ACC VR SPECIFIC VERSION

I don't know where did you get that feeling from, AFAIK all Aris was referring to was the creation of a VR-only version of ACC, which would be a separate game optimized only for VR. Nowhere I could read that they are not going to spend time optimizing VR, the proof that they care about VR is the last hotfix which was specifically focused on VR.

 

Paragraphs Pirhana-A, paragraphs...

 

Does anybody else think this thread was dodgy from the beginning, has been exhausted and should be closed?

 

NO

 

Sorry I've Hotfix'ed my post

 

The Hotfix was there to correct a critical issue (the tracking was broken and not working properly), it was obviously needed.

I got this feeling from AC1 history, where we were in exact same situation,
they promised VR, we waited for it, it was broken when released,
and lot of features were not available (VR menus, sound, mirrors…)
They released an hotfix within few hours and the basic VR was done…

But we neither get any informations about what would be done or not.
and sadly there was allmost no VR improvements all along AC1 developpement…
but thank's god (or Lord Kunos) the engine was really good and performance too !
(except for Vive compatibility added very late)

So I'm just fearing the same situation, even more when I see that the ACC Virtual Reality forum is deserted by devs…
they seems to avoid vr simers… but we're not all toxic and most of us just want to improve the game and give constructive feedback…

So I got this feeling…
sorry if I'm totally wrong, I hope I'm totally wrong and that we will see great improvements…
but if a dev could just give us a glimpse of what they planned for it…
it could close the discusssion once for all and we will stop guessing wrong thinks all along…

(and yes this thread is dodgy… sorry to make it more dodgy)
(and yes I think that a separate VR build suggested by OP makes absolutely no sense)

 

You could not be any more MISLEADING and quite frankly full of ****. I was part of AC 1 EA and what you say did not occur and throwing words like "deserted by the devs" when a dev is actually replying in the exact thread you claim is "deserted" makes me think you are just a troll.

Having just "turned on" VR, why do you expect optimisation?
The problem is this, generation NOW. I want it NOW. I can't wait I need it NOW. I will act like a two year old and misconstrued the facts because I want it NOW.

Word of advice: Don't buy EA software, wait till RC or later if you can't handle things not being perfect or optimised from day one.
Would is be accurate to say optimisation starts at the very end once all features and content are added?

(edit: spelling and stuff )

 

I was part of Ac1 EA too, way before VR was added, when the game was only a technical demo with one car (Elise) and one track (Magione)…
what part was I wrong and were am I misleading ? could you please be more specific ? (and I will post apologies if it's the case)
I don't understand so much hate about my post and never intended to be a troll…

I simply read some technical insight from UE4 internal render pipeline, and it appears that the deferred one actually used in ACC in not the best to expect good performance in VR (as opposed to UE4 VR specific games using the direct one…)
so it seems justified to think it will not be so easy to expect big optimisation room in the future for VR...
even more when Aris say himselft that Vulkan or Dx12 are requesting lot of work to code to see perf gain.
I NEVER asked for a full optimised game NOW at all... I waited 2 years for Ac1 to be released, and several months with my DK2 for AC1 VR and it was fine, once again, I Don't complain or cry, just politely asked for some answers…
So don't make me say things I didn't said please.

And I NEVER buy EA games, you're right, I've done it only because I thrust Kunos to deliver good games and want to support them… and I thrust them to do their best...
I simply have fears about what is technically possible, and what is not ! nothing less, nothing more… because I don't believe in miracles.
And OK I don't have the best actual computer available, but with a 6700K and a GTX1080, I expected a little more performance, even for an EA.

And no that's not the Virtual Reality forum, this is the General Discussion one…
and yes I'm here to ask exactly because I saw Aris answering there…
and sorry to deceive you, but I'm not part of what you call "generation NOW"
and thank you not to insult me and keep cool… I'm open to discussion.

Cheers.

 

No-where on the forums has Aris ever mentioned the word "vulkan", where he did refer to it he typed in "Vulcan" and guess where he wrote it? In that so-called deserted part of the forums (this thread on page 2).

It's parts like this where you're misleading or plain out lying. There are more but I really don't want to go into bullet points, you memory is faulty regarding VR and AC1 EA.

Here's an example of how unreasonable you are at this moment.
We have a new piece software in beta where the devs enabled VR (WIP alpha version) a few weeks ago and you expect it to run as smooth as AC1 and then you pretend to be some sort of expert on the UE4 engine, where I bet you have zero experience.
Have some patience and if you can't go find something else to play for the next couple months.

 

"Vulkan" is the correct spelling for the API they were refering to, Aris just wrote "Vulcan" because he answered to the guy spelling it wrong… If you consider this as lying I'm sorry but I can do nothing for you…

And for the first VR integration in AC1, I was informed of the release date by a tweet I've done personally to Stefano…
so Yes I was there the second it was released (like half the active forum I was part of at this time)
and you can find the history in the old AC1 forum or on reddit,
a config file was missing in the build and the scale and stereoscopy was wrong…
they pushed a Hotfix few hours later and all was OK.
my memory is not faulty at all and if I had time to lose I could do the search for you but I wont.
it seems difficult to have a constructive discussion with you.

 

You still don't get it...
You said this, "... Aris say himselft that Vulkan or Dx12 are requesting lot of work to code to see perf gain."
Show me the reply where he said this. Problem is you can't cause he never said this, this is one example of you being misleading.

 

Hang on a minute, who is misconstruing the facts here, he said he wanted a glimpse of what is planned, and not a fix right now. My AC EA experience recollection is as he stated, VR implementation was sufficient but not great, so it is concerning to see that we have been given a worse VR experience, like the 6DOF that didn't work correctly in an engine that has VR already integrated into it.

Maybe an alternate solution could be something like a go fund me page for all VR simmers to put money into which Kunos can use to contract a dedicated VR team that can release VR DLC for those that want to experience the creme dela creme, though I doubt this solution can raise enough funds, maybe i'm wrong, I did after all upgrade from 980 to 1080 after a couple of weeks experiencing AC in VR and I never looked back.

 

#I simply read some technical insight from UE4 internal render pipeline, and it appears that the deferred one actually used in ACC in not the best to expect good performance in VR (as opposed to UE4 VR specific games using the direct one…)
so it seems justified to think it will not be so easy to expect big optimisation room in the future for VR...#

exactly my thought

 

Yeah, that's just purely delusional.

 

Yeah easy there Rudski, that was a bit of an overly aggressive response to what was TBF, a pretty polite request by Pirhana.

I understand your concerns Pirhana, but Rudski is right in saying (though wrong in how he said it) that you do need to show a bit of patience with regards to the quality of the VR implementation, seeing as how it was only released a week ago. And in an EA form, not that of a post-1.0 feature, where the devs would spend a fair bit more time in QA than they need to now.

Everyone had their own personal important features that they want to see in the game (mine happens to be VR too), but we can’t expect Kunos to make declarations about how much effort they are going to dedicate to all the different features that everyone happens to care about, as they will inevitably have to let some people down when those particular plans don’t pan out (and then handle the inevitable backlash that will ensue).

I think you’re just going to have to accept that VR is not a core feature of ACC (see the various sticky ACC Blog threads for what the devs are dedicating themselves to). Personally I’m grateful for it being implemented in the second public milestone, which is pretty good result considering how small the market is. I’m sure they will work on performance optimisations and graphics quality options down the line, as that will benefit all users, VR or not, so I wouldn’t worry to much about that right now, just give them some time. The journey (for us at least) has only just begun.

 

Sorry Pirhana, Typer is correct, after reading my reply I can see I should have sugarcoated it a bit more.

 

"-The developers should focus more on VR!
-Why?
-Because it's important to me!"

 

Admins please close this thread

The question, however silly has been answered.

everyone is fully aware of the current state of VR , a quick glance at the AC Virtual Reality is evidence of that, with very few items listed as fixed or as designed.

 

At this point in the deveploment we should rather be discussing about ideas and why it would be nice / not be nice to have them and see if Kunos picks up the feedback instead of arguing what can/cannot be done.

If I were you guys I would just drop this subject of VR optimization since the support forum is already filled up with 'poor VR performance' ect. so I would bet Kunos are aware that many VR users are not satisfied and expect some performance optimization down the line. Which will probably come along the road as we go into beta phase of the game.

Besides that we already got some critical support for VR within a week of initial v0.2 release that was the baseline for VR in this game. So I see no reason to worry that they would not also make the VR experience better with further patches.

And finally: OP was talking about the possibility of getting a separate VR version of the ACC and as Aristotelis already answered they just do not have the resources to achieve this currently being a small company.

 

and it makes no sense to to develop a separate version even if they have the manpower....

another aspect here: kunos communicates very clearly and doesnt support dreams or things that may come or should be or could be or may be...

they say yes when it is clear and they say nothing when it is not.

i am also a dev and in our company its exactly the same. our customers ask and we answer nearly same way as kunos does (we dont have private customers) - we say yes when its working and otherwise only that we try to implement the feature but never promise.

promises were made when our company was young (20 years ago) but we have learned a lot.

tl;dr - kunos only does what good devs have to do - say clearly what is working and then be patient.
that sound sometimes harsh or undiplomatic but its the best way to communicate.