Crashing Down The Mountainside: 'Dirt Rally VR' Hands-On (Updated)

23

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Contributor

Kevin Carbotte is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware who primarily covers VR and AR hardware. He has been writing for us for more than four years.

  • -Fran-
    Thanks a lot for this review!

    I have a question though. Do you *need* VR support for a game? Is there a problem if you want to use any HMD as a "monitor slapped to your face"? I mean, I was thinking you could add the movement tracking thingy to the axis's that move the camera and be done with it. I don't know if there's an additional thing you might need, like correcting the image for each eye or something.

    Cheers!
    Reply
  • kcarbotte
    18332986 said:
    Thanks a lot for this review!

    I have a question though. Do you *need* VR support for a game? Is there a problem if you want to use any HMD as a "monitor slapped to your face"? I mean, I was thinking you could add the movement tracking thingy to the axis's that move the camera and be done with it. I don't know if there's an additional thing you might need, like correcting the image for each eye or something.

    Cheers!


    Glad you enjoyed it.
    As to your question, yes and no.
    You don't necessarily need VR support, but its not nearly as simple as stapping a screen to your face.
    The image has to be warped to fit the view, the game's scaling has to be corrected for VR too.

    There are some third party apps that will convert standard games, but not all games are supported by that.

    The Rift and the Vive are not treated as monitors by your graphics card, so you can't even "just do it anyways."
    Look up Vireio Perception and VorpX (both covered on the website) to see what I'm talking about.
    Reply
  • Rhinofart
    So, the VR aspect of this game requires way more graphics horsepower? I play this game on the highest settings at 2560 x 1440 with my i7 980x OCed to 4.25Ghz, and my XFX R9 290x stock with zero problems at all. I have no lag, I don't know the FPS I'm getting, but I do know it's smooth, and doesn't lag what so ever.
    Reply
  • rhysiam
    18333103 said:
    So, the VR aspect of this game requires way more graphics horsepower? I play this game on the highest settings at 2560 x 1440 with my i7 980x OCed to 4.25Ghz, and my XFX R9 290x stock with zero problems at all. I have no lag, I don't know the FPS I'm getting, but I do know it's smooth, and doesn't lag what so ever.

    Yeah I was surprised by the performance figures reported here too. For years Codemasters have done a fantastic job of getting seriously nice look games out that don't require ultimate hardware. In terms of raw display the rift is only 2160x1200 @ 90hz, which from a raw pixel throughput perspective is significantly fewer pixels per second than a standard 1440p @ 60hz monitor (156M pps vs 221M pps).

    I'd be really interested to know why the VR setup taxes the system so much more.
    Reply
  • kcarbotte
    18333372 said:
    18333103 said:
    So, the VR aspect of this game requires way more graphics horsepower? I play this game on the highest settings at 2560 x 1440 with my i7 980x OCed to 4.25Ghz, and my XFX R9 290x stock with zero problems at all. I have no lag, I don't know the FPS I'm getting, but I do know it's smooth, and doesn't lag what so ever.

    Yeah I was surprised by the performance figures reported here too. For years Codemasters have done a fantastic job of getting seriously nice look games out that don't require ultimate hardware. In terms of raw display the rift is only 2160x1200 @ 90hz, which from a raw pixel throughput perspective is significantly fewer pixels per second than a standard 1440p @ 60hz monitor (156M pps vs 221M pps).

    I'd be really interested to know why the VR setup taxes the system so much more.

    VR doesn't need an average of 90fps, it requires a minumum of 90fps.
    There's big difference there. When the game dips to 60fps, even for a moment, its very discernable in a VR HMD.

    You also got your math wrong.
    2160x1200 @ 60Hz = 156M pps
    2560*1440 @ 60Hz = 221M pps

    2160x1200 @ 90Hz = 233M pps
    But you also have to consider that the GPU can't let the frame rate drop, so it would actually average well above 90fps if frame synchronization wasn't in the picture.
    VR is just hard on your GPU.
    Reply
  • GR33kFR34k
    I’ll give you a few hints. "One" through "six" represent how serious the bend ahead is. The higher the value, the more aggressive the turn will be."

    I'm pretty sure this is the other way around.
    Reply
  • rhysiam
    18333573 said:
    VR doesn't need an average of 90fps, it requires a minumum of 90fps.
    There's big difference there. When the game dips to 60fps, even for a moment, its very discernable in a VR HMD.

    You also got your math wrong.
    2160x1200 @ 60Hz = 156M pps
    2560*1440 @ 60Hz = 221M pps

    2160x1200 @ 90Hz = 233M pps
    But you also have to consider that the GPU can't let the frame rate drop, so it would actually average well above 90fps if frame synchronization wasn't in the picture.
    VR is just hard on your GPU.
    Thanks for the response. Epic maths fail there on my part... that's embarrassing!

    I hear you about the minimums and I can't seem to find any benchmark list that reports minimum fps, but according to hardware.info even the lowly gtx 960 can average 120fps at medium settings at 1440p. Maybe there are frequent dips below 90fps, I don't know. Irrespective, it seems fair to conclude that a 960 provides a fantastic experience at medium settings on a 1440P @ 60hz monitor, yet the roughly 3 x faster 1080 has to settle on the same medium detail settings for VR, despite the similar pixel-per-second demands of each display.

    I suppose what I'm actually wondering is whether VR is inherently more demanding than a 1440P @ 60hz display, or is it just that we need to shift from average to minimum fps to gauge VR performance? If you measure raw FPS, is VR similar to 1440P?

    I realise this is a news post not a full review, so not expecting concrete testing/answers here. But given the rise of VR, I'd certainly be interested in this featuring in future articles, particularly alongside the CPU aspects (which you mention as a possible culprit for the 1080 results). What's the impact of positional tracking on the CPU? Do more cores help? All interesting questions which I don't believe have been explored much as yet... if they have, post me some links!
    Reply
  • rhysiam
    18333619 said:
    I’ll give you a few hints. "One" through "six" represent how serious the bend ahead is. The higher the value, the more aggressive the turn will be."

    I'm pretty sure this is the other way around.

    Yeah you're correct.

    I actually always thought it was the recommended gear to take the corner in assuming a 6 speed gearbox, but it turns out that's not quite right: http://blog.codemasters.com/dirt/04/co-driver-calls-explained/

    In any case, 6 = fast corner, 1 = slow
    Reply
  • kcarbotte
    18333619 said:
    I’ll give you a few hints. "One" through "six" represent how serious the bend ahead is. The higher the value, the more aggressive the turn will be."

    I'm pretty sure this is the other way around.


    You're right. it's been amended.
    Reply
  • kcarbotte
    18333694 said:
    18333573 said:
    VR doesn't need an average of 90fps, it requires a minumum of 90fps.
    There's big difference there. When the game dips to 60fps, even for a moment, its very discernable in a VR HMD.

    You also got your math wrong.
    2160x1200 @ 60Hz = 156M pps
    2560*1440 @ 60Hz = 221M pps

    2160x1200 @ 90Hz = 233M pps
    But you also have to consider that the GPU can't let the frame rate drop, so it would actually average well above 90fps if frame synchronization wasn't in the picture.
    VR is just hard on your GPU.
    Thanks for the response. Epic maths fail there on my part... that's embarrassing!

    I hear you about the minimums and I can't seem to find any benchmark list that reports minimum fps, but according to hardware.info even the lowly gtx 960 can average 120fps at medium settings at 1440p. Maybe there are frequent dips below 90fps, I don't know. Irrespective, it seems fair to conclude that a 960 provides a fantastic experience at medium settings on a 1440P @ 60hz monitor, yet the roughly 3 x faster 1080 has to settle on the same medium detail settings for VR, despite the similar pixel-per-second demands of each display.

    I suppose what I'm actually wondering is whether VR is inherently more demanding than a 1440P @ 60hz display, or is it just that we need to shift from average to minimum fps to gauge VR performance? If you measure raw FPS, is VR similar to 1440P?

    I realise this is a news post not a full review, so not expecting concrete testing/answers here. But given the rise of VR, I'd certainly be interested in this featuring in future articles, particularly alongside the CPU aspects (which you mention as a possible culprit for the 1080 results). What's the impact of positional tracking on the CPU? Do more cores help? All interesting questions which I don't believe have been explored much as yet... if they have, post me some links!

    VR games are generally more demanding, and it has a lot to do with correcting for lens distortion. VR games are often rendered at 1.4x the output resolution to help with image clarity. We touch on this in the Oculus Rift review. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/oculus-rift-virtual-reality-hmd,4506-6.html

    Your suggestions for future articles are all questions I'm desperate to answer for you guys. At this time there aren't any proper tools to run benchmarks like this in VR that record the data. We're working on it, though. Keep your eyes peeled for more on this topic. We'll have more in the near future.
    Reply