High convergence enthusiasts - what are your depth settings?
1 / 2
Now that I started with the Far Cry 4 campaign I am stuck on this question again. I play all my games with high convergence settings and since Far Cry 4's fix has the separate convergence settings for aiming included I can use pretty high convergence because of no "aiming-bottleneck".
Since reduced depth settings allow for even higher convergence but always come at the price of....well, reduced depth I am very interested in the depth settings that all the other high-convergence lovers here are using (especially in a FPS like Far Cry 4).
I know it all goes down to personal taste but I would really aprreciate if the high convergence enthusiasts on this forum shared their depth settings. Where is your sweet-spot (FPS and third person games) that allows for the ultimate high convergence while maintaining good depth?
Now that I started with the Far Cry 4 campaign I am stuck on this question again. I play all my games with high convergence settings and since Far Cry 4's fix has the separate convergence settings for aiming included I can use pretty high convergence because of no "aiming-bottleneck".
Since reduced depth settings allow for even higher convergence but always come at the price of....well, reduced depth I am very interested in the depth settings that all the other high-convergence lovers here are using (especially in a FPS like Far Cry 4).
I know it all goes down to personal taste but I would really aprreciate if the high convergence enthusiasts on this forum shared their depth settings. Where is your sweet-spot (FPS and third person games) that allows for the ultimate high convergence while maintaining good depth?
Im using sony hmz and optoma 3d vision projector for 3d gaming. i think im using really low depth compared to others and high'ish convergence.
sony hmz = 30-50 depth
projector = 60-80 depth
preferred convergence, using sony hmz convergence is usually higher than projector.
3rd person games = main character at screen depth
1st person games = gun pops out, foreground around screen depth
If i remember correctly you have sony hmz too, here is couple of pictures from witcher, mass effect and fc4 to see how my preferred 3d effect looks. No spoilers on those pics. If i was wrong and you dont have hmz then dont watch pictures, not accurate with other displays.
Im using sony hmz and optoma 3d vision projector for 3d gaming. i think im using really low depth compared to others and high'ish convergence.
sony hmz = 30-50 depth
projector = 60-80 depth
preferred convergence, using sony hmz convergence is usually higher than projector.
3rd person games = main character at screen depth
1st person games = gun pops out, foreground around screen depth
If i remember correctly you have sony hmz too, here is couple of pictures from witcher, mass effect and fc4 to see how my preferred 3d effect looks. No spoilers on those pics. If i was wrong and you dont have hmz then dont watch pictures, not accurate with other displays.
Absolutely right Sammy! I also use the HMZ-T3 (used T1/T2 before). What you say sounds very interesting. Normally I use an additional depth hack because I felt the same effect with the HMZ that is already known for 3D projectors where 100% depth feels like 50% on a monitor. So with the depth hack I am able to go beyond 100%.
Now with my start of the Far Cry 4 campaign I rethought the depth/convergence ratio and for the first time since years didn't use the depth hack to allow for even higher convergence. Without the depth hack I used the normal 100%-depth but now you tell me you are using just 50% depth (which I would expect should feel like roughly 25%-depth on a monitor). This should allow for ridiculous high convergence. I will have to test this out as soon as I get back from the office today.
I guess you are not using a depth hack!? You are using the unhacked default 30-50%-depth, right!?
Thanks for the pics. Will instantly have a look at them when back from the office!
Absolutely right Sammy! I also use the HMZ-T3 (used T1/T2 before). What you say sounds very interesting. Normally I use an additional depth hack because I felt the same effect with the HMZ that is already known for 3D projectors where 100% depth feels like 50% on a monitor. So with the depth hack I am able to go beyond 100%.
Now with my start of the Far Cry 4 campaign I rethought the depth/convergence ratio and for the first time since years didn't use the depth hack to allow for even higher convergence. Without the depth hack I used the normal 100%-depth but now you tell me you are using just 50% depth (which I would expect should feel like roughly 25%-depth on a monitor). This should allow for ridiculous high convergence. I will have to test this out as soon as I get back from the office today.
I guess you are not using a depth hack!? You are using the unhacked default 30-50%-depth, right!?
Thanks for the pics. Will instantly have a look at them when back from the office!
Depth % is different for different monitors; Small monitors allow higher depth per % notch. Even with depth hack, the notch will give a different separation depending on what size of monitor the viewing is taking place from user to user. Comfort can be affected by how far you sit from the screen.
Blurring the issue more, it is said that the separation at infinity should never be more than the pupilary distance.
For me personally, this is not true - I use depth hack to play at at least 2x my pupillary distance without any discomfort. It makes the world more 3D and real-life like. I am not a fan of huge pop-out though so convergence is always kept at around screen depth.
This is on a large projected screen where I suppose comfort is higher due to the larger screen size and focal distance compared to a monitor.
Depth % is different for different monitors; Small monitors allow higher depth per % notch. Even with depth hack, the notch will give a different separation depending on what size of monitor the viewing is taking place from user to user. Comfort can be affected by how far you sit from the screen.
Blurring the issue more, it is said that the separation at infinity should never be more than the pupilary distance.
For me personally, this is not true - I use depth hack to play at at least 2x my pupillary distance without any discomfort. It makes the world more 3D and real-life like. I am not a fan of huge pop-out though so convergence is always kept at around screen depth.
This is on a large projected screen where I suppose comfort is higher due to the larger screen size and focal distance compared to a monitor.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
[quote="lohan"]Absolutely right Sammy! I also use the HMZ-T3 (used T1/T2 before). What you say sounds very interesting. Normally I use an additional depth hack because I felt the same effect with the HMZ that is already known for 3D projectors where 100% depth feels like 50% on a monitor. So with the depth hack I am able to go beyond 100%.
Now with my start of the Far Cry 4 campaign I rethought the depth/convergence ratio and for the first time since years didn't use the depth hack to allow for even higher convergence. Without the depth hack I used the normal 100%-depth but now you tell me you are using just 50% depth (which I would expect should feel like roughly 25%-depth on a monitor). This should allow for ridiculous high convergence. I will have to test this out as soon as I get back from the office today.
I guess you are not using a depth hack!? You are using the unhacked default 30-50%-depth, right!?
Thanks for the pics. Will instantly have a look at them when back from the office!
[/quote]
Yes, just 30-50% depth depending on a game, no depth hack. Btw check that your monitor size in register is 0x0000006e (110). Im pretty sure default is the same on t1 and t3, but check just to make sure you are seeing those pictures as i do. I do think however that you find those pictures to have low depth since you've been using depth hack.
I used 100% depth(no hack) with projector and sony for a while, but i started to prefer lower depth-higher convergence on sony about a year ago. Slowly on projector too.
lohan said:Absolutely right Sammy! I also use the HMZ-T3 (used T1/T2 before). What you say sounds very interesting. Normally I use an additional depth hack because I felt the same effect with the HMZ that is already known for 3D projectors where 100% depth feels like 50% on a monitor. So with the depth hack I am able to go beyond 100%.
Now with my start of the Far Cry 4 campaign I rethought the depth/convergence ratio and for the first time since years didn't use the depth hack to allow for even higher convergence. Without the depth hack I used the normal 100%-depth but now you tell me you are using just 50% depth (which I would expect should feel like roughly 25%-depth on a monitor). This should allow for ridiculous high convergence. I will have to test this out as soon as I get back from the office today.
I guess you are not using a depth hack!? You are using the unhacked default 30-50%-depth, right!?
Thanks for the pics. Will instantly have a look at them when back from the office!
Yes, just 30-50% depth depending on a game, no depth hack. Btw check that your monitor size in register is 0x0000006e (110). Im pretty sure default is the same on t1 and t3, but check just to make sure you are seeing those pictures as i do. I do think however that you find those pictures to have low depth since you've been using depth hack.
I used 100% depth(no hack) with projector and sony for a while, but i started to prefer lower depth-higher convergence on sony about a year ago. Slowly on projector too.
I game on a 27" screen, and almost always have the depth set to 100% along with fairly high convergence. My settings usually require focusing either on the background or foreground separately, causing one or the other to double, depending on where I'm focusing. This, to me, is comfortable, and mimics normal eyesight.
I game on a 27" screen, and almost always have the depth set to 100% along with fairly high convergence. My settings usually require focusing either on the background or foreground separately, causing one or the other to double, depending on where I'm focusing. This, to me, is comfortable, and mimics normal eyesight.
|CPU: i7-2700k @ 4.5Ghz
|Cooler: Zalman 9900 Max
|MB: MSI Military Class II Z68 GD-80
|RAM: Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR3
|SSDs: Seagate 600 240GB; Crucial M4 128GB
|HDDs: Seagate Barracuda 1TB; Seagate Barracuda 500GB
|PS: OCZ ZX Series 1250watt
|Case: Antec 1200 V3
|Monitors: Asus 3D VG278HE; Asus 3D VG236H; Samsung 3D 51" Plasma;
|GPU:MSI 1080GTX "Duke"
|OS: Windows 10 Pro X64
100% depth with my BenQ XL2411Z. Always. After that, I tweak convergence to my liking.
In first person games, I prefer realistic convergence: I smash my face on a wall and make that wall be at the screen depth.
In third person games, it varies. I normally put the main character at screen depth, but sometimes inside and sometimes outside.
These are exactly the settings that I currently use with my HMZ and Far Cry 4 Snicker. As you said those settings give you good depth while also allowing for high convergence. But I will definitely try those "lower depth even higher convergence"-settings that sammy suggested.
I am always trying to get this feeling of "I can touch this railing, this ATV next to me, those bushes I am standing next to" and thus I crank up convergence. But I also don't want to miss the awesomeness of the deep wide scenery extending into the distance while standing on a hill in Far Cry 4. So even lower depth settings really could break it for me because the benefit of even higher convergence could be nullified by an overall very flat looking experience. But as I said I will test this within the next two hours.......
These are exactly the settings that I currently use with my HMZ and Far Cry 4 Snicker. As you said those settings give you good depth while also allowing for high convergence. But I will definitely try those "lower depth even higher convergence"-settings that sammy suggested.
I am always trying to get this feeling of "I can touch this railing, this ATV next to me, those bushes I am standing next to" and thus I crank up convergence. But I also don't want to miss the awesomeness of the deep wide scenery extending into the distance while standing on a hill in Far Cry 4. So even lower depth settings really could break it for me because the benefit of even higher convergence could be nullified by an overall very flat looking experience. But as I said I will test this within the next two hours.......
[quote="masterotaku"]I smash my face on a wall and make that wall be at the screen depth.[/quote]
That's my method too, though I sometimes have to lower it if the weapon is popping out too much. I struggle with high convergence.
On my 27" ROG SWIFT I set depth about 60-70% - any more than that starts to look unnaturally distorted, specially combined with high convergeance.
On the projector I use all the depth I can get.
Like masterotaku above, I always use 100% depth and set convergence after that. I've never found a game that looked better with lower depth than 100%. 27 inch Acer monitor.
Like masterotaku above, I always use 100% depth and set convergence after that. I've never found a game that looked better with lower depth than 100%. 27 inch Acer monitor.
It's important to realize that the depth % is not a percent of anything, it's essentially an arbitrary number. Maximum depth is different for everyone because we all have different IPDs (the distance between our two eyes). Even with a monitor or TV, where the driver knows the size of the screen (with a projector it doesn't even know that), it doesn't know your IPD. It doesn't ask us for it. Therefore 100% depth setting in the control panel may be too much or still too little.
To get it accurate, you have to get a ruler, measure your IPD in a mirror, then measure the left/right separation of distant objects on the screen. A distant mountain peak, or the top of a distant tree, etc. Adjust depth until it matches your IPD.
This is especially important with projectors, because the driver not only doesn't know your IPD, but it doesn't know your screen size either. Though how you measure this with a head mounted device, I don't know.
If you exceed maximum depth, then your eyes need to diverge to focus on distant objects. Our eyes can do it, but they never have to in the real world. If you're sitting far from the screen (RAGEdemon), then even with double depth the angles from your eyes work out such that they don't have to diverge much, so that's probably why it's still comfortable for you.
It don't see any reason why it would truly be better though. I've never heard of our eyes being able to read more depth than normal with diverged eyes. Granted, I haven't heard definitively that it doesn't either, so I don't mean to totally discount it. But it sounds to me like a placebo- "more must be better" and your impressions follow.
It's important to realize that the depth % is not a percent of anything, it's essentially an arbitrary number. Maximum depth is different for everyone because we all have different IPDs (the distance between our two eyes). Even with a monitor or TV, where the driver knows the size of the screen (with a projector it doesn't even know that), it doesn't know your IPD. It doesn't ask us for it. Therefore 100% depth setting in the control panel may be too much or still too little.
To get it accurate, you have to get a ruler, measure your IPD in a mirror, then measure the left/right separation of distant objects on the screen. A distant mountain peak, or the top of a distant tree, etc. Adjust depth until it matches your IPD.
This is especially important with projectors, because the driver not only doesn't know your IPD, but it doesn't know your screen size either. Though how you measure this with a head mounted device, I don't know.
If you exceed maximum depth, then your eyes need to diverge to focus on distant objects. Our eyes can do it, but they never have to in the real world. If you're sitting far from the screen (RAGEdemon), then even with double depth the angles from your eyes work out such that they don't have to diverge much, so that's probably why it's still comfortable for you.
It don't see any reason why it would truly be better though. I've never heard of our eyes being able to read more depth than normal with diverged eyes. Granted, I haven't heard definitively that it doesn't either, so I don't mean to totally discount it. But it sounds to me like a placebo- "more must be better" and your impressions follow.
Well, after some fiddling with settings I ended up using 100% depth (no depth-hack) and pretty high convergence in Far Cry 4. This way I am enjoying fairly good depth and very high convergence!
Thanks again sammy for the pictures. They look phantastic!
Well, after some fiddling with settings I ended up using 100% depth (no depth-hack) and pretty high convergence in Far Cry 4. This way I am enjoying fairly good depth and very high convergence!
Thanks again sammy for the pictures. They look phantastic!
Like everyone, I enjoy high depth, but recently, I've been favouring depth that looks more realistic than just high depth for depth's sake.
On my setup (monitor, sitting close up) 100% depth in many games makes things look absurdly far away. I find that it can distort the world with what I guess you might call a telescopic lens (opposite of fisheye?) effect.
For example, an object on the edge of the monitor might look about 10 metres away, but when I turn the camera to face it directly, it zooms away to about 30 metres away, because the depth is so crazy. (I'm probably exaggerating a bit, but you get the gist).
So sometimes I dial the depth down a little to get more realistic proportions. But I didn't know that it allows increased convergence! That's cool - I'll definitely play with that from now on. I love pop-out, but in most games I need to keep the convergence very conservative, otherwise stuff starts to 'break' (don't know if it's my setup or my eyes or both).
[quote="Airion"]
If you exceed maximum depth, then your eyes need to converge to focus on distant objects. Our eyes can do it, but they never have to in the real world. If you're sitting far from the screen (RAGEdemon), then even with double depth the angles from your eyes work out such that they don't have to diverge much, so that's probably why it's still comfortable for you.[/quote]
And there must be a point where even exaggerated amounts of depth become modest or even inadequate. Focusing on two objects 15cm apart on a monitor in front of me will require my eyes to diverge painfully, but if that monitor gets placed across the road, surely my eyes would now have to [color=orange]con[/color]verge to focus on them, right?
Like everyone, I enjoy high depth, but recently, I've been favouring depth that looks more realistic than just high depth for depth's sake.
On my setup (monitor, sitting close up) 100% depth in many games makes things look absurdly far away. I find that it can distort the world with what I guess you might call a telescopic lens (opposite of fisheye?) effect.
For example, an object on the edge of the monitor might look about 10 metres away, but when I turn the camera to face it directly, it zooms away to about 30 metres away, because the depth is so crazy. (I'm probably exaggerating a bit, but you get the gist).
So sometimes I dial the depth down a little to get more realistic proportions. But I didn't know that it allows increased convergence! That's cool - I'll definitely play with that from now on. I love pop-out, but in most games I need to keep the convergence very conservative, otherwise stuff starts to 'break' (don't know if it's my setup or my eyes or both).
Airion said:
If you exceed maximum depth, then your eyes need to converge to focus on distant objects. Our eyes can do it, but they never have to in the real world. If you're sitting far from the screen (RAGEdemon), then even with double depth the angles from your eyes work out such that they don't have to diverge much, so that's probably why it's still comfortable for you.
And there must be a point where even exaggerated amounts of depth become modest or even inadequate. Focusing on two objects 15cm apart on a monitor in front of me will require my eyes to diverge painfully, but if that monitor gets placed across the road, surely my eyes would now have to converge to focus on them, right?
[quote="Volnaiskra"]Focusing on two objects 15cm apart on a monitor in front of me will require my eyes to diverge painfully, but if that monitor gets placed across the road, surely my eyes would now have to [color=orange]con[/color]verge to focus on them, right?[/quote]
Nope, they wouldn't ever converge in that case. As you move away from the screen, your eyes would move from painfully diverged to more and more parallel, until fully parallel when it's too far away to distinguish the 15cm difference between left and right.
Consider a slingshot. The angles of the left and right rubber strips start out diverged, like a V. As you pull it back, the angle gets closer and closer to parallel, but it won't ever turn into an X.
Volnaiskra said:Focusing on two objects 15cm apart on a monitor in front of me will require my eyes to diverge painfully, but if that monitor gets placed across the road, surely my eyes would now have to converge to focus on them, right?
Nope, they wouldn't ever converge in that case. As you move away from the screen, your eyes would move from painfully diverged to more and more parallel, until fully parallel when it's too far away to distinguish the 15cm difference between left and right.
Consider a slingshot. The angles of the left and right rubber strips start out diverged, like a V. As you pull it back, the angle gets closer and closer to parallel, but it won't ever turn into an X.
Since reduced depth settings allow for even higher convergence but always come at the price of....well, reduced depth I am very interested in the depth settings that all the other high-convergence lovers here are using (especially in a FPS like Far Cry 4).
I know it all goes down to personal taste but I would really aprreciate if the high convergence enthusiasts on this forum shared their depth settings. Where is your sweet-spot (FPS and third person games) that allows for the ultimate high convergence while maintaining good depth?
sony hmz = 30-50 depth
projector = 60-80 depth
preferred convergence, using sony hmz convergence is usually higher than projector.
3rd person games = main character at screen depth
1st person games = gun pops out, foreground around screen depth
If i remember correctly you have sony hmz too, here is couple of pictures from witcher, mass effect and fc4 to see how my preferred 3d effect looks. No spoilers on those pics. If i was wrong and you dont have hmz then dont watch pictures, not accurate with other displays.
Now with my start of the Far Cry 4 campaign I rethought the depth/convergence ratio and for the first time since years didn't use the depth hack to allow for even higher convergence. Without the depth hack I used the normal 100%-depth but now you tell me you are using just 50% depth (which I would expect should feel like roughly 25%-depth on a monitor). This should allow for ridiculous high convergence. I will have to test this out as soon as I get back from the office today.
I guess you are not using a depth hack!? You are using the unhacked default 30-50%-depth, right!?
Thanks for the pics. Will instantly have a look at them when back from the office!
Blurring the issue more, it is said that the separation at infinity should never be more than the pupilary distance.
For me personally, this is not true - I use depth hack to play at at least 2x my pupillary distance without any discomfort. It makes the world more 3D and real-life like. I am not a fan of huge pop-out though so convergence is always kept at around screen depth.
This is on a large projected screen where I suppose comfort is higher due to the larger screen size and focal distance compared to a monitor.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Yes, just 30-50% depth depending on a game, no depth hack. Btw check that your monitor size in register is 0x0000006e (110). Im pretty sure default is the same on t1 and t3, but check just to make sure you are seeing those pictures as i do. I do think however that you find those pictures to have low depth since you've been using depth hack.
I used 100% depth(no hack) with projector and sony for a while, but i started to prefer lower depth-higher convergence on sony about a year ago. Slowly on projector too.
|CPU: i7-2700k @ 4.5Ghz
|Cooler: Zalman 9900 Max
|MB: MSI Military Class II Z68 GD-80
|RAM: Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR3
|SSDs: Seagate 600 240GB; Crucial M4 128GB
|HDDs: Seagate Barracuda 1TB; Seagate Barracuda 500GB
|PS: OCZ ZX Series 1250watt
|Case: Antec 1200 V3
|Monitors: Asus 3D VG278HE; Asus 3D VG236H; Samsung 3D 51" Plasma;
|GPU:MSI 1080GTX "Duke"
|OS: Windows 10 Pro X64
In first person games, I prefer realistic convergence: I smash my face on a wall and make that wall be at the screen depth.
In third person games, it varies. I normally put the main character at screen depth, but sometimes inside and sometimes outside.
CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K @ 4.9GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5
RAM: GSKILL Ripjaws Z 16GB 3866MHz CL18
GPU: Gainward Phoenix 1080 GLH
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
Speakers: Logitech Z506
Donations account: masterotakusuko@gmail.com
I am always trying to get this feeling of "I can touch this railing, this ATV next to me, those bushes I am standing next to" and thus I crank up convergence. But I also don't want to miss the awesomeness of the deep wide scenery extending into the distance while standing on a hill in Far Cry 4. So even lower depth settings really could break it for me because the benefit of even higher convergence could be nullified by an overall very flat looking experience. But as I said I will test this within the next two hours.......
That's my method too, though I sometimes have to lower it if the weapon is popping out too much. I struggle with high convergence.
On the projector I use all the depth I can get.
i7 4790k @ 4.6 - 16GB RAM - 2x SLI Titan X
27" ASUS ROG SWIFT, 28" - 65" Samsung UHD8200 4k 3DTV - Oculus Rift CV1 - 34" Acer Predator X34 Ultrawide
Old kit:
i5 2500k @ 4.4 - 8gb RAM
Acer H5360BD projector
GTX 580, SLI 670, GTX 980 EVGA SC
Acer XB280HK 4k 60hz
Oculus DK2
i7-6700k @ 4.5GHz, 2x 970 GTX SLI, 16GB DDR4 @ 3000mhz, MSI Gaming M7, Samsung 950 Pro m.2 SSD 512GB, 2x 1TB RAID 1, 850w EVGA, Corsair RGB 90 keyboard
To get it accurate, you have to get a ruler, measure your IPD in a mirror, then measure the left/right separation of distant objects on the screen. A distant mountain peak, or the top of a distant tree, etc. Adjust depth until it matches your IPD.
This is especially important with projectors, because the driver not only doesn't know your IPD, but it doesn't know your screen size either. Though how you measure this with a head mounted device, I don't know.
If you exceed maximum depth, then your eyes need to diverge to focus on distant objects. Our eyes can do it, but they never have to in the real world. If you're sitting far from the screen (RAGEdemon), then even with double depth the angles from your eyes work out such that they don't have to diverge much, so that's probably why it's still comfortable for you.
It don't see any reason why it would truly be better though. I've never heard of our eyes being able to read more depth than normal with diverged eyes. Granted, I haven't heard definitively that it doesn't either, so I don't mean to totally discount it. But it sounds to me like a placebo- "more must be better" and your impressions follow.
Thanks again sammy for the pictures. They look phantastic!
On my setup (monitor, sitting close up) 100% depth in many games makes things look absurdly far away. I find that it can distort the world with what I guess you might call a telescopic lens (opposite of fisheye?) effect.
For example, an object on the edge of the monitor might look about 10 metres away, but when I turn the camera to face it directly, it zooms away to about 30 metres away, because the depth is so crazy. (I'm probably exaggerating a bit, but you get the gist).
So sometimes I dial the depth down a little to get more realistic proportions. But I didn't know that it allows increased convergence! That's cool - I'll definitely play with that from now on. I love pop-out, but in most games I need to keep the convergence very conservative, otherwise stuff starts to 'break' (don't know if it's my setup or my eyes or both).
And there must be a point where even exaggerated amounts of depth become modest or even inadequate. Focusing on two objects 15cm apart on a monitor in front of me will require my eyes to diverge painfully, but if that monitor gets placed across the road, surely my eyes would now have to converge to focus on them, right?
Nope, they wouldn't ever converge in that case. As you move away from the screen, your eyes would move from painfully diverged to more and more parallel, until fully parallel when it's too far away to distinguish the 15cm difference between left and right.
Consider a slingshot. The angles of the left and right rubber strips start out diverged, like a V. As you pull it back, the angle gets closer and closer to parallel, but it won't ever turn into an X.