New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Why is it that they over spec VR Games ?

Umpa_PCUmpa_PC Posts: 835
Trinity
So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?
Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.

Comments

  • SneakyglowormSneakygloworm Posts: 105
    Art3mis
    It's probably recommended specs. Pc's are pretty weird in that a lesser cpu and decent ram and GPU will still keep up with a cutting edge PC (more or less) in VR. What i've found with VR is that if you can play Elite dangerous and DCS with acceptable frame rates (with Medium or High settings) you can play anything. Those two really do push a mid to high tier system and will bring lesser systems right to their knees. Also, the Oculus tray tool can save a lot of heartache if you can stand 45fps with AWS working. VR is still very much cutting edge so devs probably have to play it safe to minimise complaints. 
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 6,836 Valuable Player
    edited January 29
    Umpa_PC said:
    So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

    Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

    Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?

    Devs also normally target 90 fps. Using asw 2.0 you can play just fine using 45 fps in games with native Oculus driver support - like Saints and Sinners. This basically means you can get an awesome experience using hardware that provides 50% of the speed provided by the recommended hardware. Awesome right? But that's thanks to Oculus - using non-Oculus hmds you need those 90 fps. 
    Intel i7 7700K (4.5 GHz); MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100 MHz gpu boost, 11 GHz mem speed); 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 MHz; MSI Z270I Gaming Pro Carbon AC (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 960 Evo M.2 SSD + Toshiba P300 HD; Windows 10 OS; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 - the latter nearly always using super sampling 2.0. 

    "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
  • SkScotcheggSkScotchegg Posts: 1,330
    Project 2501
    RuneSR2 said:
    Umpa_PC said:
    So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

    Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

    Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?

    Devs also normally target 90 fps. Using asw 2.0 you can play just fine using 45 fps in games with native Oculus driver support - like Saints and Sinners. This basically means you can get an awesome experience using hardware that provides 50% of the speed provided by the recommended hardware. Awesome right? But that's thanks to Oculus - using non-Oculus hmds you need those 90 fps. 

    I thought other HMD's have their own version of ASW? Or is that not the case?

    Or do they have it, but it doesn't work as well for some reason?
    UK: England - Leeds - - RTX 2080 - Rift CV1 & Rift S - Make love, not war - See you in the Oasis!
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 6,836 Valuable Player
    edited January 29
    RuneSR2 said:
    Umpa_PC said:
    So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

    Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

    Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?

    Devs also normally target 90 fps. Using asw 2.0 you can play just fine using 45 fps in games with native Oculus driver support - like Saints and Sinners. This basically means you can get an awesome experience using hardware that provides 50% of the speed provided by the recommended hardware. Awesome right? But that's thanks to Oculus - using non-Oculus hmds you need those 90 fps. 

    I thought other HMD's have their own version of ASW? Or is that not the case?

    Or do they have it, but it doesn't work as well for some reason?
    Other hmds do have something similar, but it works really bad. Index has motion smoothing and I believe also another kind, but both work horribly. Tried everything in Stormland, but the lagging and reprojections are extremely easy to notice - and ruin the experience. 

    Some other dude also complained that Valve had nothing close to asw yet. Asw 2.0 isn't perfect, but it's very close - strafing along a wall I get like perfect 90 fps, because I don't see any imperfections - now try to do the same with the Index when you're below 90 fps in 90 Hz  :#

    Using Index I simply need solid 90 fps - or the experience is ruined. Using CV1 45 fps is just fine. So using CV1 I only need to render like 50% of the Index pixels, and I can do just fine with 45 fps. That's close to a 3-4x difference in performance requirements. And that's why - I think - I can play Stormland CV1 ss 2.0 Ultra - while that's a complete no-go using the Index. Maybe when I get a video card 4x the performance of my GTX 1080, but 3080 Ti might only be 2x (and 2080 Ti is 1.7x at best)... That's why I need the CV1 for the extremely demanding games and just got a spare one  B)o:)
    Intel i7 7700K (4.5 GHz); MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100 MHz gpu boost, 11 GHz mem speed); 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 MHz; MSI Z270I Gaming Pro Carbon AC (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 960 Evo M.2 SSD + Toshiba P300 HD; Windows 10 OS; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 - the latter nearly always using super sampling 2.0. 

    "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
  • SkScotcheggSkScotchegg Posts: 1,330
    Project 2501
    RuneSR2 said:
    RuneSR2 said:
    Umpa_PC said:
    So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

    Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

    Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?

    Devs also normally target 90 fps. Using asw 2.0 you can play just fine using 45 fps in games with native Oculus driver support - like Saints and Sinners. This basically means you can get an awesome experience using hardware that provides 50% of the speed provided by the recommended hardware. Awesome right? But that's thanks to Oculus - using non-Oculus hmds you need those 90 fps. 

    I thought other HMD's have their own version of ASW? Or is that not the case?

    Or do they have it, but it doesn't work as well for some reason?
    Other hmds do have something similar, but it works really bad. Index has motion smoothing and I believe also another kind, but both work horribly. Tried everything in Stormland, but the lagging and reprojections are extremely easy to notice - and ruin the experience. 

    Some other dude also complained that Valve had nothing close to asw yet. Asw 2.0 isn't perfect, but it's very close - strafing along a wall I get like perfect 90 fps, because I don't see any imperfections - now try to do the same with the Index when you're below 90 fps in 90 Hz  :#

    Using Index I simply need solid 90 fps - or the experience is ruined. Using CV1 45 fps is just fine. So using CV1 I only need to render like 50% of the Index pixels, and I can do just fine with 45 fps. That's close to a 3-4x difference in performance requirements. And that's why - I think - I can play Stormland CV1 ss 2.0 Ultra - while that's a complete no-go using the Index. Maybe when I get a video card 4x the performance of my GTX 1080, but 3080 Ti might only be 2x (and 2080 Ti is 1.7x at best)... That's why I need the CV1 for the extremely demanding games and just got a spare one  B)o:)

    Oh I see, I did not know this. Very interesting indeed!

    I guess if Oculus was owned by Elon Musk he would have given his ASW software away for free to all his competitors! lol

    I guess Carmack was the genius behind ASW then? Hopefully the other HMD manufacturers will catch up eventually.
    UK: England - Leeds - - RTX 2080 - Rift CV1 & Rift S - Make love, not war - See you in the Oasis!
  • Ray_SoverRay_Sover Posts: 44
    Brain Burst
    The difference ASW makes on the Rift S can be enormous with some games.

    I'm a huge Dirt Rally fan and have to drop the graphics to Low (which looks absolutely awful) without ASW to maintain close to a constant 80FPS even with an overclocked AMD RX Vega 56 graphics card. Forcing ASW to always on with Oculus Tray Tool gives a rock solid 80FPS on Ultra with 4xMSAA even with night lighting in the pouring rain.

    There are some visual artifacts, most notably occasional flickering on passing treetops, but I tend to be looking where I'm going rather than bird spotting, so it's a small price I'm happy to pay.
    Intel i7-6700K OCed to 4.7GHz (all cores) @ 1.37V with Corsair Hydro H60 Rev.2 liquid cooling | Sapphire Pulse RX Vega 56 OCed to 1.7GHz boost clock @ 1.05V | 16GB (2x 8GB) HyperX Predator DDR4-3333 CL16 RAM | Gigabyte GA-Z170-Gaming K3 motherboard | Win10 Pro 64-bit on 500GB Samsung 970 EVO Plus M.2 NVMe SSD on PCIe3.0 x4 | Corsair RM750x PSU | Oculus Rift S
  • RichooalRichooal Posts: 1,895 Valuable Player

    I guess if Oculus was owned by Elon Musk he would have given his ASW software away for free to all his competitors! lol

    I guess Carmack was the genius behind ASW then? Hopefully the other HMD manufacturers will catch up eventually.

    In fact John Carmack is famous for his approach to free and open source software. He has released many, many free source codes over the years and also spent time assisting other open source groups with their work. Unfortunately he is now paid by Facebook and they own him and his software.
    i5 6600k - GTX1060 - 8GB RAM - Rift CV1 + 3 Senors - 0 PROBLEMS 1 minor problem
    Dear Oculus, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", please.

  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 6,836 Valuable Player
    RuneSR2 said:
    RuneSR2 said:
    Umpa_PC said:
    So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

    Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

    Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?

    Devs also normally target 90 fps. Using asw 2.0 you can play just fine using 45 fps in games with native Oculus driver support - like Saints and Sinners. This basically means you can get an awesome experience using hardware that provides 50% of the speed provided by the recommended hardware. Awesome right? But that's thanks to Oculus - using non-Oculus hmds you need those 90 fps. 

    I thought other HMD's have their own version of ASW? Or is that not the case?

    Or do they have it, but it doesn't work as well for some reason?
    Other hmds do have something similar, but it works really bad. Index has motion smoothing and I believe also another kind, but both work horribly. Tried everything in Stormland, but the lagging and reprojections are extremely easy to notice - and ruin the experience. 

    Some other dude also complained that Valve had nothing close to asw yet. Asw 2.0 isn't perfect, but it's very close - strafing along a wall I get like perfect 90 fps, because I don't see any imperfections - now try to do the same with the Index when you're below 90 fps in 90 Hz  :#

    Using Index I simply need solid 90 fps - or the experience is ruined. Using CV1 45 fps is just fine. So using CV1 I only need to render like 50% of the Index pixels, and I can do just fine with 45 fps. That's close to a 3-4x difference in performance requirements. And that's why - I think - I can play Stormland CV1 ss 2.0 Ultra - while that's a complete no-go using the Index. Maybe when I get a video card 4x the performance of my GTX 1080, but 3080 Ti might only be 2x (and 2080 Ti is 1.7x at best)... That's why I need the CV1 for the extremely demanding games and just got a spare one  B)o:)

    Oh I see, I did not know this. Very interesting indeed!

    I guess if Oculus was owned by Elon Musk he would have given his ASW software away for free to all his competitors! lol

    I guess Carmack was the genius behind ASW then? Hopefully the other HMD manufacturers will catch up eventually.

    Actually the ASW heroes don't include Carmack - it's Volga Aksoy and Dean Beeler ;)


    Dean Beeler

    Billedresultat for volga aksoy
    Volga Aksoy

    https://www.oculus.com/blog/introducing-asw-2-point-0-better-accuracy-lower-latency/

    https://developer.oculus.com/blog/developer-guide-to-asw-20/

    I think ASW 2.0 may be considered one of the most important inventions made by Oculus - sure they are not going to give it away for free - Index with asw 2.0 would be close to the death of my CV1 ;)
    Intel i7 7700K (4.5 GHz); MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100 MHz gpu boost, 11 GHz mem speed); 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 MHz; MSI Z270I Gaming Pro Carbon AC (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 960 Evo M.2 SSD + Toshiba P300 HD; Windows 10 OS; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 - the latter nearly always using super sampling 2.0. 

    "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
  • Eradicator99Eradicator99 Posts: 25
    Brain Burst
    FWIW, my rig gets much warmer playing games on my screen then it ever has in VR.  

    Admittedly, it's a pretty heavy machine but I was under the false impression that VR required power....it does not appear to require anything inordinate but to process all that detail in an immersive environment must be using the 2080 pretty hard, but it doesn't get as warm as a screen game produces...why is that?


    erad

    [email protected]
    rtx2080-8gb
    32 Corsair
    Aorus wifipro
    evo pro 1tb
    adata 1tb
    corsair cooler & case
    Gold std ps
    9 sec boot with drives half full
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,292 Valuable Player
    edited January 30
    RuneSR2 said:
    Umpa_PC said:
    So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

    Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

    Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?

    Devs also normally target 90 fps. Using asw 2.0 you can play just fine using 45 fps in games with native Oculus driver support - like Saints and Sinners. This basically means you can get an awesome experience using hardware that provides 50% of the speed provided by the recommended hardware. Awesome right? But that's thanks to Oculus - using non-Oculus hmds you need those 90 fps. 

    I thought other HMD's have their own version of ASW? Or is that not the case?

    Or do they have it, but it doesn't work as well for some reason?

    I am almost certain SteamVR only have an equivalent to Asynchronous Time Warp,

    Asynchronous Space warp I dont think it has an equivalent and certainly no one has an equivalent to the fantastic ASW2.0

    it is the part of VR which is so so important that many people just write off.  "Some" people will tell you till they are blue that oculus are rubbish because of their HMD specs, but that is only half of the equation.

    oculus are industry leading when it comes to the software powering these things...... (and that is why I am sticking with oculus at least for now)

    Back to OP, the thing with VR on top of all the above, is, unlike flat screen games where a few stutters dont really matter...... stutters in VR can make you physically ill....... Developers therefore quite sensibly play it safe with the numbers..... reviewers can then be the ones to try on weaker hardware and spread the news if it runs on lesser machines.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • OmegaM4NOmegaM4N Posts: 1,054
    Wintermute
    VR is already a heavy load for pc's, but also the gaming industry standard of any lack of optimisation is usually the main factor in todays gaming industry going nuts with high requirements, because for a long time now they no longer bug test or optimises games anymore as they did in the past, they just stick a high spec requirment and hope brute force fixes most of their games problems, plus with the added bonus for them grabbing that money as quick as possible.
  • Nekto2Nekto2 Posts: 359
    Trinity
    May be developers like to show best quality for their games?
    If you set low settings you could post bad reviews on quality and overall impression. ;)
  • Comic_Book_GuyComic_Book_Guy Posts: 1,212
    3Jane
    edited February 6
    Umpa_PC said:
    So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

    Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

    Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?
    A 1050ti is not going to give you anything but a baseline experience, if you're lucky. No super sampling, no high settings, and you will use lots of ASW. You don't seem to mind this, great, but it's the explanation you're after. Other people mind. A lot.
  • Umpa_PCUmpa_PC Posts: 835
    Trinity
    Umpa_PC said:
    So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

    Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

    Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?
    A 1050ti is not going to give you anything but a baseline experience, if you're lucky. No super sampling, no high settings, and you will use lots of ASW. You don't seem to mind this, great, but it's the explanation you're after. Other people mind. A lot.
    I think you will find it takes a lot of extra power to produce not a lot of extra visuals (as you should already know).  The whole point is that your 'baseline' is good enough for most people and should be reflected in the advertised specs IMO.  Otherwise it just goes to re-enforce the idea that VR is only for the rich, or people who have their money priorities wrong.
    Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
    MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
    MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
    16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
    Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
    Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.
  • Ray_SoverRay_Sover Posts: 44
    Brain Burst
    Umpa_PC said:
    I think you will find it takes a lot of extra power to produce not a lot of extra visuals (as you should already know).
    Firstly, the gains of using something like a GTX 1070 or AMD Vega 56 as recommended for this particular game will be significant in terms of visuals and minimum frame rate unless it's been coded very badly. The same applies to every other one of the 200+ pancake and VR games in my libraries, so there's no reason to assume that it won't also apply to this one.

    Secondly, it's stated as a recommendation, not a requirement. The recommendations will be a guide as to the hardware required to make the most of the game. Anything less will be a compromise. If a person is happy to make that compromise, that's fine. If they're not, that's fine too. Suggesting that it's not going to make much difference is just plain wrong.

    The usual culprits in terms of eating up GPU clock cycles are environment mapping, reflections, shadows and advanced lighting. I've yet to see a game where sacrificing these to any degree doesn't make a visually noticeable difference. Will it matter to everyone? No. But it matters to those of us who want to see a game creator's efforts in all their glory.

    Even with a heavily overclocked Sapphire Pulse RX Vega 56, I still have to turn down the graphics settings in some games if I want to apply enough antialiasing to adequately remove jaggies whilst maintaining a minimum frame rate of 80Hz for full immersion, so there's clearly a need for even faster graphics cards for those who want the full experience.

    On the subject of people having their money priorities wrong, it could be equally argued that anyone buying a gaming PC when a console can also play games is wasting their money and that a PS4 with a PSVR HMD should be more than enough of a VR experience for anyone. Once again, that's their choice, but it's a factually incorrect statement.

    We all have our own unique set of expectations when it comes to gaming, and it's up to the individual to decide how much they're willing to spend to achieve their idea of gaming nirvana.
    Intel i7-6700K OCed to 4.7GHz (all cores) @ 1.37V with Corsair Hydro H60 Rev.2 liquid cooling | Sapphire Pulse RX Vega 56 OCed to 1.7GHz boost clock @ 1.05V | 16GB (2x 8GB) HyperX Predator DDR4-3333 CL16 RAM | Gigabyte GA-Z170-Gaming K3 motherboard | Win10 Pro 64-bit on 500GB Samsung 970 EVO Plus M.2 NVMe SSD on PCIe3.0 x4 | Corsair RM750x PSU | Oculus Rift S
  • MradrMradr Posts: 4,178 Valuable Player
    edited February 7
    OmegaM4N said:
    VR is already a heavy load for pc's, but also the gaming industry standard of any lack of optimisation is usually the main factor in todays gaming industry going nuts with high requirements, because for a long time now they no longer bug test or optimises games anymore as they did in the past, they just stick a high spec requirment and hope brute force fixes most of their games problems, plus with the added bonus for them grabbing that money as quick as possible.
    I would argue that games are not made the same way anymore and that it would double the price of games if all software is going to be 100% optimizes for all hardware out there. Today's games are also 100 times bigger and better than the games of the past and over all do require more power than ever before. Thus, to test - debug - and improve would be nearly impossible. Even older games still had bugs - but that their simple design just had hide their design flaws from the user. I recommend looking at some speed runner videos and then getting back with me how older games didn't have any bugs.

    I always pointed out - would you pay 120$ for a game that would've went for 60$ if it meant only a 15% better performance? Because - optimizing code - doesn't net you 100% of anything - its usually closer to only 5-15% code wise. You can look at most driver updates to see what I mean there. And if you break that down - that's only another 15 FPS if you hit 100FPS already.
  • Umpa_PCUmpa_PC Posts: 835
    Trinity
    edited February 7
    Ray_Sover
    I don't disagree with all what you have said...  but I do think you have missed the point (and that is my fault).
    Unless your running on a 1050ti, you wont know how well it does run ! - anyone with a 1050ti like myself will likely be impressed with how well VR does run on it - given the high 'recommended specs' of most of the games.

    What I am trying to get across - and have obviously failed to do  - is that you can get a very good gaming experience on low-end hardware in VR, and because I don't see a minimum spec for the game (Saints and sinners), it was a gamble as to whether it would run given the offered spec is so high.  So that's what I am getting at, not the specs to actually run the game, but the high specs advertised to play it.

    Having it look a bit more pretty is not top of the list for someone a low end gaming machine, as they want to know if it will run and play - thus I can see why you written what you have.  I feel you need to know that whilst the quality of the grafix might not be as good as yours, it might surprise you to know they still look very good, and most people would not spend the hundreds or even 1000's to get a few shadows and a bit more colour.  The frame rate on a 1050Ti is fine by the way.

    Looking back at the original title it should have read "Why is it they over spec VR games when advertising them'
    that's what I meant to say, but looking back I see why the thread has gone off on a tangent.

    Now some games do have a minimum spec but not all & I don't see one for this game. I guess the more games that run at an advertised lower spec, might well sell more headsets coz it there is a doubt people won't buy them if they think it wont run.

    Basically to boil it down - all the VR games I have including saints and sinners run fine on a 1050Ti,  and to advertise  the minimum spec is just as important as advertising a recommended spec and I don't understand why they did not bother.
    Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
    MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
    MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
    16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
    Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
    Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.
  • Comic_Book_GuyComic_Book_Guy Posts: 1,212
    3Jane
    edited February 9
    Umpa_PC said
    I think you will find it takes a lot of extra power to produce not a lot of extra visuals (as you should already know).  The whole point is that your 'baseline' is good enough for most people and should be reflected in the advertised specs IMO.  Otherwise it just goes to re-enforce the idea that VR is only for the rich, or people who have their money priorities wrong.
    I mean...what ever helps you sleep at night. I'm not sure you understand medium settings vs high settings, or what super sampling does. Lighting, shadows, draw distance, environmental detail......ya, those all matter to a lot of people. You may be satisfied with what you got, great,  but what I don't understand is why this is hard for you. Your last sentence is a particular head scratcher. They specifically have reduced quality settings available for people like you who can seemingly barely afford VR. That's precisely what it's for, to get more people in the door. Here you are asking why. It makes no sense.

    And contrary to what you think I should " probably know",  higher settings and super sampling is in fact a " a lot of extra visuals" generally,  vs what you're experiencing. Sorry, it just is. Do you wish it wasn't so? Are you jealous? upset about it? I seriously don't understand your mindset.
  • LuluViBritanniaLuluViBritannia Posts: 547
    Neo
    OP, you're right! I run on a GTX 1050 laptop (not even a Ti), and the VR experience is far from bad. Some updates do make it awful sometimes though, but apparently it's also the case for high-specs devices, lol. I could even use Super Sampling in some apps before certain updates came and made me turn it off, but even today I still use VR almost daily without much lags (granted, I haven't tried recent demanding games).
    VR is demanding, it's true ; but it's not that demanding. Sadly, many developers over spec their games regardless.

    (On a side note, your point did come through. But people who run on high-specs usually don't understand what we're talking about since, well, they're not on low-specs, xD)
    Hyped for the Quest 2!


    My hopes for VR next gen:
    - Full Body Tracking. Come on, Oculus!
    - Eye tracking with foveated rendering. Must reduce the power needs!
    - More big-scale games. I need a true VRMMORPG!
    - Bigger community.

    "If you don't mind, do you want me to take you there? Where dreams come true."
  • Umpa_PCUmpa_PC Posts: 835
    Trinity


    (On a side note, your point did come through. But people who run on high-specs usually don't understand what we're talking about since, well, they're not on low-specs, xD)
    Yes - ignorance is bliss. 
    Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
    MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
    MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
    16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
    Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
    Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.
  • Umpa_PCUmpa_PC Posts: 835
    Trinity
    edited February 10
    Umpa_PC said
    I think you will find it takes a lot of extra power to produce not a lot of extra visuals (as you should already know).  The whole point is that your 'baseline' is good enough for most people and should be reflected in the advertised specs IMO.  Otherwise it just goes to re-enforce the idea that VR is only for the rich, or people who have their money priorities wrong.
    I mean...what ever helps you sleep at night. I'm not sure you understand medium settings vs high settings, or what super sampling does. Lighting, shadows, draw distance, environmental detail......ya, those all matter to a lot of people. You may be satisfied with what you got, great,  but what I don't understand is why this is hard for you. Your last sentence is a particular head scratcher. They specifically have reduced quality settings available for people like you who can seemingly barely afford VR. That's precisely what it's for, to get more people in the door. Here you are asking why. It makes no sense.

    And contrary to what you think I should " probably know",  higher settings and super sampling is in fact a " a lot of extra visuals" generally,  vs what you're experiencing. Sorry, it just is. Do you wish it wasn't so? Are you jealous? upset about it? I seriously don't understand your mindset.
    None of this has anything to do with the topic,  Perhaps English is not your first language ? or simply obtuse ??
    Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
    MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
    MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
    16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
    Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
    Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.
  • Umpa_PCUmpa_PC Posts: 835
    Trinity
    edited February 10
    For all the people who can't read English very well, or can't comprehend it that great  - I am not saying that higher spec graphic cards are not better - nor more desirable.  I am saying that the 'baseline' graphics are good enough for most people who have systems based around that hardware - and if a game will run on 'baseline' hardware (which they all seem to do so far), then the specs for the game should reflect that.

    This topic seems to have been misunderstood, presumably by people either not reading the thread before putting their fingers on the keyboard, or they don't understand the topic in general.
    Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
    MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
    MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
    16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
    Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
    Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,292 Valuable Player
    edited February 10
    wow you do seem rather agressive to people you disagree with.... Your question has been quite logically answered, that you dont like the answer is no reason to accuse people of not understanding.
    Obviously games makers want to sell to as many people as possible, BUT poorly performing VR can (and does) make people physically sick.   That you have a higher tolerance or that games run acceptably for you is fantastic but it makes perfect sense, esp in an industry where developers are still somewhat learning their trade to play it safe..... best underpromise and over deliver than vice versa.
    if you as a user choose to push it, then that pushes the responsibility onto you if you buy a game and it affects you badly.
    think of it like this.... a submarine may be rated to a max depth of 500m  (total guess I am no seaman)... That does NOT mean IF you go to 600m you will definitely get crushed and die, but just because you manage to do it and survive does not automatically mean the sub should be re-rated to 600m ;)
    more on point, not every gpu is created equally, so many factors can change the performance of your pc - such as airflow in your case for keeping it cool, or just winning the silicon lottery. It could be you have a really fine example of a gpu that automatically can boost nice and high and essentially keep at boost speed all of the time.  (I am fortuntate in one of my rigs i have a gtx 1080ti which can sit at 2ghz and not throttle back all day - I overheat before my machine does)
    I have another machine with a gtx 980 which has no problem sitting at 1550mhz all day long................... and I had another GTX980  which was a dud and wont really do anything beyond the advertised specs.
    The specs need to take into account the fact that a machine running the software could be running at the absolute minimum advertised performance.    Modern geforce cards are great in that they will ramp up as much as they can even without you manually overclocking them.... but the only thing which can be certain is the numbers printed on the box (which even then esp with AMD is often optimistic)

    just to wrap up... the game you specifically mentioned

    Can I Run The Walking Dead: Saints & Sinners?

    To play The Walking Dead: Saints & Sinners you will need a minimum CPU equivalent to an Intel Core i5-4590. Whereas, an Intel Core i7-8700K is recommended in order to run it. In terms of game file size, you will need at least 40 GB of free disk space available. The Walking Dead: Saints & Sinners system requirements state that you will need at least 8 GB of RAM. If possible, make sure your have 16 GB of RAM in order to run The Walking Dead: Saints & Sinners to its full potential. The cheapest graphics card you can play it on is an AMD Radeon RX 480. Furthermore, an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is recommended in order to run The Walking Dead: Saints & Sinners with the highest settings.


    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • Umpa_PCUmpa_PC Posts: 835
    Trinity
    edited February 10
    wow you do seem rather agressive to people you disagree with.... Your question has been quite logically answered, that you dont like the answer is no reason to accuse people of not understanding.

    Obviously games makers want to sell to as many people as possible, BUT poorly performing VR can (and does) make people physically sick.   That you have a higher tolerance or that games run acceptably for you is fantastic but it makes perfect sense, esp in an industry where developers are still somewhat learning their trade to play it safe..... best underpromise and over deliver than vice versa.

    if you as a user choose to push it, then that pushes the responsibility onto you if you buy a game and it affects you badly.

    think of it like this.... a submarine may be rated to a max depth of 500m  (total guess I am no seaman)... That does NOT mean IF you go to 600m you will definitely get crushed and die, but just because you manage to do it and survive does not automatically mean the sub should be re-rated to 600m ;)
    I totally agree with you all except the part about me being aggressive and the submarine analogy - because I am in that submarine and all is OK and you are comparing apples and oranges.,  Please don't misunderstand me trying to spell it out when I think someone doesn't understand or won't take on board.

    I don't mind that people disagree with me, but to be fair if you read back some people have gone off on a tangent and tried to make this all about me more or less saying high end graphics cards are a waste of money - and thats not what I have said at all. One idiot tried to make it about me not being able to afford a higher end card (what a jerk).  There are one or two obtuse replies, don't hate the guy for telling it how it is!

    I notice you have not posted your computer specs, so can only assume, you have a high end graphics card, and have not played the game on a low end card, thus might not have any real experience on what I am trying to say.

    Did you read the entire thread before posting ?

    Here is the advert for the game, the page you get when you go to buy it.
    https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/2214244628588915
    Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
    MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
    MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
    16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
    Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
    Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,292 Valuable Player
    edited February 10
    Umpa_PC said:
    I totally agree with you all except the part about me being aggressive and the submarine analogy - because I am in that submarine and all is OK and you are comparing apples and oranges.,  Please don't misunderstand me trying to spell it out when I think someone doesn't understand or won't take on board.

    I don't mind that people disagree with me, but to be fair if you read back some people have gone off on a tangent and tried to make this all about me more or less saying high end graphics cards are a waste of money - and thats not what I have said at all. One idiot tried to make it about me not being able to afford a higher end card (what a jerk).  There are one or two obtuse replies, don't hate the guy for telling it how it is!

    I notice you have not posted your computer specs, so can only assume, you have a high end graphics card, and have not played the game on a low end card, thus might not have any real experience on what I am trying to say.

    Did you read the entire thread before posting ?

    I have 2 machines VR capable, an I7 5820k with GTX1080ti and an i5 4570K with a GTX980. I started my VR journey with an i5 2500k with a GTX 670 but that was with a dev kit headset so not really applicable now.
    The min spec for this game is an AMD RX480, to be honest, it would have been better if they had ALSO put the minimum NV gpu in there to make it clearer... but they are not suggesting you have to have a GTX 1070 to run the game. That AMD card is still a fair bit more pokey than your gpu however (and bear in mind this is 2nd hand info and not something i have experienced) but I have been told when it comes to VR, lower end NV gpus do make a better fist of it than lower end AMD, so you do (apparently) need a better AMD gpu than you do an NV gpu for doing VR.... This does seem to tally with your experience with a gtx 1050ti
    PS I quite liked my submarine analogy but have edited in a more sensible suggestion regarding different gpus. :)

    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • Umpa_PCUmpa_PC Posts: 835
    Trinity
    Yeah - its a mine field for sure, I guess thats why they should always give a minimum spec as well as a recommended spec. 

    When I bought my rig, VR was not on my radar, the main driver behind the choice was because of its form factor, as it sits on a shelf with the xboxes, PVR and stuff. (it needed to be quiet and look like a console).

    The fact is was VR ready was neither here or there at POS, the experience so far has been very good, and from the posts above the credit seems to go to oculus for that.
    Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
    MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
    MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
    16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
    Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
    Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.
  • Comic_Book_GuyComic_Book_Guy Posts: 1,212
    3Jane
    Umpa_PC said:
    Umpa_PC said
    I think you will find it takes a lot of extra power to produce not a lot of extra visuals (as you should already know).  The whole point is that your 'baseline' is good enough for most people and should be reflected in the advertised specs IMO.  Otherwise it just goes to re-enforce the idea that VR is only for the rich, or people who have their money priorities wrong.
    I mean...what ever helps you sleep at night. I'm not sure you understand medium settings vs high settings, or what super sampling does. Lighting, shadows, draw distance, environmental detail......ya, those all matter to a lot of people. You may be satisfied with what you got, great,  but what I don't understand is why this is hard for you. Your last sentence is a particular head scratcher. They specifically have reduced quality settings available for people like you who can seemingly barely afford VR. That's precisely what it's for, to get more people in the door. Here you are asking why. It makes no sense.

    And contrary to what you think I should " probably know",  higher settings and super sampling is in fact a " a lot of extra visuals" generally,  vs what you're experiencing. Sorry, it just is. Do you wish it wasn't so? Are you jealous? upset about it? I seriously don't understand your mindset.
    None of this has anything to do with the topic,  Perhaps English is not your first language ? or simply obtuse ??
    Obtuse????? Oh the irony. What I said is directly, specifically on topic. This reply makes zero sense. You seem to think your 1050ti is the bees knees and is  "good enough". I told you why your line of thinking is silly.
  • Umpa_PCUmpa_PC Posts: 835
    Trinity
    you really should not cherry pick to distort whats being said.
    Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
    MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
    MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
    16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
    Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
    Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.
Sign In or Register to comment.