Performance Improvements ETA?

Kideternal: That sounds pretty-much the same as my own experience with a GearVR game.

I did some testing with empty scenes (Directional Light, OVRPlayerController, and a plane to stand on) using Unity 5.1.1p3 as the release documentation recommends.

Without VRSupport Turned on with Vsync = ~75-80fps
With VRSupport Turned on with Vsync = ~68-75fps (latency spike to ~100ms once every ~1sec)

My Profiler shows this spike and confirms its an OculusWaitForGPU delay happening about once every 1 second.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/694 ... rob_01.jpg

This latency spike causes the FPS to go down to ~20fps briefly.

My system specs are: i7-4710MQ (8 cores at 2.5GHz), 16GB Ram, Nvidia Quadro 2100M (Driver 353.82), and using a DK2 with up to date firmware.

When I add my optimized virtual environment mesh I get OculusWaitForGPU delays almost every other frame causing my frame rate to go down to ~20fps. When VR is disabled in the player settings and Vsync is still on, I am getting 75fps. The fps drop occurs after enabling VR in the player settings.

What should I do to optimize the OVRPlayerController for my system? Is it just the fact that my graphics card is not the one Oculus recommends?

"cfrend" wrote:
I did some testing with empty scenes (Directional Light, OVRPlayerController, and a plane to stand on) using Unity 5.1.1p3 as the release documentation recommends.

Without VRSupport Turned on with Vsync = ~75-80fps
With VRSupport Turned on with Vsync = ~68-75fps (latency spike to ~100ms once every ~1sec)

My Profiler shows this spike and confirms its an OculusWaitForGPU delay happening about once every 1 second.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/694 ... rob_01.jpg

This latency spike causes the FPS to go down to ~20fps briefly.

My system specs are: i7-4710MQ (8 cores at 2.5GHz), 16GB Ram, Nvidia Quadro 2100M (Driver 353.82), and using a DK2 with up to date firmware.

When I add my optimized virtual environment mesh I get OculusWaitForGPU delays almost every other frame causing my frame rate to go down to ~20fps. When VR is disabled in the player settings and Vsync is still on, I am getting 75fps. The fps drop occurs after enabling VR in the player settings.

What should I do to optimize the OVRPlayerController for my system? Is it just the fact that my graphics card is not the one Oculus recommends?

Is this a serious post?..Or maybe a joke?
A Quadro "M" board?
Must be joking or has this Forum gone downhill this much that these posts are allowed through so easily?
I guess by reading these sorts of things I should feel deepest sympathy for the Moderator.

OP,maybe read some more guides and look up bench marks and use your head.

Oh and by the way..Your video card will not do the DK2 justice at all.
If that's wasn't obvious before then maybe it is now?

Surely threads like these about hopeless hardware could be banned or placed in a special little room of it's own?
Or maybe, Moderator, you could headline the facts about hardware in a much better and more obvious manner?

"enzedda" wrote:
Is this a serious post?..Or maybe a joke?
A Quadro "M" board?
Must be joking or has this Forum gone downhill this much that these posts are allowed through so easily?
I guess by reading these sorts of things I should feel deepest sympathy for the Moderator.

Ok ok, you have sufficiently embarrassed me by pointing out my "noobness."

"enzedda" wrote:
OP,maybe read some more guides and look up bench marks and use your head.

Thanks, I learned a few more ways to do this here are OC2.

"enzedda" wrote:
Oh and by the way..Your video card will not do the DK2 justice at all.
If that's wasn't obvious before then maybe it is now?

What is the background on this? I have seen other posters be lambasted about Quadros vs GeForce with the DK2 before , but nothing helpful has been explained. Links? Explanations? Opinions?

"enzedda" wrote:
Surely threads like these about hopeless hardware could be banned or placed in a special little room of it's own?
Or maybe, Moderator, you could headline the facts about hardware in a much better and more obvious manner?

Yes, obvious info would be better. Most University researchers don't have budgets or mechanisms to force the latest recommended GTX card into their research rig. We have to make due with what is available.

"cfrend" wrote:
My Profiler shows this spike and confirms its an OculusWaitForGPU delay happening about once every 1 second.

OculusWaitForGPU is a bit deceptive. It typically has nothing to do with VR and simply means the CPU is waiting for the GPU to finish a frame. In this case, it looks like the editor is taking a long time to draw the profiler view, which it does once per second. Does the spike also appear if you build a standalone and attach the profiler to that?

"kideternal" wrote:
In 5.2.0.p1, with the player/camera in exactly the same spot of the same scene, I get 50 FPS!

Please don't use versions of Unity that we haven't recommended at https://forums.oculus.com/viewtopic.php?t=25882. Today, the latest safe versions are 5.1.2f1 and 4.6.8p2. We are still ironing out a QA process and it generally isn't safe to take the latest Unity release. We expect this to improve before the consumer Rift and Gear VR SDKs ship.

"cfrend" wrote:
Without VRSupport Turned on with Vsync = ~75-80fps
With VRSupport Turned on with Vsync = ~68-75fps

When you enable VR, Unity renders to 2 RenderTextures that are bigger than your screen. You can use our OVRDebugInfo script to see what resolution that is. You can adjust VRSettings.renderScale to reduce that resolution for a fair comparison.

"cfrend" wrote:
i7-4710MQ (8 cores at 2.5GHz), 16GB Ram, Nvidia Quadro 2100M

This a valid question, but your machine is significantly below our recommended spec. It isn't that you're using a Quadro, it's that a K2100 (or an NVS 2100, which is ancient) is much less powerful than a GeForce GTX 970. There are actually Quadros that can outperform a 970, such as the M6000, but they are currently desktop-only. Right now, it is very hard to find a laptop that performs adequately for good VR. You have 3 choices:
1) Buy a laptop with a desktop-class GPU (see http://www.pcworld.com/article/2984573/components/nvidia-hits-gaming-milestone-true-desktop-performance-in-a-laptop-with-geforce-gtx-980.html)
2) Use OVRDirect and settle for poor performance on most apps or decent performance on extremely simple apps.

"cfrend" wrote:
i7-4710MQ (8 cores at 2.5GHz), 16GB Ram, Nvidia Quadro 2100M

This a valid question, but your machine is significantly below our recommended spec. It isn't that you're using a Quadro, it's that a K2100 (or an NVS 2100, which is ancient) is much less powerful than a GeForce GTX 970. There are actually Quadros that can outperform a 970, such as the M6000, but they are currently desktop-only. Right now, it is very hard to find a laptop that performs adequately for good VR. You have 3 choices:
1) Buy a laptop with a desktop-class GPU (see http://www.pcworld.com/article/2984573/components/nvidia-hits-gaming-milestone-true-desktop-performance-in-a-laptop-with-geforce-gtx-980.html)
2) Use OVRDirect and settle for poor performance on most apps or decent performance on extremely simple apps.

Oh yeah. A K2100 around $600.
Hopeless. Have tried it with a i7.
The M6000 around $6000 !
Just guessing again Oculus?
Stay well away from quadro.
Great for everything except VR and serious gaming.
But maybe the $6000 M6000 might, repeat might just make it.
But not all of us have Facebook bucks to throw about.
Get serious Oculus with your facts as well as your "updates."

I didn't say the quadro was cheap. The 970 is definitely the better buy. Please keep it constructive. It's true that we get a lot of reports of poor performance when people try to use VR with machines below our recommended spec. We've prominently published the spec on our blog (https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/powering-the-rift/) and we are setting up an "Oculus Ready" sticker program to help people identify machines that are powerful enough for VR (http://uploadvr.com/oculus-ready-vr-pc/).