Collection Mod Unity Virt-A-Mate Mod Assets: Clothing,Environments,Objects,Scenes,Looks,ect.
- Thread starter H8tXtract
- Start date
- Status
That file is new and comes in the zip from the release link.
You must be registered to see the links
Get the compiled version from there as a zip, which includes the cfg file.
I have to say, I tried it. I saw no visible difference in picture quality with it set to 0.60 (default is like 0.77, if you read the guide and instructions it explains what this is).
Combining that with the frame interpolation feature in Virtual Desktop (halves the render rate on the PC by generating alternate frames inside the quest2 hardware) I am getting insane frame rates from my heaviest scenes.
Looking at 70fps in scenes that I previously didn't even bother loading because they were painful to watch, I never checked out the framerate before so can't compare sadly.
Combining that with the frame interpolation feature in Virtual Desktop (halves the render rate on the PC by generating alternate frames inside the quest2 hardware) I am getting insane frame rates from my heaviest scenes.
Looking at 70fps in scenes that I previously didn't even bother loading because they were painful to watch, I never checked out the framerate before so can't compare sadly.
I see no reason it wouldn't work with any headset that uses that openVR api. Try it!
I didn't record frame rates before installing it, but if you try it, remember to pick a scene that pushes the PC and record the FPS before and after! Let us know how it goes.
- Sep 3, 2017
- 1
- 1
Anyone got the Vamx 1.9?
You must be registered to see the links
- Sep 10, 2017
- 23
- 171
no to the right you will see Release 2 FSR for SteamVR games..... Latest click that... it will take you to dl
I've ryzen 9 5950x, rtx 2080 ti, Should i use this or not? How do you change settings? It actually made my game look blurry.
On my HTC Vive Pro with i9 9900k, 32Gb Ram and GTX 1080 ti I don't notice any difference in the FPS ...
Which value has to be changed in which direction?
- Sep 24, 2017
- 501
- 723
You guys are just wasting your time. Vam engine is CPU heavy on a single core. Which the he will address this in the next vam release version 2.0
Like the instructions im the file say:
// Per-dimension render scale. If <1, will lower the game's render resolution
// accordingly and afterwards upscale to the "native" resolution set in SteamVR.
// If >1, the game will render at its "native" resolution, and afterwards the
// image is upscaled to a higher resolution as per the given value.
// If =1, effectively disables upsampling, but you'll still get the sharpening stage.
I downloaded it last night and was looking around in it...
You must be registered to see the links
pretty useless atm unless you wanna try disect it and figure out a way to get rid of his securty check.
This is absolutely not true. I have 3080 with Ryzen 3600 and the GPU is the bottleneck for me by a big margin.
It's a good thing this works on the GPU then,
" FidelityFX Super Resolution is hand-optimized for best performance and runs well on a large variety of GPUs. The following table provides some indication of upper performance threshold numbers for the cost of running FSR, measured on different classes of GPUs. "
So, by reducing the render resolution you increase the FPS, because the program is CPU bottlenecked not GPU you more processing from where it costs most (CPU) to where it's virtually free (GPU).
This is literally almost exactly what VaM needed in it's current state.
Really? Because with my Ryzen 5-5600X and a 3060 I still find the CPU is the limiting factor.
The physics and colliders use huge amounts of processing. Once it makes better use of multi-core processors everybody will see a dramatic increase in speed without any hardware changes at all.
To put actual numbers on this,
Run the CPU High physics benchmark. Look at the times spent on Render (gpu) and physics (cpu),
Render 0.57
Physics 3.79 (on my old i7-2600 Physics was 13.79!!!)
It's clear where the biggest delay is with that. So onto the GPU test,
Render 1.91
Physics 2.04
So with virtually no physics in the scene, and straining the GPU as much as possible, the GPU STILL does it's job quicker than the CPU, so still CPU limited there.
Hair sim?
Render 0.3
Physics 1.64
Hair Renderer,
Render 0.33
Physics 1.2
In every single benchmark I ran the CPU takes way more time than the GPU, even in the ones where the CPU wasn't being loaded but the GPU was.
Thats a faster CPU and slower GPU than your system.
Run the benchmarks on your system, let the averages settle and you will see. If not? You got something very messed up on your machine!
Run the CPU High physics benchmark. Look at the times spent on Render (gpu) and physics (cpu),
Render 0.57
Physics 3.79 (on my old i7-2600 Physics was 13.79!!!)
It's clear where the biggest delay is with that. So onto the GPU test,
Render 1.91
Physics 2.04
So with virtually no physics in the scene, and straining the GPU as much as possible, the GPU STILL does it's job quicker than the CPU, so still CPU limited there.
Hair sim?
Render 0.3
Physics 1.64
Hair Renderer,
Render 0.33
Physics 1.2
In every single benchmark I ran the CPU takes way more time than the GPU, even in the ones where the CPU wasn't being loaded but the GPU was.
Thats a faster CPU and slower GPU than your system.
Run the benchmarks on your system, let the averages settle and you will see. If not? You got something very messed up on your machine!
- Sep 28, 2018
- 442
- 2,140
It's already there a few posts later. Those were preview pics. As far as I know, the only release came like this:
You must be registered to see the links
. Never released a shorthair version unless there was an included alt preset I missed. I agree with the implication that a preview outshined the actual release in likeness.- Status