VR: A new lease on life for P3D

[jmig]

Over the last year or so, I have had a lot of troubles with P3D. Version 5.x did not like my computer. I had so many issues that I quit using V5. MSFS and especially DCS scratched my flight sim itch. Well, a couple months ago I purchased a Reverb G2 VR headset. Then I just built a new i9-10900 based computer to power the VR headset.

I installed PD V5.1, along with MSFS and DCS. Yesterday, for the first time I was able to use the VR headset in P3D. It was like a new sim to me. I haven't loaded any ORBX stuff yet. So. I used MegaSceneryV3 and it was almost like MSFS from the air. Plus all my controllers worked. I could do anything in the cockpit I wanted. It was like being back in the cockpit, as I remembered it in real life. I even found myself reaching for the yoke ( I use a side stick) and once attempted to lower the sun visor with my hand. It was that realistic.

I find that my RTX 2070S graphics card works just find with VR. The only time I had an issue was with a Milviz highly complex beta aircraft. It and DX 12 went though my 8 GB VRAM like a sports fan watching a game with a six-pack. Normal airplanes did not give me that problem.

I highly recommend VR to anyone who may be on the fence. If you can afford it and have the hardware to run it, it is like no other simming experience.

 

[YoYo]

Welcome in the club!
I fly ONLY VR, 2D for screenshots only.

 

[Dangerous Beans]

LOL I know what you mean about reaching for things.
When I first went VR I nearly fell out of my chain a couple of times trying to lean on virtual bulkheads while trying to crane my neck about gawping at the cockpits

 

[Daube]

I'm not sure for the G2, but for usual VR helmet the resolution is way lower than what you get on a regular screen.
As a consequence, when using a VR helmet, some settings can be lowered without consequences. This includes the maximum texture resolution for example, which can save quite a lot of video memory with complex/high quality aircraft

I understand your feeling about P3Dv5. I miss my P3Dv4 a little bit, to be honnest.... well no, in fact what I really miss is the amount of military aircraft I had for P3D(v4), including the Milviz Phantoms, the Aerosoft Tomcat, the A2A warbirds etc.... none of which are going to be available in MSFS for quite a while...
Now, when flying over a good photoscenery with autogen (think about OrbX TrueEarth or FranceVFR for example) with clear skies, then yes from a certain altitude it become difficult to see any differences with MSFS.
Unfortunately, when you start to set some clouds in that sky, then the difference shows immediately and is very cruel for P3D...
Another problem, which is also linked to the P3D graphics engine, is the impact on FPS from dense areas and complex airports. In P3Dv4 my computer wouldn't allow me to fly anywhere next to a city like Paris or Seattle with a photorealistic scenery. I'm pretty sure the problem would be the same with v5...

 

[jmig]

I'm not sure for the G2, but for usual VR helmet the resolution is way lower than what you get on a regular screen.
As a consequence, when using a VR helmet, some settings can be lowered without consequences. This includes the maximum texture resolution for example, which can save quite a lot of video memory with complex/high quality aircraft

I understand your feeling about P3Dv5. I miss my P3Dv4 a little bit, to be honnest.... well no, in fact what I really miss is the amount of military aircraft I had for P3D(v4), including the Milviz Phantoms, the Aerosoft Tomcat, the A2A warbirds etc.... none of which are going to be available in MSFS for quite a while...
Now, when flying over a good photoscenery with autogen (think about OrbX TrueEarth or FranceVFR for example) with clear skies, then yes from a certain altitude it become difficult to see any differences with MSFS.
Unfortunately, when you start to set some clouds in that sky, then the difference shows immediately and is very cruel for P3D...
Another problem, which is also linked to the P3D graphics engine, is the impact on FPS from dense areas and complex airports. In P3Dv4 my computer wouldn't allow me to fly anywhere next to a city like Paris or Seattle with a photorealistic scenery. I'm pretty sure the problem would be the same with v5...

If I want to fly VFR admiring the scenery, I will use MSFS. If I want to go from Point A to Point B IFR using the build in avionics, I will use P3D. I never saw a GPS in an airplane until after I was age 50. All my RW flying was on steam gauges using TACAN/VOR or (later) RNAV. I am not comfortable with G1-3000 panels. They are nice. but I don't want to take the time and energy to get into them deep enough to fly IFR complete with SIDs and arrivals to an ILS. With old fashion Steam gauges and a basic GPS, I can easily do the above.

I find the clouds in P3D to be fine. I use to use the REX products. However, I haven't loaded up any "sky" textures, and the AE if P3D V5 is fine to me. I find these clouds in VR to be nicer with more texture than the "new" clouds in DCS.

 

[BendyFlyer]

jmig - I think in many aspects you have hit the nail on the head. I am not sure why but it seems it is this harware combination of the Intel CPU and the NVIDIA card that P3D works flawlessly with. I have similar rig and same outcome everything to the max basically and no problems at all. As for VR - seems like a fascinating way to go, i have looked at it carefully but cannot decide - I wish I could wear the goggles required but I can't pity there is no helmet version to make it more comfortable.

Yeah I am with you on the steam gauges - I finished up in the real world with all the EFIS stuff etc and in a lot of ways it does make life in the cockpit a lot more easy as all the info is at your fingertips but learning the programming to get the best of it is a pain even for somebody like me who has done computers for decades. Always more comfortable with an ADF, VOR and some basic gauges.