Elite Dangerous VR Specs

Frontier Developments offers details on the VR version of Elite Dangerous, which they call "only the best VR experience out there." They note that VR support is present in the Elite Dangerous: Horizons beta, but that this will be released for all owners of the game when the beta concludes, whether or not they own the expansion. They also offer minimum system requirements for running the space combat game through SteamVR, which are as follows:
OS: Windows 7/8/10 64 bit
Processor: Intel Core i7-3770K Quad Core CPU or better / AMD FX 4350 Quad Core CPU or better
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 980 with 4GB or better
Network: Broadband Internet Connection
Hard Drive: 8 GB available space
View : : :
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
33.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 6, 2015, 17:20
33.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 6, 2015, 17:20
Dec 6, 2015, 17:20
 
Tom wrote on Dec 6, 2015, 12:46:
I'm talking about Elite being firmly in the "Notable Exceptions" section of this list. Having to use an obsolete runtime and extended mode is a poor experience by itself. Then there are issues like this where Frontier is clearly not testing/playing the game with VR themselves. It gives me the impression they're just in it for the money, they don't really have a clue about VR, and yet they have the hubris to characterize their work as "only the best VR experience out there"? Come on. Seriously?

Fair enough mate. Granted, the lack of support for the more recent runtimes is a bit of an issue, though I'm (sadly) used to it thanks to the likes of Assetto Corsa. That said, Slighty Mad Studios, developer of Project Cars, were able to get their title working with runtime 7+, and they can't be that much bigger a developer than Frontier.

It does reek of not giving a damn, I'll be honest, which leads to them having the nerve to post their minimum VR specs, as if it's something they've proven themselves committed to. Granted.

I wrote what I did, though, and stand by it, because, for better or worse, I still find the Elite Dangerous VR experience to be second to none. I'm not a huge fan of the game, I'll be honest, it's a bit of a grind (as I'm finding, now), but the immersion is out of this world. Whether or not they do give a damn, hey, what do I know? But outside of that, I can only go on the experience, and for me, it set the bar.
32.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 6, 2015, 16:06
Slick
 
32.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 6, 2015, 16:06
Dec 6, 2015, 16:06
 Slick
 
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Dec 6, 2015, 14:40:
I'm assuming the specs reflect the higher resolution consumer units that will be coming out. Anyone who is using the rift dev kit is running at 1/2 resolution, hence why it will run on lower specs. I feel like these VR units are just waiting for hardware to catch up. In 2 years anyone will be able to use a a VR kit with a $150 card.

actually the DK2 and CV1 resolutions are almost identical. the CV1 has like 7% more pixels in width I think, same 1080 height.
Avatar 57545
31.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 6, 2015, 14:40
31.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 6, 2015, 14:40
Dec 6, 2015, 14:40
 
I'm assuming the specs reflect the higher resolution consumer units that will be coming out. Anyone who is using the rift dev kit is running at 1/2 resolution, hence why it will run on lower specs. I feel like these VR units are just waiting for hardware to catch up. In 2 years anyone will be able to use a a VR kit with a $150 card.
Avatar 20018
30.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 6, 2015, 13:47
Slick
 
30.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 6, 2015, 13:47
Dec 6, 2015, 13:47
 Slick
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 17:06:
Slick wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 14:49:
couple things:

Going from 28nm to 14nm isn't going to mean an 80-90% jump in performance in 2016. The process is only responsible for thermals.

Not really. Straight from TSMC:

TSMC's 16FF+ (FinFET Plus) technology can provide above 65 percent higher speed, around 2 times the density, or 70 percent less power than its 28HPM technology.


28nm lasted 4 years, I don't see why 14nm would be any shorter.

Ummm... au contraire, mon ami. No one else but you sees why the 28nm phenomenon should repeat. You do realize that 28nm was a very unique thing, right?
TSMC was ready to switch to 20nm in 2013 but then it turned out (as expected by other parties like IBM) that a 20nm bulk process on planar silicon was not economically viable for a high powered node.
They needed to go FinFET+ but FinFET+ was not going to be available until the shrink to 16nm. That's why they were forced to hang on to 28nm for so long.

Four years. This basically has no precedence. There is absolutely no reason (except TSMC fucking up again) why this should ever repeat again and 10nm is actually already on the horizon for volume production in 2018. nVidia Pascal will be 16nm in 2016 and nVidia Volta might very well be a 10nm part in 2018.
Going forward, things will go back to "normal" where we will be getting new nodes in two to three years intervals. Another four year stagnation is extremely unlikely now that we have made the switch from planar silicon bulk crap to FinFET+.

We're getting close to the end of the shrinkage race. I think Intel figures they can pull off 7nm by 2018-2019, but that's far from certain.

CPUs don't equal GPUs, Intel does not equal TSMC and the numbers attached to the process nodes at all of the chip makers actually have very little to do with the real nanometers or the real size of the structures on the chips. Process naming is and has been for quite a while a reference to the shrink factor of the new node compared to its predecessor.
TSMC like Intel is confident they can pull off 7nm and I'm sure they will keep trucking as new material enter the fray (i.e. graphene most likely).

yeah... you're right on most counts. I suppose the one I'm most skeptical about though is a %60 speed bump. As we'd be talking just raw Ghz. It's absolutely possible, but especially after all these delays, I don't have high hopes that all the leakage issues are fully ironed out. Processes do take time to mature. First gen pretty much everything has problems (hence happy that big green is waiting on HBMv2)

And I looked it up, TSMC claims 10nm in 2016, and 7nm in 2017, which would put them ahead of Intel's schedule. Which is a fucking ridiculous claim.And Intel is breaking from their "tick tock" schedule for the first time in a decade, again, because of the issues of these super small processes. Intel is looking for 10nm by the second half of 2017 as a best case scenario. I find it really hard to believe that TSMC with all of their problems as of late would be able to have functional 7nm fabs pumping out chips before the world chip leader Intel is even putting out 10nm chips...

big grain of salt.
Avatar 57545
29.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 6, 2015, 12:46
Tom
29.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 6, 2015, 12:46
Dec 6, 2015, 12:46
Tom
 
Ventura wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 20:40:
I don't really know how to respond to this, because you're writing as if you know what you're talking about, but all I can say is that, for my part (and that of many others whom I've had contact with), it's grossly inaccurate.
Every experience is subjective anyway, so maybe it just wasn't your cup of tea (I'm going to assume you've tried most), but Elite is considered one of the best VR experiences there is. I spent more time in Euro Truck Simulator 2 and Assetto Corsa way back when, but more recently I've gotten back into Elite again, and the immersion is astonishing. I wouldn't lie and pretend I'd still be playing if VR support was dropped, but isn't that just another compliment?

But if, as you say, it's hardly the best, or that it's just "moderately good" (or even poor), then please, feel free to elaborate on what you feel is so much better.

It's not a matter of it not being my cup of tea, or some subjective thing. I'm talking about Elite being firmly in the "Notable Exceptions" section of this list. Having to use an obsolete runtime and extended mode is a poor experience by itself. Then there are issues like this where Frontier is clearly not testing/playing the game with VR themselves. It gives me the impression they're just in it for the money, they don't really have a clue about VR, and yet they have the hubris to characterize their work as "only the best VR experience out there"? Come on. Seriously?

I played Elite in VR in the early days of DK2 when it was more commonplace and accepted to have to jump through various hoops with extended mode and such. At the time, compared to other things, it was a good experience but certainly not the best. Aside from the cool factor of the menus that pop up when you turn your head in the cockpit, it felt like the VR support was largely tacked on to check a box, rather than being something they really cared about.

Later on, all the insincere explanations from Frontier about Oculus vs. Vive support really rubbed me the wrong way. They love to make grandiose claims and pretend everything is great when it's really just crap. VR support strikes me as just another one of those things like netcode (P2P), role balancing, background simulation, Powerplay, CQC, etc. It's all half-baked to an extreme. And yet the potential is so clearly there, which is what makes it so frustrating. And this trend doesn't show any sign of changing with planetary landings...
28.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 6, 2015, 09:43
28.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 6, 2015, 09:43
Dec 6, 2015, 09:43
 
i.e. they have not bothered to optimize the code.

Game is boring anyways, they reuse the same celestial graphics over and over again.

Oh for a decent space game....
27.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 21:13
27.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 21:13
Dec 5, 2015, 21:13
 
IMO, they did a pretty good job with Elite Dangerous, but it really didn't quite live up to the name. They sacrificed a lot of realism for the sake of multiplayer and action. I felt the realism was the biggest draw for a game like Frontier 2. ED is not bad, I was just hoping for more.

I do think, though, that once it's TRULY finished (all the expansion packs complete), *then* maybe, even with SC and non-newtonian physics, it might have enough going for it to be the classic it should be.

I'll definitely say that FD are on point when it comes to development, so I have no doubt that it will get there someday. I certainly plan on buying Horizons once it's out of beta (I'm sick of betas). When it's fully fleshed out with more content, planetary landings and first person mode (though I don't care much for that in general), it could be a thing of beauty.

It's not for everyone though. The time-investment vs reward ratio is pretty tough.
26.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 20:40
26.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 20:40
Dec 5, 2015, 20:40
 
Tom wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 12:44:
Elite "only the best VR experience out there"??!! Ha! Ridiculous. It was one of the first, but hardly the best. I'd say it's varied wildly throughout its lifetime from completely unusable to moderately good on the DK2, with the last several months being stuck firmly at poor.

I don't really know how to respond to this, because you're writing as if you know what you're talking about, but all I can say is that, for my part (and that of many others whom I've had contact with), it's grossly inaccurate.

Every experience is subjective anyway, so maybe it just wasn't your cup of tea (I'm going to assume you've tried most), but Elite is considered one of the best VR experiences there is. I spent more time in Euro Truck Simulator 2 and Assetto Corsa way back when, but more recently I've gotten back into Elite again, and the immersion is astonishing. I wouldn't lie and pretend I'd still be playing if VR support was dropped, but isn't that just another compliment?

But if, as you say, it's hardly the best, or that it's just "moderately good" (or even poor), then please, feel free to elaborate on what you feel is so much better.
25.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 19:42
25.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 19:42
Dec 5, 2015, 19:42
 
I bought E:D during the Thanksgiving sale on Steam. I've been playing it pretty regularly the last week or so.

I think it's best in small chunks. The beginning is pretty grindy... at least it's hard to gain money at low power levels. You spend a lot of time in transit until you grind up some better equipment and reputation. After you get more of both, the game really picks up, at least as far as action/travel ratio. I'm going the bounty hunter route, so I needed a better ship and a kill warrant scanner (about 100K credits) to spend more time loitering. Now I can jump into the game, dogfight for a while (while making decent money), then leave when I want. It's not the second coming of Freespace, but it's OK.

I wasn't going to buy this because Braben reneged on the local game (to make it always connected), but $15 bucks was enough to get me to try it. I'm not sorry I did.

P.S., I also picked up Transistor in the same sale, because I loved Bastion. I haven't got my $4 worth yet... I wish I'd skipped it...
24.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 19:34
24.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 19:34
Dec 5, 2015, 19:34
 
Oh, look! someone who got their kickstarter goal and actually built what they said they would!

Shocking!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."

- Jim Goad
Avatar 10137
23.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 19:32
Quboid
 
23.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 19:32
Dec 5, 2015, 19:32
 Quboid
 
I gather that it is a quite faithful recreation of the originals, although I haven't played the old ones. The problem is that people have moved on and I think I'm in a majority that don't enjoy that sort of grind any more. Games can now be deep and engrossing without being so repetitive.
Avatar 10439
22.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 19:10
22.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 19:10
Dec 5, 2015, 19:10
 
If I passed on ED after it was 66% off, I think I'm over it.
Avatar 50040
21.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 18:55
21.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 18:55
Dec 5, 2015, 18:55
 
Prez wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 17:48:
I almost bought Elite during the sale but I held off because I haven't heard much about how it is when played exclusively solo, which is how I would play it.

It's Euro Trucker in space without the scenery and a lot more distance to cover. Check out the negative reviews on Steam. The top rated ones explain really well why it's just not fun. It's just all grind.
"The horse I bet on was so slow, the jockey kept a diary of the trip." - Henny Youngman
20.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 17:48
Prez
 
20.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 17:48
Dec 5, 2015, 17:48
 Prez
 
I almost bought Elite during the sale but I held off because I haven't heard much about how it is when played exclusively solo, which is how I would play it.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
19.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 17:28
19.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 17:28
Dec 5, 2015, 17:28
 
Aero wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 17:22:
I have a 970 and when I get around to buying a VR headset, probably the Rift consumer release, I was figuring I could just buy another 970. Splitting it up with one GPU driving each eye seems like logical approach, but I haven't been really paying attention to this stuff much, is such a setup feasible/practical?

probably only if a game is rendering using DirectX 12 and even then it might have to support something like that through special programming.

Avatar 6174
18.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 17:22
18.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 17:22
Dec 5, 2015, 17:22
 
I have a 970 and when I get around to buying a VR headset, probably the Rift consumer release, I was figuring I could just buy another 970. Splitting it up with one GPU driving each eye seems like logical approach, but I haven't been really paying attention to this stuff much, is such a setup feasible/practical?
17.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 17:09
17.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 17:09
Dec 5, 2015, 17:09
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 17:06:
Slick wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 14:49:
couple things:

Going from 28nm to 14nm isn't going to mean an 80-90% jump in performance in 2016. The process is only responsible for thermals.

Not really. Straight from TSMC:

TSMC's 16FF+ (FinFET Plus) technology can provide above 65 percent higher speed, around 2 times the density, or 70 percent less power than its 28HPM technology.


28nm lasted 4 years, I don't see why 14nm would be any shorter.

Ummm... au contraire, mon ami. No one else but you sees why the 28nm phenomenon should repeat. You do realize that 28nm was a very unique thing, right?
TSMC was ready to switch to 20nm in 2013 but then it turned out (as expected by other parties like IBM) that a 20nm bulk process on planar silicon was not economically viable for a high powered node.
They needed to go FinFET+ but FinFET+ was not going to be available until the shrink to 16nm. That's why they were forced to hang on to 28nm for so long.

Four years. This basically has no precedence. There is absolutely no reason (except TSMC fucking up again) why this should ever repeat again and 10nm is actually already on the horizon for volume production in 2018. nVidia Pascal will be 16nm in 2016 and nVidia Volta might very well be a 10nm part in 2018.
Going forward, things will go back to "normal" where we will be getting new nodes in two to three years intervals. Another four year stagnation is extremely unlikely now that we have made the switch from planar silicon bulk crap to FinFET+.

We're getting close to the end of the shrinkage race. I think Intel figures they can pull off 7nm by 2018-2019, but that's far from certain.

CPUs don't equal GPUs, Intel does not equal TSMC and the numbers attached to the process nodes at all of the chip makers actually have very little to do with the real nanometers or the real size of the structures on the chips. Process naming is and has been for quite a while a reference to the shrink factor of the new node compared to its predecessor.
TSMC like Intel is confident they can pull off 7nm and I'm sure they will keep trucking as new material enter the fray (i.e. graphene most likely).

by then we should be looking at graphene cpu's or something simular.
16.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 17:06
16.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 17:06
Dec 5, 2015, 17:06
 
Slick wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 14:49:
couple things:

Going from 28nm to 14nm isn't going to mean an 80-90% jump in performance in 2016. The process is only responsible for thermals.

Not really. Straight from TSMC:

TSMC's 16FF+ (FinFET Plus) technology can provide above 65 percent higher speed, around 2 times the density, or 70 percent less power than its 28HPM technology.


28nm lasted 4 years, I don't see why 14nm would be any shorter.

Ummm... au contraire, mon ami. No one else but you sees why the 28nm phenomenon should repeat. You do realize that 28nm was a very unique thing, right?
TSMC was ready to switch to 20nm in 2013 but then it turned out (as expected by other parties like IBM) that a 20nm bulk process on planar silicon was not economically viable for a high powered node.
They needed to go FinFET+ but FinFET+ was not going to be available until the shrink to 16nm. That's why they were forced to hang on to 28nm for so long.

Four years. This basically has no precedence. There is absolutely no reason (except TSMC fucking up again) why this should ever repeat again and 10nm is actually already on the horizon for volume production in 2018. nVidia Pascal will be 16nm in 2016 and nVidia Volta might very well be a 10nm part in 2018.
Going forward, things will go back to "normal" where we will be getting new nodes in two to three years intervals. Another four year stagnation is extremely unlikely now that we have made the switch from planar silicon bulk crap to FinFET+.

We're getting close to the end of the shrinkage race. I think Intel figures they can pull off 7nm by 2018-2019, but that's far from certain.

CPUs don't equal GPUs, Intel does not equal TSMC and the numbers attached to the process nodes at all of the chip makers actually have very little to do with the real nanometers or the real size of the structures on the chips. Process naming is and has been for quite a while a reference to the shrink factor of the new node compared to its predecessor.
TSMC like Intel is confident they can pull off 7nm and I'm sure they will keep trucking as new material enter the fray (i.e. graphene most likely).
15.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 15:45
15.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 15:45
Dec 5, 2015, 15:45
 
Sounds reasonable considering the system specs of SteamVR

SteamVR uses a pair of 1200x1080 pixel displays to offer a wide field of view. The displays refresh at 90 Hz, which is fast enough to do away with most of the motion sickness issues found in earlier, lower refresh VR headsets.


I still prefer TrackIR though.
Avatar 6174
14.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs
Dec 5, 2015, 14:49
Slick
 
14.
Re: Elite Dangerous VR Specs Dec 5, 2015, 14:49
Dec 5, 2015, 14:49
 Slick
 
Dagnamit wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 14:28:
It really wouldn't have been a problem if not for the lagging performance of GPU's being stuck on 28nm process for what, 4 years now? checks wikipedia...... yup 4 years. We're probably looking at 80-90% improvements on the high end parts by the end of 2016. So no, the tech is not quite there for VR, but it will be by next xmas!

couple things:

Going from 28nm to 14nm isn't going to mean an 80-90% jump in performance in 2016. The process is only responsible for thermals. Also the smaller you get, the more leaky things get, it's not 1:1. And even if it was responsible for that level of improvement, they aren't going to exhaust the gains of 14nm in the first gen. 28nm lasted 4 years, I don't see why 14nm would be any shorter. We're getting close to the end of the shrinkage race. I think Intel figures they can pull off 7nm by 2018-2019, but that's far from certain.
Avatar 57545
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older