Unreal Engine 5.3 VR performance improvement testing 

Oh, I should have double-checker. You are correct. Engine -> General Settings -> Use Fixed Framerate/Frame Rate Smoothing is unticked, which means Quest 2 took over in this case with ASW. Or could it be that I misunderstand those settings completely?

This should help ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wqjJU4V6bGM.html

Mobile devices do not support it.

Oh that would be lovely. I might work on that!

Hmm interesting - I'll do that this spring in a new project that I'm working on!

In the level blueprint you can run Event:BeginPlay -> ExecuteConsoleCommand , and just write SCALABILITY 2 in it. SCALABILITY 0 = Low settings, SCALABILITY 3 = Epic Settings

If you're using Lumen - I'd suggest this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lKFviaw7Zi0.html , the hardware that you have is pretty powerful, but with lumen - you still have to rely heavily on the frame re-projection tech. Also moving trees/vegetation just completely destroys the performance, so be cautious of those.

@@geddan by moving I assume you mean wind? I am guilty of trying to make landscapes too big and the foliage too realistic. Especially for VR. But even something like Assetville which is really low poly hangs up on high settings. I will look into the lumen issue, I really really appreciate your reply!

RTX 3080 (non TI version)

There are multiplr videos of this topic already in the works

@@geddanany updates in 5.4 or 5.5 alpha?

Since I'm using Meta Quest 2 , and running this at r.pixeldensity 1 - the heaset resolution is at 3664x1920 and the preview screen of the capture is at 2560x1440

Either steamVR or Oculus app (for meta quest headsets)

@@geddan when I connect my oculus quest 2 via airlink on my laptop, the laptop becomes very slow and the quest shows shattered images and has huge lags. What I can do to fix this?

10th Gen I7 processor, RTX 3080 (8Gb, non TI) , 48GB RAM , generic SSD. Of course the GPU is the main bottle neck (by far)

Oh it's ASW (Asynchronous Space Warp) that Meta Quest 2 does to smooth out the experience. I believe it kicks in when in settings Engine -> General Settings -> Use Fixed Framerate/Frame Rate Smoothing is unticked

@@geddan So it's not a frame gen feature within Unreal Engine 5.3 ?

@@geddan Great video... In this test project, you have unreal's frame smoothing thing ON? or it is deactivated and the quest is doing the Asynchronous Spacewarp thing? (also... I always assumed both could be active at the same time, at least while running on the headset hardware, dunno about PCVR)

No - framegen within UE is "Fixed Framerate/Frame Rate Smoothing" option. In this case - that's taken care of by Quest headset itself.

Hmm according to the documentation - one overrides the other.. In this case - framesmoothing was off (whoops) meaning ASW was doing the heavy lifting of frame generation.

Yea, I checked it out. Much less issues than in 5.3 , but still some really nasty behavior once we switch to substrate materials

@geddan did any of your tests show flickering of shadows in the left eye? In mine it doesn't matter what type of lighting I use, shadows in my left eye flicker and produce nasty artifacts

Short answer is - mostly yes. Nanite keeps the performance in check even when dealing with a large architectural scene. There are of course some caveats to this, but mostly - yes, it should be stable enough to use.

@@geddanwhich is it the lowest/acceptable gpu for good compromise at the moment to archive those results in vr? Thx

@@StandaloneVR I'd say price/performance-wise - RTX4070Ti or RTX4080 . 4060 is a bit too weak and 4090 is too expensive.

Right eye goes BRRR when I have it turned on. I think it doesn't play well with skeletal mesh + UDIM (Virtual Maps) + Lumen combo. Will mess around to see where the possible break-point might be.

@@geddan Any luck with that?

Couldn't get it to work. Simply unstable, waiting for 5.4 to try again.@@number9letterk

First of all - my condolences... But hey - a leak of great minds into UE might shake things up a bit, so I'm happy. DLSS 3.0 framegen + ASW actually does wonders for perceived smoothness in motion! Of course there are AI artifacts, specially if you dip below 36 frame mark - but that doesn't seem to take away too much from the experience. My point of view is - at current UE5 version and with current hardware - we can easily develop for VR with Lumen/Nanite, because it's "stable enough/good enough" AND THEN in a year, once next gen GPU's come out (and hopefully software side will be further optimized) - Lumen/Nanite will become fast-enough for the broad market.

@@geddan First of all - my condolences too

@@WilkoGRACZComing from a unity background as well, I feel your pain. :) And condolences to you guys as well. Developing in VR in Unreal seems completely different than Unity in every way. In unreal you can get away with much less optimisation it seems. I had a scene in Unity 2021.something, which rendered instanced materials on 390k polys in just 230 setpass calls and it would run around 80 fps in editor but with one light no shadows, everything baked and lowered res on a 3080. Same situation on Unreal without optimisation, shadows on, full msa 8x and no occlusion culling setup or any optimization done on my site except for instancing materials, I easily get 120 fps. Haven't tried anything on quest 2/3 yet, but must say, liking it so far. In Unity I've built VR apps since 2014 and seen a lot of systems come and go, and I always needed some sort of framework. be it oculus, steam (excellent early support) or later VRIK or the latest BNG VRIF, or some projects Unity's own singing XR toolkit, which is finally getting usable. These packages helped things a lot on starting out and just haveing the basics. Unreal is missing such a framework, but I've started with VR Expansion plugin and this has some interesting features and is a good starting place. Wish there were more demo's or docs but hey, have to learn unreal anyways. Meta demo's I've seen so far in Unreal are all meh (hand train thingy, occlusion, but no avatars etc) and the unreal vr template misses everything a default VR demo scene should have (knobs, buttons, sliders, movement, mirror, ladders, doors, etc. But unreal let's me add bloom, fog, shadows, multiple lights and dynamic materials which made me feel guilty in Unity. Unreal is just, well unreal

@@MaraldBesthank you so much for sharing your experience! Couldn't agree more with Unity making me feel guilty. I decided to end my game for VR in Unity. The XR Interaction toolkit after 6 year is as you said - very much ready :D Wish you all best in 2024+ years. Stay hydrated, safe, healthy and lets make some awesome games :D

You should definitely document that and show it in the Epic Games forums. Sounds like something broke

No, but he's my spirit animal.

It was not able using a big scene, it was about using lumen

Interesting. Could you share some of the games that you've worked on so that people can estimate the weight that your comment carries?

@@geddan AAA companies have something called "Non Disclosure Agreement" nobody can talk about specifics, or at least not without permission, and you can actually sign them as frequent as per meeting.... believe it or not... specially for well known IPS, games I have worked: many... friends in the industry: many! and nobody uses UE5, only the more amateurish designers trapped by the marketing. In reality UE5 is challenging even for programers because of the amount of issues, bugs, low FPS, and also some of the new features like nanite have a huge impact to FPS despite the promo and LOD's still work best in comparisson next to nanite (taking more time to develope of course), correcting an error: we do not actually use UE4.28, but UE4.27, because UE4.28 already included a few UE5 codes and thus making it unestable, UE4.27 is the best engine to date, specially for consoles like Nintendo Switch and PS, what we are looking with UE5.. well, it seems epic is focusing it more for cinematography and less for games, wich is why they are adding stuff that doesn't improve FPS but makes easy the life of background design (green screen) and cinematography with more realistic data that doesn worry about people with 1K laptops, If you thhink... your players will all buy 4K computers to play your game, then your game is doomed to FAIL.

I am an indy developer and Iam shipping a title developed in 4.27. I have been messing around with 5.2.3, and have had terrible VR performance... fps is fine, but weird head tracking lag and not smooth at all. Have tried FSR and instanced stereo, but no improvement. So I loaded standard VR template, and same poor performance was seen. 37 fps yet noticeable lag and jitter... so far, very disappointed with ue5. Am I missing something?

@@ThomasLowFlyer Exactly what I said... UE4.27 was made for game developers, UE5 was made for films... if not why UE5 has worst performance? also... most of the UE5 new features (probably the first ime I mention this, not sure)... most of the new features do not work for console.... GREAT, then why adding stuff that doesn;t work? also most of them... If you are a great developer, you find them useless, since clasical aproaches like LODS, do not take such extra times to make and you have perfect control of your assets, of course Ue5 has some great things, but... not production ready AT ALL.

Most welcome

Considering that it's 300 from the shop - I'd say ~250

@geddan I ended letting it go for 225. 4 days later it goes on sale for 225$ online. LOL. So no bad. Have a quest 3 coming soon.

Oh, good timing then!@@exil3dlivecom