[quote name='spire8989' date='01 May 2012 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1335895859' post='1403101']
Bumping this post up with a new question.
Concerning pop-out and OOS(out-of-screen, obviously) effects: is there a certain way these should be done. Maybe I'm too gimmicky and people don't like this, but I love the gimmicky oos and pop-outs in movies, but they don't seem prevalent in games. Is there a certain way these should be done?
Is it better to do them quickly, slowly, build up anticipation, make it come out of nowhere, focus around the center of the screen, diagonally, or?
Testing it myself is a bit slow, so if anyone has ideas on what they think makes the best oos effects for a first-person game, please post :)
Edit: I'm also considering now coding it to be stereoscopic myself so you don't need extraneous drivers such as 3dvision, iz3d, tridef, etc. To do this I'll render it side-by-side (and provide other options probably later on) and have two cameras at the average eye-distance apart. They will converge wherever you point your crosshair so it will actually look as if you are exploring your environment.
Of course I'll have the option to turn off my custom 3d and simply use 3dvision drivers, but I think it could be fun to make a real 3d game.
[/quote]
For what its worth, don't use movies as reference for 3d Games - they are totally different. You get what the director wants to give you in a movie, in a game it depends entirely on what *you* do in the game world, which is dynamic and random. Also, at a movie theater the screen is 50ft away so pop out is more effective. Bear in mind as well there is a wide range of tastes among 3d gamers regarding pop-out - and this is catered for by the Nvidia drivers allowing convergence adjustment to suit ones taste. Just look at the hoo-ha you get on these forums if a game comes out with 'locked' convergence, for example. More important when considering high convergence (or pop-out) is ensuring that you have some kind of 'consistency' in your game, avoiding large swings in the degree of pop-out across scenes, so that you don't have some parts (like cut scenes) sticking out so far you can't focus on them while other parts seem to far behind the screen. This involves designing the scenes in the game with consistency in size, spatial separation and so on (but I am not a 3d programmer, so it is probably much more complicated). NVidia provides documentation on guidelines for this stuff on the nvidia.com website (somewhere).
Not sure I understand your last point, but if you are talking about dynamically adjusting convergence based on where the cross-hair is (e.g. to bring that point to screen depth) then that will be a total headf**k for sure, and actually the opposite of 'real life' - stuff in the distance does not suddenly look closer when we focus on it. Convergence needs to be set once, and only changed in the scenarios I describe above.
[quote name='spire8989' date='01 May 2012 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1335895859' post='1403101']
Bumping this post up with a new question.
Concerning pop-out and OOS(out-of-screen, obviously) effects: is there a certain way these should be done. Maybe I'm too gimmicky and people don't like this, but I love the gimmicky oos and pop-outs in movies, but they don't seem prevalent in games. Is there a certain way these should be done?
Is it better to do them quickly, slowly, build up anticipation, make it come out of nowhere, focus around the center of the screen, diagonally, or?
Testing it myself is a bit slow, so if anyone has ideas on what they think makes the best oos effects for a first-person game, please post :)
Edit: I'm also considering now coding it to be stereoscopic myself so you don't need extraneous drivers such as 3dvision, iz3d, tridef, etc. To do this I'll render it side-by-side (and provide other options probably later on) and have two cameras at the average eye-distance apart. They will converge wherever you point your crosshair so it will actually look as if you are exploring your environment.
Of course I'll have the option to turn off my custom 3d and simply use 3dvision drivers, but I think it could be fun to make a real 3d game.
For what its worth, don't use movies as reference for 3d Games - they are totally different. You get what the director wants to give you in a movie, in a game it depends entirely on what *you* do in the game world, which is dynamic and random. Also, at a movie theater the screen is 50ft away so pop out is more effective. Bear in mind as well there is a wide range of tastes among 3d gamers regarding pop-out - and this is catered for by the Nvidia drivers allowing convergence adjustment to suit ones taste. Just look at the hoo-ha you get on these forums if a game comes out with 'locked' convergence, for example. More important when considering high convergence (or pop-out) is ensuring that you have some kind of 'consistency' in your game, avoiding large swings in the degree of pop-out across scenes, so that you don't have some parts (like cut scenes) sticking out so far you can't focus on them while other parts seem to far behind the screen. This involves designing the scenes in the game with consistency in size, spatial separation and so on (but I am not a 3d programmer, so it is probably much more complicated). NVidia provides documentation on guidelines for this stuff on the nvidia.com website (somewhere).
Not sure I understand your last point, but if you are talking about dynamically adjusting convergence based on where the cross-hair is (e.g. to bring that point to screen depth) then that will be a total headf**k for sure, and actually the opposite of 'real life' - stuff in the distance does not suddenly look closer when we focus on it. Convergence needs to be set once, and only changed in the scenarios I describe above.
I do [i]kind of[/i] meaning changing it based on crosshair. It would be an extra option off by default, it would also be changeable by using ctrl+mousewheel. I'll be toying around with it this week to see if it's plausible. I'm thinking more DOF and focus changes than convergence. Such as if you look at your hand close to your face, it comes into focus and everything behind it becomes a bit out of focus.
Anyway, the first information is quite helpful, I'll play around with it a lot myself too.
It seems like the 3d drivers already kind of focus like this:
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Mine would be the same except focusing it on an object instead of a static angle:
----x
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Where the object is x. Regardless, I'll play around with that myself and see how it works out.
I do kind of meaning changing it based on crosshair. It would be an extra option off by default, it would also be changeable by using ctrl+mousewheel. I'll be toying around with it this week to see if it's plausible. I'm thinking more DOF and focus changes than convergence. Such as if you look at your hand close to your face, it comes into focus and everything behind it becomes a bit out of focus.
Anyway, the first information is quite helpful, I'll play around with it a lot myself too.
It seems like the 3d drivers already kind of focus like this:
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Mine would be the same except focusing it on an object instead of a static angle:
----x
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Where the object is x. Regardless, I'll play around with that myself and see how it works out.
[quote name='spire8989' date='02 May 2012 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1335980907' post='1403501']
I do [i]kind of[/i] meaning changing it based on crosshair. It would be an extra option off by default, it would also be changeable by using ctrl+mousewheel. I'll be toying around with it this week to see if it's plausible. I'm thinking more DOF and focus changes than convergence. Such as if you look at your hand close to your face, it comes into focus and everything behind it becomes a bit out of focus.
Anyway, the first information is quite helpful, I'll play around with it a lot myself too.
It seems like the 3d drivers already kind of focus like this:
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Mine would be the same except focusing it on an object instead of a static angle:
----x
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Where the object is x. Regardless, I'll play around with that myself and see how it works out.
[/quote]
I get you. One word of caution though - most people who play in stereo 3d (including me) turn off DOF or focusing effects. It's a trick to give the impression of depth in a 2d scene, and can look nice for that purpose. In stereo you already have 'actual' depth: looking at something close makes things in the distance blurry already, and looking at stuff in the distance makes close things blurry - all quite naturally. Having 2d DOF in a stereo view messes things up a lot because the DOF can only be set for one depth at a time (i.e. what the cursor/cross-hair is pointing at), whereas in actual S3D the depth is there all the time everywhere you look, and changes naturally as you look around the scene. So when DOF is on, some things look out of focus just because they are not at the cross-hair depth and so to look at them you must move your view to 'point' at them, which is annoying, and can break immersion. You should canvas other 3D players views on this before spending time developing the functionality, unless you are dead set on it for a 2d implementation.
Not sure I understand your picture of what the drivers are 'focussing on'? If you mean the 3d cross-hair, then what that does is change it's rendered depth to be the same as the object it is pointing at in the center of the screen - so as you look around the depth of the cross-hair changes dynamically. In your picture that would correspond to your second diagram.
[quote name='spire8989' date='02 May 2012 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1335980907' post='1403501']
I do kind of meaning changing it based on crosshair. It would be an extra option off by default, it would also be changeable by using ctrl+mousewheel. I'll be toying around with it this week to see if it's plausible. I'm thinking more DOF and focus changes than convergence. Such as if you look at your hand close to your face, it comes into focus and everything behind it becomes a bit out of focus.
Anyway, the first information is quite helpful, I'll play around with it a lot myself too.
It seems like the 3d drivers already kind of focus like this:
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Mine would be the same except focusing it on an object instead of a static angle:
----x
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Where the object is x. Regardless, I'll play around with that myself and see how it works out.
I get you. One word of caution though - most people who play in stereo 3d (including me) turn off DOF or focusing effects. It's a trick to give the impression of depth in a 2d scene, and can look nice for that purpose. In stereo you already have 'actual' depth: looking at something close makes things in the distance blurry already, and looking at stuff in the distance makes close things blurry - all quite naturally. Having 2d DOF in a stereo view messes things up a lot because the DOF can only be set for one depth at a time (i.e. what the cursor/cross-hair is pointing at), whereas in actual S3D the depth is there all the time everywhere you look, and changes naturally as you look around the scene. So when DOF is on, some things look out of focus just because they are not at the cross-hair depth and so to look at them you must move your view to 'point' at them, which is annoying, and can break immersion. You should canvas other 3D players views on this before spending time developing the functionality, unless you are dead set on it for a 2d implementation.
Not sure I understand your picture of what the drivers are 'focussing on'? If you mean the 3d cross-hair, then what that does is change it's rendered depth to be the same as the object it is pointing at in the center of the screen - so as you look around the depth of the cross-hair changes dynamically. In your picture that would correspond to your second diagram.
Okay, I'm making the game specifically for 3d, 2d isn't a concern.
As for the time to set the system up and test it - it's really a pretty simple system that only takes a couple hours to develop. There are two cameras attached to the player to simulate the two eyes and it will render everything side-by-side. I'm just figuring out how best to change the angles that the cameras aim automatically (with separate functions for manual angles and whatnot).
I think most of this will come to trial and error so I may wait until I have something to show before continuing on this.
Okay, I'm making the game specifically for 3d, 2d isn't a concern.
As for the time to set the system up and test it - it's really a pretty simple system that only takes a couple hours to develop. There are two cameras attached to the player to simulate the two eyes and it will render everything side-by-side. I'm just figuring out how best to change the angles that the cameras aim automatically (with separate functions for manual angles and whatnot).
I think most of this will come to trial and error so I may wait until I have something to show before continuing on this.
Bumping this post up with a new question.
Concerning pop-out and OOS(out-of-screen, obviously) effects: is there a certain way these should be done. Maybe I'm too gimmicky and people don't like this, but I love the gimmicky oos and pop-outs in movies, but they don't seem prevalent in games. Is there a certain way these should be done?
Is it better to do them quickly, slowly, build up anticipation, make it come out of nowhere, focus around the center of the screen, diagonally, or?
Testing it myself is a bit slow, so if anyone has ideas on what they think makes the best oos effects for a first-person game, please post :)
Edit: I'm also considering now coding it to be stereoscopic myself so you don't need extraneous drivers such as 3dvision, iz3d, tridef, etc. To do this I'll render it side-by-side (and provide other options probably later on) and have two cameras at the average eye-distance apart. They will converge wherever you point your crosshair so it will actually look as if you are exploring your environment.
Of course I'll have the option to turn off my custom 3d and simply use 3dvision drivers, but I think it could be fun to make a real 3d game.
[/quote]
For what its worth, don't use movies as reference for 3d Games - they are totally different. You get what the director wants to give you in a movie, in a game it depends entirely on what *you* do in the game world, which is dynamic and random. Also, at a movie theater the screen is 50ft away so pop out is more effective. Bear in mind as well there is a wide range of tastes among 3d gamers regarding pop-out - and this is catered for by the Nvidia drivers allowing convergence adjustment to suit ones taste. Just look at the hoo-ha you get on these forums if a game comes out with 'locked' convergence, for example. More important when considering high convergence (or pop-out) is ensuring that you have some kind of 'consistency' in your game, avoiding large swings in the degree of pop-out across scenes, so that you don't have some parts (like cut scenes) sticking out so far you can't focus on them while other parts seem to far behind the screen. This involves designing the scenes in the game with consistency in size, spatial separation and so on (but I am not a 3d programmer, so it is probably much more complicated). NVidia provides documentation on guidelines for this stuff on the nvidia.com website (somewhere).
Not sure I understand your last point, but if you are talking about dynamically adjusting convergence based on where the cross-hair is (e.g. to bring that point to screen depth) then that will be a total headf**k for sure, and actually the opposite of 'real life' - stuff in the distance does not suddenly look closer when we focus on it. Convergence needs to be set once, and only changed in the scenarios I describe above.
Bumping this post up with a new question.
Concerning pop-out and OOS(out-of-screen, obviously) effects: is there a certain way these should be done. Maybe I'm too gimmicky and people don't like this, but I love the gimmicky oos and pop-outs in movies, but they don't seem prevalent in games. Is there a certain way these should be done?
Is it better to do them quickly, slowly, build up anticipation, make it come out of nowhere, focus around the center of the screen, diagonally, or?
Testing it myself is a bit slow, so if anyone has ideas on what they think makes the best oos effects for a first-person game, please post :)
Edit: I'm also considering now coding it to be stereoscopic myself so you don't need extraneous drivers such as 3dvision, iz3d, tridef, etc. To do this I'll render it side-by-side (and provide other options probably later on) and have two cameras at the average eye-distance apart. They will converge wherever you point your crosshair so it will actually look as if you are exploring your environment.
Of course I'll have the option to turn off my custom 3d and simply use 3dvision drivers, but I think it could be fun to make a real 3d game.
For what its worth, don't use movies as reference for 3d Games - they are totally different. You get what the director wants to give you in a movie, in a game it depends entirely on what *you* do in the game world, which is dynamic and random. Also, at a movie theater the screen is 50ft away so pop out is more effective. Bear in mind as well there is a wide range of tastes among 3d gamers regarding pop-out - and this is catered for by the Nvidia drivers allowing convergence adjustment to suit ones taste. Just look at the hoo-ha you get on these forums if a game comes out with 'locked' convergence, for example. More important when considering high convergence (or pop-out) is ensuring that you have some kind of 'consistency' in your game, avoiding large swings in the degree of pop-out across scenes, so that you don't have some parts (like cut scenes) sticking out so far you can't focus on them while other parts seem to far behind the screen. This involves designing the scenes in the game with consistency in size, spatial separation and so on (but I am not a 3d programmer, so it is probably much more complicated). NVidia provides documentation on guidelines for this stuff on the nvidia.com website (somewhere).
Not sure I understand your last point, but if you are talking about dynamically adjusting convergence based on where the cross-hair is (e.g. to bring that point to screen depth) then that will be a total headf**k for sure, and actually the opposite of 'real life' - stuff in the distance does not suddenly look closer when we focus on it. Convergence needs to be set once, and only changed in the scenarios I describe above.
Rig: Intel i7-8700K @4.7GHz, 16Gb Ram, SSD, GTX 1080Ti, Win10x64, Asus VG278
Anyway, the first information is quite helpful, I'll play around with it a lot myself too.
It seems like the 3d drivers already kind of focus like this:
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Mine would be the same except focusing it on an object instead of a static angle:
----x
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Where the object is x. Regardless, I'll play around with that myself and see how it works out.
Anyway, the first information is quite helpful, I'll play around with it a lot myself too.
It seems like the 3d drivers already kind of focus like this:
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Mine would be the same except focusing it on an object instead of a static angle:
----x
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Where the object is x. Regardless, I'll play around with that myself and see how it works out.
I do [i]kind of[/i] meaning changing it based on crosshair. It would be an extra option off by default, it would also be changeable by using ctrl+mousewheel. I'll be toying around with it this week to see if it's plausible. I'm thinking more DOF and focus changes than convergence. Such as if you look at your hand close to your face, it comes into focus and everything behind it becomes a bit out of focus.
Anyway, the first information is quite helpful, I'll play around with it a lot myself too.
It seems like the 3d drivers already kind of focus like this:
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Mine would be the same except focusing it on an object instead of a static angle:
----x
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Where the object is x. Regardless, I'll play around with that myself and see how it works out.
[/quote]
I get you. One word of caution though - most people who play in stereo 3d (including me) turn off DOF or focusing effects. It's a trick to give the impression of depth in a 2d scene, and can look nice for that purpose. In stereo you already have 'actual' depth: looking at something close makes things in the distance blurry already, and looking at stuff in the distance makes close things blurry - all quite naturally. Having 2d DOF in a stereo view messes things up a lot because the DOF can only be set for one depth at a time (i.e. what the cursor/cross-hair is pointing at), whereas in actual S3D the depth is there all the time everywhere you look, and changes naturally as you look around the scene. So when DOF is on, some things look out of focus just because they are not at the cross-hair depth and so to look at them you must move your view to 'point' at them, which is annoying, and can break immersion. You should canvas other 3D players views on this before spending time developing the functionality, unless you are dead set on it for a 2d implementation.
Not sure I understand your picture of what the drivers are 'focussing on'? If you mean the 3d cross-hair, then what that does is change it's rendered depth to be the same as the object it is pointing at in the center of the screen - so as you look around the depth of the cross-hair changes dynamically. In your picture that would correspond to your second diagram.
I do kind of meaning changing it based on crosshair. It would be an extra option off by default, it would also be changeable by using ctrl+mousewheel. I'll be toying around with it this week to see if it's plausible. I'm thinking more DOF and focus changes than convergence. Such as if you look at your hand close to your face, it comes into focus and everything behind it becomes a bit out of focus.
Anyway, the first information is quite helpful, I'll play around with it a lot myself too.
It seems like the 3d drivers already kind of focus like this:
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Mine would be the same except focusing it on an object instead of a static angle:
----x
----/\
---/--\
--/----\
--o----o
Where the object is x. Regardless, I'll play around with that myself and see how it works out.
I get you. One word of caution though - most people who play in stereo 3d (including me) turn off DOF or focusing effects. It's a trick to give the impression of depth in a 2d scene, and can look nice for that purpose. In stereo you already have 'actual' depth: looking at something close makes things in the distance blurry already, and looking at stuff in the distance makes close things blurry - all quite naturally. Having 2d DOF in a stereo view messes things up a lot because the DOF can only be set for one depth at a time (i.e. what the cursor/cross-hair is pointing at), whereas in actual S3D the depth is there all the time everywhere you look, and changes naturally as you look around the scene. So when DOF is on, some things look out of focus just because they are not at the cross-hair depth and so to look at them you must move your view to 'point' at them, which is annoying, and can break immersion. You should canvas other 3D players views on this before spending time developing the functionality, unless you are dead set on it for a 2d implementation.
Not sure I understand your picture of what the drivers are 'focussing on'? If you mean the 3d cross-hair, then what that does is change it's rendered depth to be the same as the object it is pointing at in the center of the screen - so as you look around the depth of the cross-hair changes dynamically. In your picture that would correspond to your second diagram.
Rig: Intel i7-8700K @4.7GHz, 16Gb Ram, SSD, GTX 1080Ti, Win10x64, Asus VG278
As for the time to set the system up and test it - it's really a pretty simple system that only takes a couple hours to develop. There are two cameras attached to the player to simulate the two eyes and it will render everything side-by-side. I'm just figuring out how best to change the angles that the cameras aim automatically (with separate functions for manual angles and whatnot).
I think most of this will come to trial and error so I may wait until I have something to show before continuing on this.
As for the time to set the system up and test it - it's really a pretty simple system that only takes a couple hours to develop. There are two cameras attached to the player to simulate the two eyes and it will render everything side-by-side. I'm just figuring out how best to change the angles that the cameras aim automatically (with separate functions for manual angles and whatnot).
I think most of this will come to trial and error so I may wait until I have something to show before continuing on this.