snooped around the VR enthusiasts around me, it will take more years until we have enough power for reliable 80+Hz at 4K or more per eye, in "modern" PC games, so that you can replace a monitor + IR tracking with a VR headset and not get dizzy due to low FPS and resolution.
Until then, your best bet is probably a 1440p display with 144Hz or 160Hz refresh rate, optionally with G-sync/Freesync (however I keep mine off, it has its own problems). Don’t get 4K for gaming just yet, a faster framerate makes for a much better experience than a higher resolution, also recently "proven" by LMG.
Make sure to read exhaustive reviews before you buy - I went with TN instead of IPS (even though I had IPS before) due to much faster response rates, less LCD panel faults and much less backlight bleed, … and also it was half the price and, when color-calibrated, was reviewed to be pretty close to an 8-bit IPS.
Playing Doom (2016) at 1440p @ 150+ FPS, it is a hell of difference compared to 60FPS like you wouldn’t believe. It is also noticable in games like Starcraft 2.
I was considering the higher refresh rate and would go for it… but… the thing is I have feeling like bigger monitor would be greate too.
140 would probably look smoother but monitors above 32" with above 75hz or more will be pricey and rare.
In gaming, it is bothering to get shot by somebody who is not on the screen (or just can aim smoothly with 140hz) just to show up in the moment Ive got the bullet. Was wondering for some time why it is so (if ping was not responsible in those cases)
Lets say the choice is between:
32" screen, 1440, 140hz, 5ms or 1ms response time or 43", UHD, 60 hz, 5 or 12ms
(32" and 43" almost the same price)
(input lags are unknown)
It s 32" quick or 43" big.
I believe it is needed consider the games itself too, as some are more laggy and some smoother… and yeah I sometimes play cs:go but im not going to be esport pro (even if I would want :D).
I have 27" and with 1440p at 40-60cm distance, it’s plenty enough. Since I have it on a custom monitor arm, I sometimes bring it closer and even then, the resolution is still sufficient. So unless you want the screen very far away, 32" is plenty enough. If you go bigger, then 4K just makes no sense. And 60+Hz isn’t all about competitive play, it’s IMHO worth it just for the experience and there are many older, but still popular games that you could easily push at 140+Hz (Skyrim, CS:GO, basically anything non-Arma).
https://lcd-monitory.heureka.cz/dell-s2716dg/ is the one I have, but like I said, I don’t use the g-sync on it and there are cheaper ones without *sync.
I own have 2 x 28’’ 4K monitors and I agree with what Freghar said. Do not buy them for gaming. They are fantastic for work. I absolutely love them but powering them to play a game is very expensive. I own a GTX 1070 and can run modern games at most on medium settings. Sometimes I even have to lower the render resolution.
Find a nice 1440p high refresh monitor, its better for gaming. If you do more work you can consider a 4K monitor but the gaming experience is not great (yet).
This is what I have now:
I will try find some 32", 1440, 140.
I assume if the FPS run lower than 140hz, lets say on 60fps, so it will stop have sense to have 140 right ? Or even with FPS 60 the 140mz can make it somehow better ?
(how I was never complaining about my screen, and now Im checking the minilags and smoothness, so, I can say, i see things I habitualized to ignore for long time) - (but I have to say too, that it s just gaming thing - if I watch videos on youtube there are no lags at all - so it s not the monitor itself what is the problem.)
When I do see no lags on videos (movies) in 60hz but see lags in games on 60hz even when 150FPS (or V-sync on 60FPS) so what is the problem ? Is it really the 60hz frequency problem or is it simply the game what is actually lagging ?? Sync problems ?
So, If I see no lags in 60hz video but in games yes, how the 140Hz will be better ? Will just not the game be lagging how is lagging now ? Or videos and games are not match for comparison ?
There can be many issues considered as "video lags".
For one, video/movie and game are two very different things that have different human perception responses; I remember reading a study about it and while you can’t tell a difference beyond ~50Hz for movies, the apparent limit is ~160Hz for games (interactive experience). Don’t quote me on the exact numbers.
If you set up your NVidia settings right (gsync or vsync with frame dropping so you don’t get the classic vsync lag) and set the game details so that it runs reasonably, you shouldn’t perceive any "lag".
For the sake of completeness, yes, a 144Hz monitor can run anything 0-144Hz, so when Arma runs at 40FPS, the monitor will still work (at 40Hz with adaptive sync, or at 144Hz with duplicated frames, resulting in 40FPS either way).
I made the call, for the screen, and it s home.
(It was in sale for 420eur)
I had feeling like 32" would be small, Arma will stay for ever on 60 FPS and that is better to have in future Navidia SLI 2xgtx1080, than to buy another different card for double price of gtx1080, in next 3-4 years. I had no TV so, now I have - and movies in HD looks great, generally head on the screen is bigger then in real life, so Stalingrad (1993) HD on youtube… I see details I did not noticed before.
Everythig is bigger and sharper. (In Post Scriptum and Raising Storm I had problems to recognize who is who - now it s not problem anymore - for PID and shooting it s better - targets are sharper and bigger)
What I have tested:
CS GO - 160 fps, stable (max settings) (before 300 fps)
Raising Storm - 45-83 fps (max set, no AA before and now - it blurred everything so badly) (before 120-160 fps)
IL-2 - 50-100 (max set) (50 ground, 80-100 in air) (before 150 fps)
Insurgency Sandstorm 40-80 (max) (before 80+)
Squad 40-80 (max) (before 80+)
Post Scriptum - did not tested enough but it s form +80 to -45 on ultra)
Generally the FPS dropped by at least 50-70%. (especially the Raising Storm fell but difference is like I have new game in front of me) GPU always run on 100%. Before with Arma GPU offentimes runned only on 65% similar with other games. CPU - dont see any difference except CPU temperature runned up so - it looks like it works more. (I switched PhyzX on CPU manually (GPU 100%) - dont have idea if it is good or bad for Arma - before I had PhyzX on GPU (65%) and maybe had better performance)
Arma - 35-80 ussualy about 50fps, (before 45-110 max set with view 900-1800m, ussually calibrated at 55-70 fps)
(Now downgraded - ultra, except - terrain - very hight, Shadow - low 50m, Clouds - low, AA 4x, View distance 500-900m (pine trees are hell for the GPU, once Im in woods it goes on half FPS) Particles Ultra - but smokes, even shooting looks like sending FPS down by -10 to -30.
The screen has FPS mode with low imput lag. Can not say difference between click and response on screen - except Arma -sometimes when FPS go under 40 it s noticeable.
Details - (went from 27 2148x1152 to 43 3840x2160)
Everything is more sharp and detailed. In Arma - even on lower settings everything looks much more detailed, the difference is huge. Foliage, Objects, Soldiers - everything sharper and more details appeared, plus - everything is bigger so it is much easier to see AIs running in woods. Looks more smooth too - i mean sharper to see but smoother even with lower AA.
Foliage much better even when AA went form 8x to 4x, and from Ultra to Very high. (biggest foliage difference appers when AA is disabled - in that case the trees loose the volume and things look bad.) Between 2x and 4x I dont see difference but - did not tested extensively to bu sure.
Colors in 8+2 bits
The screen has 4 presets of colors - 3 of them are very nice - before I was adjusting the brightness, contrast, ?saturation in Arma. Usually 90:105:115 and gamma on 1.1. Especially the Altis is like without colors always for me. And I have to say it somehow stayed.
I can recognize that the colors are better generally but in the FPS screen mode and Arma - it somehow stayed the same at first look - maybe the difference lays in the details like pine needles - which are now very sharp and recognizeable one by one.
So, in colors I see difference but for Arma - probably helps to draw things in better quality - colors somehow stayed the same, almost. Have to say for never ever looked so good on the second side. Maybe need more time to appreciate and recognize the color change as it is not so much obvious.
I could send the screen in 14/12 days back but - it s much better than it was. For the CS:Go for sure 140hz would be better - low ping players and 140hz has the adventage against camping defenders in CS, it looks like.
It s 16:9. The ultrawide monitors looks somehow bad for movies (it s just belief not experience) but for the gaming it would be probably better as Im all the time looking left and right. Some 38-43" ultrawide could be probably challange for this one but not for 420eur.
Arma performance update on UHD with gtx 1080 (just want be sure the info is not misleading)
There is couple of settings in Arma which really eat the frames on UHD.
Grass - no grass vs low grass - 25 fps (before 10 fps difference)
Ambient occlusion (Shadows in corners and so) - 10 fps (did not notice difference before)
AA 2x vs 8x - difference about 10-20 fps
FXAA standard on vs off - about 10 fps
(FPS drops are very dependent on terrain. More complicated/full terrain the more the post process effect use the GPU and leads to FPS drop)
Distance view - 500m 60 fps - change to 1300m - only about 10-15 fps change (noticed the view distance is not big fps killer)
Buildings - I have stopped having feeling like, the houses are very small - they look big now, even inside it looks like there is 2x-3x more space then on the 27". Looks realistic.
Some textures - some textures looks "ugly" in Arma - it are especially windows in some houses and some roofs and in house walls.
Big vs small screen - generally - It looks now like I play with zoom about 1.5x all the time. Especially in spotting enemies in KOTH it gives me adventage as it s harder for others to spot me.
16:9 - Ultrawide would be probably better for gaming - as I do have to still look left and right. Not every game has the head on swivel. (and it looks like it would be nice in thouse cases have the 140Hz monitor) On the othe hand trees now look very tall, objects look tall and big the 2160 pixels in height and 52 cm screen + 2+2cm the frame, makes difference.
100 fsp - even with UHD and very downgraded settings is possible go on 100 fps - which is not problem at all if is person only piloting helis or jets (1500m WDistance)
60 fps - its hard to have stable 60 fps as infantery man. I had to downgraded a lot. The problem is as the terrain changes the fps go up +30 or down -30 along how the terrains si difficult for GPU.
It s not problem play KOTH 60 fps on 500m but once you need see 1800m as infantery the lost 15-20 fps is problem.
AA - I have feeling like the AA is not so important anymore as you have on screen so many pixels that everything look good even without FXAA and AA above 2x. What is lost is the deepness in pictures. Like real life shadows in corners, trees, and so. Generally - I dont feel like the arma looks uglier but the enviroment on without HBAO/HDAO and FXAA is loosing depth.
If there would be any good price 43" ultravide 100+HZ monitor, lets say 3860x1600/or so, It would be better choice for gaming for sure, with better FPS as 38602160 is more than 38601600.
It s not problem to play games on UHD on 60 fps, IF a person is willing go play with settings a lot.
Maybe is good choice too, before PC upgrade, to think what will be your next CPU or GPU. So you can have SLI or Crossfire on motherboard and you will buy older GPU for some price instead new one for double price. But it s needed to count the power source as it probably would be need above 750w (so the screen will not go black as lack of energy from source).
PS: I dont understand computers or GPUs on some good level so, it s are just my experiences what Im describing.