[quote name='photios' date='30 June 2011 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1309448629' post='1258439']
The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done.
[/quote]
I respect your opinion but I have to disagree some here. I have also been doing 3D since the early 2000's when I was using Edimensional wired glasses on a 22" CRT. I am one of the many people that prefer high depth settings, and for me that means even more then the 100% that is normally allowed by the drivers. Things close to the character look decent enough but not so much farther away. With tweaking I can get the game to a happy middle ground for playing in 3D with.
I do agree it is not as horrible as some people claim but for many of us, it is only after doing some tweaking of the 3D effect in the game.
[quote name='photios' date='30 June 2011 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1309448629' post='1258439']
The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done.
I respect your opinion but I have to disagree some here. I have also been doing 3D since the early 2000's when I was using Edimensional wired glasses on a 22" CRT. I am one of the many people that prefer high depth settings, and for me that means even more then the 100% that is normally allowed by the drivers. Things close to the character look decent enough but not so much farther away. With tweaking I can get the game to a happy middle ground for playing in 3D with.
I do agree it is not as horrible as some people claim but for many of us, it is only after doing some tweaking of the 3D effect in the game.
I disagree. When looking at screenies for B2:BC I see an image which looks like a photo of 3D cardboard cutouts. When I look at the posted Crysis I see near and far. It is very different 3D. It looks like the 3D you get when you REALLY minimise convergence. Like ME2 (before Trit's fix) where you had to press Ctrl F5 so the convergence point was so far out the 3D was flattened.
Similarly, in the crysis 2 screenies compare the vergence of the nearby stair rail to the furthest object in the screen. There is little difference.
BUT as I found when playing ME2, poor 3D is still 3D and playable compared to unplayable 2D
I disagree. When looking at screenies for B2:BC I see an image which looks like a photo of 3D cardboard cutouts. When I look at the posted Crysis I see near and far. It is very different 3D. It looks like the 3D you get when you REALLY minimise convergence. Like ME2 (before Trit's fix) where you had to press Ctrl F5 so the convergence point was so far out the 3D was flattened.
Similarly, in the crysis 2 screenies compare the vergence of the nearby stair rail to the furthest object in the screen. There is little difference.
BUT as I found when playing ME2, poor 3D is still 3D and playable compared to unplayable 2D
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM
[quote name='photios' date='30 June 2011 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1309448629' post='1258439']
The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done.
[/quote]
Dude I'm astonished with your comments, as you've been using 3D for such a long time, you should be an expert. Maybe it's your eyes, but the difference between Crysis 2 implemenation compared to Real S3D (which means 2 frames rendered = 30-40% drop) is just so obvious, that I think that maybe your eyes are not that healthy. You should check them... I'm serious... 3D effect really depends on your eyes health.
Do you think there's a magic for Crysis 2 3D don't loose any performance??? It's because it's fake, just like a 2D-3D conversion, but better implemented for sure.
You should know how 3D works, that it depends on 2 slight different views, right and left, not just one generated by a simulation 3D map.
Are you saying that Crysis 2 3D looks just as good as Batman and Just Cause 2??? Are you serious dude, propaganda, you got be joking really.
3D experts like Bloody from 3Dvision blog already explained those differences, it's so obvious, that's why I think you're it has to be your eyes. Just read other folks comments in this very thread...
Anyway I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it. I can really see a huge difference for real 3D compared to this 3D used by Crytek. To me it's so obvious.
[quote name='photios' date='30 June 2011 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1309448629' post='1258439']
The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done.
Dude I'm astonished with your comments, as you've been using 3D for such a long time, you should be an expert. Maybe it's your eyes, but the difference between Crysis 2 implemenation compared to Real S3D (which means 2 frames rendered = 30-40% drop) is just so obvious, that I think that maybe your eyes are not that healthy. You should check them... I'm serious... 3D effect really depends on your eyes health.
Do you think there's a magic for Crysis 2 3D don't loose any performance??? It's because it's fake, just like a 2D-3D conversion, but better implemented for sure.
You should know how 3D works, that it depends on 2 slight different views, right and left, not just one generated by a simulation 3D map.
Are you saying that Crysis 2 3D looks just as good as Batman and Just Cause 2??? Are you serious dude, propaganda, you got be joking really.
3D experts like Bloody from 3Dvision blog already explained those differences, it's so obvious, that's why I think you're it has to be your eyes. Just read other folks comments in this very thread...
Anyway I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it. I can really see a huge difference for real 3D compared to this 3D used by Crytek. To me it's so obvious.
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
I think the difference is rather large, but at the same time I do think people have blown the differences out of proportion and caliming that Crysis 2 looks horrible. It simply isn't horrible, it is far from perfect, but it is reasonably good.
Personally I love what crytek has done, that is if it was an option. It however should be an option for those with lower end systems and should allow those with systems powerfull enough to run the game in 3d in the 'proper' manner.
I think the difference is rather large, but at the same time I do think people have blown the differences out of proportion and caliming that Crysis 2 looks horrible. It simply isn't horrible, it is far from perfect, but it is reasonably good.
Personally I love what crytek has done, that is if it was an option. It however should be an option for those with lower end systems and should allow those with systems powerfull enough to run the game in 3d in the 'proper' manner.
Seems like with crytek you get the bad trade off everytime, think about it like that, they are like LG displays, they sell rebadged stuff lol, rebadged 2d is the new 3D, now with extra DOF.
[quote]
Repatched missing details and artifacts is not exactly pleasing to the eye (really) , too small paralax is neither and eye strain is caused by focus and convergeance being decoupled (a problem for any method using a flat surface to diplay perceivable depth).
Also Guerilla can still achieve 960 pixels horizontall resolution (640 is too radical).
Then i take the tradeoffs for real 3d and big paralax anyday other depth buffer trick...
[/quote]
Seems like with crytek you get the bad trade off everytime, think about it like that, they are like LG displays, they sell rebadged stuff lol, rebadged 2d is the new 3D, now with extra DOF.
Repatched missing details and artifacts is not exactly pleasing to the eye (really) , too small paralax is neither and eye strain is caused by focus and convergeance being decoupled (a problem for any method using a flat surface to diplay perceivable depth).
Also Guerilla can still achieve 960 pixels horizontall resolution (640 is too radical).
Then i take the tradeoffs for real 3d and big paralax anyday other depth buffer trick...
This has turned into the poo-poo on 'photios' party huh? As a philosopher perhaps I should be the first to admit I'm wrong, but before I do let me get a few things straight.
1) There is nothing wrong with my eyes. I have 20/20 vision.
2) I have gone through, diagnosed, and assessed literally hundreds of games under Windows 98/2000/XP using the old Stereo Driver and catalogued what looks good, what is mediocre, and what is bad. I've also taught and showed people on this forum how to setup an old school machine using the old Nvidia driver and DLP tech and play OpenGL and Directx 7/6/5/4 games. I'd hardly call myself a 3D expert, but I have viewed enough (and done this long enough)to know a little bit of what to look for in regards to quality.
3) I have done my own experimenting, mostly with console gamers, to asses Crytek's 3D quality. Now you might consider a console gamer to be a 3D newbie, but my reasoning for choosing such a gamer was they fit the condition of [i]tabula rasa [/i] (blank slate) for evaluating the condition: they virtually know nothing about the tech. In knowing nothing, I wanted to see a new comer's reaction. My findings was that Nvidia's 3D Vision was marginally better than Crytek and only considerably better if we account for Crysis 2's graphic anomalies while in 3D. If I were to "grade" this games 3D quality, I would give it somewhere between Excellent and Good in Nvidia's rating scale. Minus the anomalies it is Excellent all around. Nvidia has it listed as "fair." Now would anbody claim that this game is "fair" compared to Halo 2 and Crysis (1) which are considered "Good" by Nvidia's standard? Of course not. It's better than both and better than dozens of others in Nvidia's "Good" category.
First off, what displays are you guys using? For my purposes I use a Mits DLP TV, and I do not view Crysis 2 using 3D Vision, I turn that off and force the game through the system.cfg file to use native checkerboard and use my TV's DLPLink glasses.
This has turned into the poo-poo on 'photios' party huh? As a philosopher perhaps I should be the first to admit I'm wrong, but before I do let me get a few things straight.
1) There is nothing wrong with my eyes. I have 20/20 vision.
2) I have gone through, diagnosed, and assessed literally hundreds of games under Windows 98/2000/XP using the old Stereo Driver and catalogued what looks good, what is mediocre, and what is bad. I've also taught and showed people on this forum how to setup an old school machine using the old Nvidia driver and DLP tech and play OpenGL and Directx 7/6/5/4 games. I'd hardly call myself a 3D expert, but I have viewed enough (and done this long enough)to know a little bit of what to look for in regards to quality.
3) I have done my own experimenting, mostly with console gamers, to asses Crytek's 3D quality. Now you might consider a console gamer to be a 3D newbie, but my reasoning for choosing such a gamer was they fit the condition of tabula rasa (blank slate) for evaluating the condition: they virtually know nothing about the tech. In knowing nothing, I wanted to see a new comer's reaction. My findings was that Nvidia's 3D Vision was marginally better than Crytek and only considerably better if we account for Crysis 2's graphic anomalies while in 3D. If I were to "grade" this games 3D quality, I would give it somewhere between Excellent and Good in Nvidia's rating scale. Minus the anomalies it is Excellent all around. Nvidia has it listed as "fair." Now would anbody claim that this game is "fair" compared to Halo 2 and Crysis (1) which are considered "Good" by Nvidia's standard? Of course not. It's better than both and better than dozens of others in Nvidia's "Good" category.
First off, what displays are you guys using? For my purposes I use a Mits DLP TV, and I do not view Crysis 2 using 3D Vision, I turn that off and force the game through the system.cfg file to use native checkerboard and use my TV's DLPLink glasses.
[quote name='photios' date='01 July 2011 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1309528201' post='1258791']
For my purposes I use a Mits DLP TV, and I do not view Crysis 2 using 3D Vision, I turn that off and force the game through the system.cfg file to use native checkerboard and use my TV's DLPLink glasses.
[/quote]
Oh that's the solution, let's all ditch 3d vision... dude... it's 3d vision forum...
Crysis 2 3D is a complete turd compared to a beauty like Metro2033 (a flat layered turd), aside that I realy do enjoy the game in 2D
[quote name='photios' date='01 July 2011 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1309528201' post='1258791']
For my purposes I use a Mits DLP TV, and I do not view Crysis 2 using 3D Vision, I turn that off and force the game through the system.cfg file to use native checkerboard and use my TV's DLPLink glasses.
Oh that's the solution, let's all ditch 3d vision... dude... it's 3d vision forum...
Crysis 2 3D is a complete turd compared to a beauty like Metro2033 (a flat layered turd), aside that I realy do enjoy the game in 2D
[quote name='Hurmpie' date='01 July 2011 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1309537275' post='1258861']
Oh that's the solution, let's all ditch 3d vision... dude... it's 3d vision forum...
Crysis 2 3D is a complete turd compared to a beauty like Metro2033 (a flat layered turd), aside that I realy do enjoy the game in 2D
[/quote]
I never said "let's ditch 3D Vision," the only reason I turn off 3D Vision is because 3D Vision does NOT work in Crysis 2 + DX9 + GTX 590 Quad SLI (prior to the patch) and it still doesn't work with DX 11 unless you use the latest beta driver (I'll wait till the next WHQL). Of COURSE, once Nvidia fixes 3D Vision and Crysis DX 11, my choice will be either/or acceptable. My post doesn't hinge on using DLP Link or 3D Vision. For the sake of my post, I was concerned about WHAT display my detractors were using, so we can actually discuss image quality. Next time try to actually read and understand my post before responding with such a "wise arrogant" response. Thanks.
[quote name='Hurmpie' date='01 July 2011 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1309537275' post='1258861']
Oh that's the solution, let's all ditch 3d vision... dude... it's 3d vision forum...
Crysis 2 3D is a complete turd compared to a beauty like Metro2033 (a flat layered turd), aside that I realy do enjoy the game in 2D
I never said "let's ditch 3D Vision," the only reason I turn off 3D Vision is because 3D Vision does NOT work in Crysis 2 + DX9 + GTX 590 Quad SLI (prior to the patch) and it still doesn't work with DX 11 unless you use the latest beta driver (I'll wait till the next WHQL). Of COURSE, once Nvidia fixes 3D Vision and Crysis DX 11, my choice will be either/or acceptable. My post doesn't hinge on using DLP Link or 3D Vision. For the sake of my post, I was concerned about WHAT display my detractors were using, so we can actually discuss image quality. Next time try to actually read and understand my post before responding with such a "wise arrogant" response. Thanks.
I have never been a fan of the rating system Nvidia used for games. For one thing, I would like to know what criteria they use to give a game the ratings they do. Some of the games on the list don't deserve the high, or low for that matter, rating they get. I understand some of that is obviously opinion-based.
My big gripe, however, is that the list is never properly updated and many of those games flat out don't work as newer drivers come out.
I still love 3D Vision and honestly, it is what is keeping me interested in PC gaming altogether at this point or I would have probably resigned myself to be a console-only gamer.
I have never been a fan of the rating system Nvidia used for games. For one thing, I would like to know what criteria they use to give a game the ratings they do. Some of the games on the list don't deserve the high, or low for that matter, rating they get. I understand some of that is obviously opinion-based.
My big gripe, however, is that the list is never properly updated and many of those games flat out don't work as newer drivers come out.
I still love 3D Vision and honestly, it is what is keeping me interested in PC gaming altogether at this point or I would have probably resigned myself to be a console-only gamer.
[quote name='Arioch' date='01 July 2011 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1309541082' post='1258887']
I have never been a fan of the rating system Nvidia used for games. For one thing, I would like to know what criteria they use to give a game the ratings they do. Some of the games on the list don't deserve the high, or low for that matter, rating they get. I understand some of that is obviously opinion-based.
My big gripe, however, is that the list is never properly updated and many of those games flat out don't work as newer drivers come out.
I still love 3D Vision and honestly, it is what is keeping me interested in PC gaming altogether at this point or I would have probably resigned myself to be a console-only gamer.
[/quote]
Well I agree, I think 3D Vision is the best thing going for PC gaming. I wish it was more a continuation of the previous driver set, but that's another discussion....
[quote name='Arioch' date='01 July 2011 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1309541082' post='1258887']
I have never been a fan of the rating system Nvidia used for games. For one thing, I would like to know what criteria they use to give a game the ratings they do. Some of the games on the list don't deserve the high, or low for that matter, rating they get. I understand some of that is obviously opinion-based.
My big gripe, however, is that the list is never properly updated and many of those games flat out don't work as newer drivers come out.
I still love 3D Vision and honestly, it is what is keeping me interested in PC gaming altogether at this point or I would have probably resigned myself to be a console-only gamer.
Well I agree, I think 3D Vision is the best thing going for PC gaming. I wish it was more a continuation of the previous driver set, but that's another discussion....
Yep, +1 who actually agrees on photios point of view.
I really think that there's sort of a "placebo effect" on some of those guys complaining about the particular way that Crysis 2 handles the 3D effect. The fact that people aren't able to adjust convergence or just because they know that the 3D effect is a fake one, is enough to see it as an inferior way to do the tech.
Frankly, for the performance cost, the effect is miles ahead of standard 2D (obviously) and not that behind S3D. I'm sure that if stereoscopic 3D was an option, people would complain about how crappy the FPS would be with the option turned on, and how Crytek have fallen, etc, etc.
And on a side note, I was able to test the SBS option on an ATI card and for me, no difference at all.
Yep, +1 who actually agrees on photios point of view.
I really think that there's sort of a "placebo effect" on some of those guys complaining about the particular way that Crysis 2 handles the 3D effect. The fact that people aren't able to adjust convergence or just because they know that the 3D effect is a fake one, is enough to see it as an inferior way to do the tech.
Frankly, for the performance cost, the effect is miles ahead of standard 2D (obviously) and not that behind S3D. I'm sure that if stereoscopic 3D was an option, people would complain about how crappy the FPS would be with the option turned on, and how Crytek have fallen, etc, etc.
And on a side note, I was able to test the SBS option on an ATI card and for me, no difference at all.
Most people that have 3D Vision for a while know there is going to be a roughly 50% performance drop when enabling 3D. I think their method is great if you have a slower system but it would have been nice to have given us the option of using the normal dual rendering method. From the frame rates I was seeing in the game with my system, I think I would have been able to play it that way.
Most people that have 3D Vision for a while know there is going to be a roughly 50% performance drop when enabling 3D. I think their method is great if you have a slower system but it would have been nice to have given us the option of using the normal dual rendering method. From the frame rates I was seeing in the game with my system, I think I would have been able to play it that way.
[quote name='Suntory_Times' date='01 July 2011 - 03:15 AM' timestamp='1309486527' post='1258630']
I think the difference is rather large, but at the same time I do think people have blown the differences out of proportion and caliming that Crysis 2 looks horrible. It simply isn't horrible, it is far from perfect, but it is reasonably good.
Personally I love what crytek has done, that is if it was an option. It however should be an option for those with lower end systems and should allow those with systems powerfull enough to run the game in 3d in the 'proper' manner.
[/quote]
I totally agree with you. Yes, Crytek 3D doesn't look that bad, because Crysis 2 is a very beautiful game that has amazing graphics, probally the best graphics to date with DX11 patch and high resolution textures. I'm not saying the game looks ugly in 3D, it's impossible to look ugly, cause the game is amazing, so 3D adds the depth and it will look better than 2D, that's for sure.
What I'm saying here is that Crysis 2 3D implementation might be a very good approach for low end uses and console gamers. I think Crytek created this 3D and made a lot of people happy, but the high end community wants the true S3D, cause there's no discussion on that, it's far superior to Crytek 3D implementation, there's no arguing on that.
I agree with Photios that Crytek 3D is good for a lot of people, but why not give the high end community the option to use the real S3D (dual frames) as we can handle a 30-40% fps drop. Crytek made the DX11 patch and high resolution textures as a gift for the high end PC users as many low end users and console gamers can't take advantage of those features. So, why not also give us the real S3D effect, even if only a few users can experience that. Whoever has a GTX 580 or SLI systems will be able to play the game or even lower some settings to be able to play Crysis 2 in real 3D with enough FPS.
I never said Crysis 2 looks ugly in 3D, it doesn't, because the game now looks very beautiful since this new patch was released. But try to see the big picture, take this example: Just Cause 2, Left 4 Dead and Batman have good graphics, but nothing close to Crysis or Metro 2033, we agree on that. When you play those games with 3Dvision they look amazing, out of this world, it's a whole differente experience, does anyone here disagree? The graphics look photo realistic, everything changes, Left 4 Dead looks like crap in 2D, but once you enable 3D, Oh My God, it's a whole different game, it looks very realistc. So, that's what real 3D makes to games, they look 2x better, you can really notice an enhancement in graphics, everything changes.
Now to finish my point, imagine if Left 4 Dead 2, Batman and Just Cause 2 used Crytek 3D tech, do you guys think they would look close to the 3D effect we were used to see???
See, that's whta I'm saying, Crytek 3D only adds a sense of depth, there's no graphics enchancemnt, nothing changes, just depth, but it is still a flat world with fake depth, there's no volume on objects, come on guys, it's not real 3D. So, Crysis 2 looks good enough, so off course 3D will not look ugly, but try to imagine this 3D tech used in other games that don't look as good as Crysis 2.
Photios, I can bet you, if someday Crytek give us the option for real 3D there will be a huge graphics improvement compared to the 3D fake tech they're using. Who cares if people will complain about a 30-40% FPS drop, they can still use the fake 3D tech that doesn't lack performance, so why not give us the option??? You know what I mean???
[quote name='Arioch' date='01 July 2011 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1309545700' post='1258917']
Most people that have 3D Vision for a while know there is going to be a roughly 50% performance drop when enabling 3D. I think their method is great if you have a slower system but it would have been nice to have given us the option of using the normal dual rendering method. From the frame rates I was seeing in the game with my system, I think I would have been able to play it that way.
[/quote]
I coudn't agree more with you. Yes, that's what I;m saying why not give us the option.
I think Crytek 3D approach is great for those that don't have a high end system and a powerfull GPU or SLI. But for those who own a good system like me, we want more quality, period.
I can't understand why Photios thinks that real S3D would look just like Crytek 3D, that the improvement in graphics quality for Crysis 2 would be little or nothing, this doesn't make sense to me?????
[quote name='Suntory_Times' date='01 July 2011 - 03:15 AM' timestamp='1309486527' post='1258630']
I think the difference is rather large, but at the same time I do think people have blown the differences out of proportion and caliming that Crysis 2 looks horrible. It simply isn't horrible, it is far from perfect, but it is reasonably good.
Personally I love what crytek has done, that is if it was an option. It however should be an option for those with lower end systems and should allow those with systems powerfull enough to run the game in 3d in the 'proper' manner.
I totally agree with you. Yes, Crytek 3D doesn't look that bad, because Crysis 2 is a very beautiful game that has amazing graphics, probally the best graphics to date with DX11 patch and high resolution textures. I'm not saying the game looks ugly in 3D, it's impossible to look ugly, cause the game is amazing, so 3D adds the depth and it will look better than 2D, that's for sure.
What I'm saying here is that Crysis 2 3D implementation might be a very good approach for low end uses and console gamers. I think Crytek created this 3D and made a lot of people happy, but the high end community wants the true S3D, cause there's no discussion on that, it's far superior to Crytek 3D implementation, there's no arguing on that.
I agree with Photios that Crytek 3D is good for a lot of people, but why not give the high end community the option to use the real S3D (dual frames) as we can handle a 30-40% fps drop. Crytek made the DX11 patch and high resolution textures as a gift for the high end PC users as many low end users and console gamers can't take advantage of those features. So, why not also give us the real S3D effect, even if only a few users can experience that. Whoever has a GTX 580 or SLI systems will be able to play the game or even lower some settings to be able to play Crysis 2 in real 3D with enough FPS.
I never said Crysis 2 looks ugly in 3D, it doesn't, because the game now looks very beautiful since this new patch was released. But try to see the big picture, take this example: Just Cause 2, Left 4 Dead and Batman have good graphics, but nothing close to Crysis or Metro 2033, we agree on that. When you play those games with 3Dvision they look amazing, out of this world, it's a whole differente experience, does anyone here disagree? The graphics look photo realistic, everything changes, Left 4 Dead looks like crap in 2D, but once you enable 3D, Oh My God, it's a whole different game, it looks very realistc. So, that's what real 3D makes to games, they look 2x better, you can really notice an enhancement in graphics, everything changes.
Now to finish my point, imagine if Left 4 Dead 2, Batman and Just Cause 2 used Crytek 3D tech, do you guys think they would look close to the 3D effect we were used to see???
See, that's whta I'm saying, Crytek 3D only adds a sense of depth, there's no graphics enchancemnt, nothing changes, just depth, but it is still a flat world with fake depth, there's no volume on objects, come on guys, it's not real 3D. So, Crysis 2 looks good enough, so off course 3D will not look ugly, but try to imagine this 3D tech used in other games that don't look as good as Crysis 2.
Photios, I can bet you, if someday Crytek give us the option for real 3D there will be a huge graphics improvement compared to the 3D fake tech they're using. Who cares if people will complain about a 30-40% FPS drop, they can still use the fake 3D tech that doesn't lack performance, so why not give us the option??? You know what I mean???
[quote name='Arioch' date='01 July 2011 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1309545700' post='1258917']
Most people that have 3D Vision for a while know there is going to be a roughly 50% performance drop when enabling 3D. I think their method is great if you have a slower system but it would have been nice to have given us the option of using the normal dual rendering method. From the frame rates I was seeing in the game with my system, I think I would have been able to play it that way.
I coudn't agree more with you. Yes, that's what I;m saying why not give us the option.
I think Crytek 3D approach is great for those that don't have a high end system and a powerfull GPU or SLI. But for those who own a good system like me, we want more quality, period.
I can't understand why Photios thinks that real S3D would look just like Crytek 3D, that the improvement in graphics quality for Crysis 2 would be little or nothing, this doesn't make sense to me?????
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
[quote name='photios' date='01 July 2011 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1309537791' post='1258866']
I never said "let's ditch 3D Vision," the only reason I turn off 3D Vision is because 3D Vision does NOT work in Crysis 2 + DX9 + GTX 590 Quad SLI (prior to the patch) and it still doesn't work with DX 11 unless you use the latest beta driver (I'll wait till the next WHQL). Of COURSE, once Nvidia fixes 3D Vision and Crysis DX 11, my choice will be either/or acceptable. My post doesn't hinge on using DLP Link or 3D Vision. For the sake of my post, I was concerned about WHAT display my detractors were using, so we can actually discuss image quality. Next time try to actually read and understand my post before responding with such a "wise arrogant" response. Thanks.
[/quote]
Yeh sorry, a bit exaggerated but you said in your previous post:
"The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done."
That certainly gives the impression you properly tested it and now you're telling you don't have 3D Vision running the 3d, so you didnt test 3d Vision and yet telling we're way out of proportion.
Well, we're not... it's simply crap in comparison. On a Samsung 2233rz btw. Choosing between Crytek's 3D or a massive framedrop, I would voluntarily pay up another 10% of frames.
[quote name='photios' date='01 July 2011 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1309537791' post='1258866']
I never said "let's ditch 3D Vision," the only reason I turn off 3D Vision is because 3D Vision does NOT work in Crysis 2 + DX9 + GTX 590 Quad SLI (prior to the patch) and it still doesn't work with DX 11 unless you use the latest beta driver (I'll wait till the next WHQL). Of COURSE, once Nvidia fixes 3D Vision and Crysis DX 11, my choice will be either/or acceptable. My post doesn't hinge on using DLP Link or 3D Vision. For the sake of my post, I was concerned about WHAT display my detractors were using, so we can actually discuss image quality. Next time try to actually read and understand my post before responding with such a "wise arrogant" response. Thanks.
Yeh sorry, a bit exaggerated but you said in your previous post:
"The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done."
That certainly gives the impression you properly tested it and now you're telling you don't have 3D Vision running the 3d, so you didnt test 3d Vision and yet telling we're way out of proportion.
Well, we're not... it's simply crap in comparison. On a Samsung 2233rz btw. Choosing between Crytek's 3D or a massive framedrop, I would voluntarily pay up another 10% of frames.
I tried updating to 1.9 through launching using the launcher, and I got the black screen with mouse pointer and audio.
Anyone know what causes this? Had to reload the game and I have not attempted to update again.
i7 860 21 X 200 = 4.2GHz at 1.4V, MSI P55-GD85, 2 X 4GB Kingston DDR3-1600, GTX 590 with XSPC Razer block, 2 X Corsair Force 3 120GB in RAID 0,4 X Barracuda SATA 7200.10 250GB RAID 0, 2 X Barracuda SATA 7200.11 500 GB RAID 0 for Back Ups, OCZ ZX 1250W PSU, Z-5500s, Pioneer 212D DVD, Lamptron FCT, Windows 7 X64 Home Premium, HAF X. Vision Quest 24" WS LCD, Optoma H66 Projector
Cooling: CPU - Thermochill PA120.2, DC3.25/XSPC Res top, Apogee Xt extreme. Vid Cards - Exos 2, XSPC Razer.
The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done.
[/quote]
I respect your opinion but I have to disagree some here. I have also been doing 3D since the early 2000's when I was using Edimensional wired glasses on a 22" CRT. I am one of the many people that prefer high depth settings, and for me that means even more then the 100% that is normally allowed by the drivers. Things close to the character look decent enough but not so much farther away. With tweaking I can get the game to a happy middle ground for playing in 3D with.
I do agree it is not as horrible as some people claim but for many of us, it is only after doing some tweaking of the 3D effect in the game.
The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done.
I respect your opinion but I have to disagree some here. I have also been doing 3D since the early 2000's when I was using Edimensional wired glasses on a 22" CRT. I am one of the many people that prefer high depth settings, and for me that means even more then the 100% that is normally allowed by the drivers. Things close to the character look decent enough but not so much farther away. With tweaking I can get the game to a happy middle ground for playing in 3D with.
I do agree it is not as horrible as some people claim but for many of us, it is only after doing some tweaking of the 3D effect in the game.
I disagree. When looking at screenies for B2:BC I see an image which looks like a photo of 3D cardboard cutouts. When I look at the posted Crysis I see near and far. It is very different 3D. It looks like the 3D you get when you REALLY minimise convergence. Like ME2 (before Trit's fix) where you had to press Ctrl F5 so the convergence point was so far out the 3D was flattened.
Similarly, in the crysis 2 screenies compare the vergence of the nearby stair rail to the furthest object in the screen. There is little difference.
BUT as I found when playing ME2, poor 3D is still 3D and playable compared to unplayable 2D
I disagree. When looking at screenies for B2:BC I see an image which looks like a photo of 3D cardboard cutouts. When I look at the posted Crysis I see near and far. It is very different 3D. It looks like the 3D you get when you REALLY minimise convergence. Like ME2 (before Trit's fix) where you had to press Ctrl F5 so the convergence point was so far out the 3D was flattened.
Similarly, in the crysis 2 screenies compare the vergence of the nearby stair rail to the furthest object in the screen. There is little difference.
BUT as I found when playing ME2, poor 3D is still 3D and playable compared to unplayable 2D
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM
Handy Driver Discussion
Helix Mod - community fixes
Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games
3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes
The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done.
[/quote]
Dude I'm astonished with your comments, as you've been using 3D for such a long time, you should be an expert. Maybe it's your eyes, but the difference between Crysis 2 implemenation compared to Real S3D (which means 2 frames rendered = 30-40% drop) is just so obvious, that I think that maybe your eyes are not that healthy. You should check them... I'm serious... 3D effect really depends on your eyes health.
Do you think there's a magic for Crysis 2 3D don't loose any performance??? It's because it's fake, just like a 2D-3D conversion, but better implemented for sure.
You should know how 3D works, that it depends on 2 slight different views, right and left, not just one generated by a simulation 3D map.
Are you saying that Crysis 2 3D looks just as good as Batman and Just Cause 2??? Are you serious dude, propaganda, you got be joking really.
3D experts like Bloody from 3Dvision blog already explained those differences, it's so obvious, that's why I think you're it has to be your eyes. Just read other folks comments in this very thread...
Anyway I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it. I can really see a huge difference for real 3D compared to this 3D used by Crytek. To me it's so obvious.
The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done.
Dude I'm astonished with your comments, as you've been using 3D for such a long time, you should be an expert. Maybe it's your eyes, but the difference between Crysis 2 implemenation compared to Real S3D (which means 2 frames rendered = 30-40% drop) is just so obvious, that I think that maybe your eyes are not that healthy. You should check them... I'm serious... 3D effect really depends on your eyes health.
Do you think there's a magic for Crysis 2 3D don't loose any performance??? It's because it's fake, just like a 2D-3D conversion, but better implemented for sure.
You should know how 3D works, that it depends on 2 slight different views, right and left, not just one generated by a simulation 3D map.
Are you saying that Crysis 2 3D looks just as good as Batman and Just Cause 2??? Are you serious dude, propaganda, you got be joking really.
3D experts like Bloody from 3Dvision blog already explained those differences, it's so obvious, that's why I think you're it has to be your eyes. Just read other folks comments in this very thread...
Anyway I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it. I can really see a huge difference for real 3D compared to this 3D used by Crytek. To me it's so obvious.
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
Personally I love what crytek has done, that is if it was an option. It however should be an option for those with lower end systems and should allow those with systems powerfull enough to run the game in 3d in the 'proper' manner.
Personally I love what crytek has done, that is if it was an option. It however should be an option for those with lower end systems and should allow those with systems powerfull enough to run the game in 3d in the 'proper' manner.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/suntorytimes
[quote]
Repatched missing details and artifacts is not exactly pleasing to the eye (really) , too small paralax is neither and eye strain is caused by focus and convergeance being decoupled (a problem for any method using a flat surface to diplay perceivable depth).
Also Guerilla can still achieve 960 pixels horizontall resolution (640 is too radical).
Then i take the tradeoffs for real 3d and big paralax anyday other depth buffer trick...
[/quote]
1) There is nothing wrong with my eyes. I have 20/20 vision.
2) I have gone through, diagnosed, and assessed literally hundreds of games under Windows 98/2000/XP using the old Stereo Driver and catalogued what looks good, what is mediocre, and what is bad. I've also taught and showed people on this forum how to setup an old school machine using the old Nvidia driver and DLP tech and play OpenGL and Directx 7/6/5/4 games. I'd hardly call myself a 3D expert, but I have viewed enough (and done this long enough)to know a little bit of what to look for in regards to quality.
3) I have done my own experimenting, mostly with console gamers, to asses Crytek's 3D quality. Now you might consider a console gamer to be a 3D newbie, but my reasoning for choosing such a gamer was they fit the condition of [i]tabula rasa [/i] (blank slate) for evaluating the condition: they virtually know nothing about the tech. In knowing nothing, I wanted to see a new comer's reaction. My findings was that Nvidia's 3D Vision was marginally better than Crytek and only considerably better if we account for Crysis 2's graphic anomalies while in 3D. If I were to "grade" this games 3D quality, I would give it somewhere between Excellent and Good in Nvidia's rating scale. Minus the anomalies it is Excellent all around. Nvidia has it listed as "fair." Now would anbody claim that this game is "fair" compared to Halo 2 and Crysis (1) which are considered "Good" by Nvidia's standard? Of course not. It's better than both and better than dozens of others in Nvidia's "Good" category.
First off, what displays are you guys using? For my purposes I use a Mits DLP TV, and I do not view Crysis 2 using 3D Vision, I turn that off and force the game through the system.cfg file to use native checkerboard and use my TV's DLPLink glasses.
1) There is nothing wrong with my eyes. I have 20/20 vision.
2) I have gone through, diagnosed, and assessed literally hundreds of games under Windows 98/2000/XP using the old Stereo Driver and catalogued what looks good, what is mediocre, and what is bad. I've also taught and showed people on this forum how to setup an old school machine using the old Nvidia driver and DLP tech and play OpenGL and Directx 7/6/5/4 games. I'd hardly call myself a 3D expert, but I have viewed enough (and done this long enough)to know a little bit of what to look for in regards to quality.
3) I have done my own experimenting, mostly with console gamers, to asses Crytek's 3D quality. Now you might consider a console gamer to be a 3D newbie, but my reasoning for choosing such a gamer was they fit the condition of tabula rasa (blank slate) for evaluating the condition: they virtually know nothing about the tech. In knowing nothing, I wanted to see a new comer's reaction. My findings was that Nvidia's 3D Vision was marginally better than Crytek and only considerably better if we account for Crysis 2's graphic anomalies while in 3D. If I were to "grade" this games 3D quality, I would give it somewhere between Excellent and Good in Nvidia's rating scale. Minus the anomalies it is Excellent all around. Nvidia has it listed as "fair." Now would anbody claim that this game is "fair" compared to Halo 2 and Crysis (1) which are considered "Good" by Nvidia's standard? Of course not. It's better than both and better than dozens of others in Nvidia's "Good" category.
First off, what displays are you guys using? For my purposes I use a Mits DLP TV, and I do not view Crysis 2 using 3D Vision, I turn that off and force the game through the system.cfg file to use native checkerboard and use my TV's DLPLink glasses.
For my purposes I use a Mits DLP TV, and I do not view Crysis 2 using 3D Vision, I turn that off and force the game through the system.cfg file to use native checkerboard and use my TV's DLPLink glasses.
[/quote]
Oh that's the solution, let's all ditch 3d vision... dude... it's 3d vision forum...
Crysis 2 3D is a complete turd compared to a beauty like Metro2033 (a flat layered turd), aside that I realy do enjoy the game in 2D
For my purposes I use a Mits DLP TV, and I do not view Crysis 2 using 3D Vision, I turn that off and force the game through the system.cfg file to use native checkerboard and use my TV's DLPLink glasses.
Oh that's the solution, let's all ditch 3d vision... dude... it's 3d vision forum...
Crysis 2 3D is a complete turd compared to a beauty like Metro2033 (a flat layered turd), aside that I realy do enjoy the game in 2D
Oh that's the solution, let's all ditch 3d vision... dude... it's 3d vision forum...
Crysis 2 3D is a complete turd compared to a beauty like Metro2033 (a flat layered turd), aside that I realy do enjoy the game in 2D
[/quote]
I never said "let's ditch 3D Vision," the only reason I turn off 3D Vision is because 3D Vision does NOT work in Crysis 2 + DX9 + GTX 590 Quad SLI (prior to the patch) and it still doesn't work with DX 11 unless you use the latest beta driver (I'll wait till the next WHQL). Of COURSE, once Nvidia fixes 3D Vision and Crysis DX 11, my choice will be either/or acceptable. My post doesn't hinge on using DLP Link or 3D Vision. For the sake of my post, I was concerned about WHAT display my detractors were using, so we can actually discuss image quality. Next time try to actually read and understand my post before responding with such a "wise arrogant" response. Thanks.
Oh that's the solution, let's all ditch 3d vision... dude... it's 3d vision forum...
Crysis 2 3D is a complete turd compared to a beauty like Metro2033 (a flat layered turd), aside that I realy do enjoy the game in 2D
I never said "let's ditch 3D Vision," the only reason I turn off 3D Vision is because 3D Vision does NOT work in Crysis 2 + DX9 + GTX 590 Quad SLI (prior to the patch) and it still doesn't work with DX 11 unless you use the latest beta driver (I'll wait till the next WHQL). Of COURSE, once Nvidia fixes 3D Vision and Crysis DX 11, my choice will be either/or acceptable. My post doesn't hinge on using DLP Link or 3D Vision. For the sake of my post, I was concerned about WHAT display my detractors were using, so we can actually discuss image quality. Next time try to actually read and understand my post before responding with such a "wise arrogant" response. Thanks.
My big gripe, however, is that the list is never properly updated and many of those games flat out don't work as newer drivers come out.
I still love 3D Vision and honestly, it is what is keeping me interested in PC gaming altogether at this point or I would have probably resigned myself to be a console-only gamer.
My big gripe, however, is that the list is never properly updated and many of those games flat out don't work as newer drivers come out.
I still love 3D Vision and honestly, it is what is keeping me interested in PC gaming altogether at this point or I would have probably resigned myself to be a console-only gamer.
I have never been a fan of the rating system Nvidia used for games. For one thing, I would like to know what criteria they use to give a game the ratings they do. Some of the games on the list don't deserve the high, or low for that matter, rating they get. I understand some of that is obviously opinion-based.
My big gripe, however, is that the list is never properly updated and many of those games flat out don't work as newer drivers come out.
I still love 3D Vision and honestly, it is what is keeping me interested in PC gaming altogether at this point or I would have probably resigned myself to be a console-only gamer.
[/quote]
Well I agree, I think 3D Vision is the best thing going for PC gaming. I wish it was more a continuation of the previous driver set, but that's another discussion....
I have never been a fan of the rating system Nvidia used for games. For one thing, I would like to know what criteria they use to give a game the ratings they do. Some of the games on the list don't deserve the high, or low for that matter, rating they get. I understand some of that is obviously opinion-based.
My big gripe, however, is that the list is never properly updated and many of those games flat out don't work as newer drivers come out.
I still love 3D Vision and honestly, it is what is keeping me interested in PC gaming altogether at this point or I would have probably resigned myself to be a console-only gamer.
Well I agree, I think 3D Vision is the best thing going for PC gaming. I wish it was more a continuation of the previous driver set, but that's another discussion....
I really think that there's sort of a "placebo effect" on some of those guys complaining about the particular way that Crysis 2 handles the 3D effect. The fact that people aren't able to adjust convergence or just because they know that the 3D effect is a fake one, is enough to see it as an inferior way to do the tech.
Frankly, for the performance cost, the effect is miles ahead of standard 2D (obviously) and not that behind S3D. I'm sure that if stereoscopic 3D was an option, people would complain about how crappy the FPS would be with the option turned on, and how Crytek have fallen, etc, etc.
And on a side note, I was able to test the SBS option on an ATI card and for me, no difference at all.
I really think that there's sort of a "placebo effect" on some of those guys complaining about the particular way that Crysis 2 handles the 3D effect. The fact that people aren't able to adjust convergence or just because they know that the 3D effect is a fake one, is enough to see it as an inferior way to do the tech.
Frankly, for the performance cost, the effect is miles ahead of standard 2D (obviously) and not that behind S3D. I'm sure that if stereoscopic 3D was an option, people would complain about how crappy the FPS would be with the option turned on, and how Crytek have fallen, etc, etc.
And on a side note, I was able to test the SBS option on an ATI card and for me, no difference at all.
I think the difference is rather large, but at the same time I do think people have blown the differences out of proportion and caliming that Crysis 2 looks horrible. It simply isn't horrible, it is far from perfect, but it is reasonably good.
Personally I love what crytek has done, that is if it was an option. It however should be an option for those with lower end systems and should allow those with systems powerfull enough to run the game in 3d in the 'proper' manner.
[/quote]
I totally agree with you. Yes, Crytek 3D doesn't look that bad, because Crysis 2 is a very beautiful game that has amazing graphics, probally the best graphics to date with DX11 patch and high resolution textures. I'm not saying the game looks ugly in 3D, it's impossible to look ugly, cause the game is amazing, so 3D adds the depth and it will look better than 2D, that's for sure.
What I'm saying here is that Crysis 2 3D implementation might be a very good approach for low end uses and console gamers. I think Crytek created this 3D and made a lot of people happy, but the high end community wants the true S3D, cause there's no discussion on that, it's far superior to Crytek 3D implementation, there's no arguing on that.
I agree with Photios that Crytek 3D is good for a lot of people, but why not give the high end community the option to use the real S3D (dual frames) as we can handle a 30-40% fps drop. Crytek made the DX11 patch and high resolution textures as a gift for the high end PC users as many low end users and console gamers can't take advantage of those features. So, why not also give us the real S3D effect, even if only a few users can experience that. Whoever has a GTX 580 or SLI systems will be able to play the game or even lower some settings to be able to play Crysis 2 in real 3D with enough FPS.
I never said Crysis 2 looks ugly in 3D, it doesn't, because the game now looks very beautiful since this new patch was released. But try to see the big picture, take this example: Just Cause 2, Left 4 Dead and Batman have good graphics, but nothing close to Crysis or Metro 2033, we agree on that. When you play those games with 3Dvision they look amazing, out of this world, it's a whole differente experience, does anyone here disagree? The graphics look photo realistic, everything changes, Left 4 Dead looks like crap in 2D, but once you enable 3D, Oh My God, it's a whole different game, it looks very realistc. So, that's what real 3D makes to games, they look 2x better, you can really notice an enhancement in graphics, everything changes.
Now to finish my point, imagine if Left 4 Dead 2, Batman and Just Cause 2 used Crytek 3D tech, do you guys think they would look close to the 3D effect we were used to see???
See, that's whta I'm saying, Crytek 3D only adds a sense of depth, there's no graphics enchancemnt, nothing changes, just depth, but it is still a flat world with fake depth, there's no volume on objects, come on guys, it's not real 3D. So, Crysis 2 looks good enough, so off course 3D will not look ugly, but try to imagine this 3D tech used in other games that don't look as good as Crysis 2.
Photios, I can bet you, if someday Crytek give us the option for real 3D there will be a huge graphics improvement compared to the 3D fake tech they're using. Who cares if people will complain about a 30-40% FPS drop, they can still use the fake 3D tech that doesn't lack performance, so why not give us the option??? You know what I mean???
[quote name='Arioch' date='01 July 2011 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1309545700' post='1258917']
Most people that have 3D Vision for a while know there is going to be a roughly 50% performance drop when enabling 3D. I think their method is great if you have a slower system but it would have been nice to have given us the option of using the normal dual rendering method. From the frame rates I was seeing in the game with my system, I think I would have been able to play it that way.
[/quote]
I coudn't agree more with you. Yes, that's what I;m saying why not give us the option.
I think Crytek 3D approach is great for those that don't have a high end system and a powerfull GPU or SLI. But for those who own a good system like me, we want more quality, period.
I can't understand why Photios thinks that real S3D would look just like Crytek 3D, that the improvement in graphics quality for Crysis 2 would be little or nothing, this doesn't make sense to me?????
I think the difference is rather large, but at the same time I do think people have blown the differences out of proportion and caliming that Crysis 2 looks horrible. It simply isn't horrible, it is far from perfect, but it is reasonably good.
Personally I love what crytek has done, that is if it was an option. It however should be an option for those with lower end systems and should allow those with systems powerfull enough to run the game in 3d in the 'proper' manner.
I totally agree with you. Yes, Crytek 3D doesn't look that bad, because Crysis 2 is a very beautiful game that has amazing graphics, probally the best graphics to date with DX11 patch and high resolution textures. I'm not saying the game looks ugly in 3D, it's impossible to look ugly, cause the game is amazing, so 3D adds the depth and it will look better than 2D, that's for sure.
What I'm saying here is that Crysis 2 3D implementation might be a very good approach for low end uses and console gamers. I think Crytek created this 3D and made a lot of people happy, but the high end community wants the true S3D, cause there's no discussion on that, it's far superior to Crytek 3D implementation, there's no arguing on that.
I agree with Photios that Crytek 3D is good for a lot of people, but why not give the high end community the option to use the real S3D (dual frames) as we can handle a 30-40% fps drop. Crytek made the DX11 patch and high resolution textures as a gift for the high end PC users as many low end users and console gamers can't take advantage of those features. So, why not also give us the real S3D effect, even if only a few users can experience that. Whoever has a GTX 580 or SLI systems will be able to play the game or even lower some settings to be able to play Crysis 2 in real 3D with enough FPS.
I never said Crysis 2 looks ugly in 3D, it doesn't, because the game now looks very beautiful since this new patch was released. But try to see the big picture, take this example: Just Cause 2, Left 4 Dead and Batman have good graphics, but nothing close to Crysis or Metro 2033, we agree on that. When you play those games with 3Dvision they look amazing, out of this world, it's a whole differente experience, does anyone here disagree? The graphics look photo realistic, everything changes, Left 4 Dead looks like crap in 2D, but once you enable 3D, Oh My God, it's a whole different game, it looks very realistc. So, that's what real 3D makes to games, they look 2x better, you can really notice an enhancement in graphics, everything changes.
Now to finish my point, imagine if Left 4 Dead 2, Batman and Just Cause 2 used Crytek 3D tech, do you guys think they would look close to the 3D effect we were used to see???
See, that's whta I'm saying, Crytek 3D only adds a sense of depth, there's no graphics enchancemnt, nothing changes, just depth, but it is still a flat world with fake depth, there's no volume on objects, come on guys, it's not real 3D. So, Crysis 2 looks good enough, so off course 3D will not look ugly, but try to imagine this 3D tech used in other games that don't look as good as Crysis 2.
Photios, I can bet you, if someday Crytek give us the option for real 3D there will be a huge graphics improvement compared to the 3D fake tech they're using. Who cares if people will complain about a 30-40% FPS drop, they can still use the fake 3D tech that doesn't lack performance, so why not give us the option??? You know what I mean???
[quote name='Arioch' date='01 July 2011 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1309545700' post='1258917']
Most people that have 3D Vision for a while know there is going to be a roughly 50% performance drop when enabling 3D. I think their method is great if you have a slower system but it would have been nice to have given us the option of using the normal dual rendering method. From the frame rates I was seeing in the game with my system, I think I would have been able to play it that way.
I coudn't agree more with you. Yes, that's what I;m saying why not give us the option.
I think Crytek 3D approach is great for those that don't have a high end system and a powerfull GPU or SLI. But for those who own a good system like me, we want more quality, period.
I can't understand why Photios thinks that real S3D would look just like Crytek 3D, that the improvement in graphics quality for Crysis 2 would be little or nothing, this doesn't make sense to me?????
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
I never said "let's ditch 3D Vision," the only reason I turn off 3D Vision is because 3D Vision does NOT work in Crysis 2 + DX9 + GTX 590 Quad SLI (prior to the patch) and it still doesn't work with DX 11 unless you use the latest beta driver (I'll wait till the next WHQL). Of COURSE, once Nvidia fixes 3D Vision and Crysis DX 11, my choice will be either/or acceptable. My post doesn't hinge on using DLP Link or 3D Vision. For the sake of my post, I was concerned about WHAT display my detractors were using, so we can actually discuss image quality. Next time try to actually read and understand my post before responding with such a "wise arrogant" response. Thanks.
[/quote]
Yeh sorry, a bit exaggerated but you said in your previous post:
"The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done."
That certainly gives the impression you properly tested it and now you're telling you don't have 3D Vision running the 3d, so you didnt test 3d Vision and yet telling we're way out of proportion.
Well, we're not... it's simply crap in comparison. On a Samsung 2233rz btw. Choosing between Crytek's 3D or a massive framedrop, I would voluntarily pay up another 10% of frames.
I never said "let's ditch 3D Vision," the only reason I turn off 3D Vision is because 3D Vision does NOT work in Crysis 2 + DX9 + GTX 590 Quad SLI (prior to the patch) and it still doesn't work with DX 11 unless you use the latest beta driver (I'll wait till the next WHQL). Of COURSE, once Nvidia fixes 3D Vision and Crysis DX 11, my choice will be either/or acceptable. My post doesn't hinge on using DLP Link or 3D Vision. For the sake of my post, I was concerned about WHAT display my detractors were using, so we can actually discuss image quality. Next time try to actually read and understand my post before responding with such a "wise arrogant" response. Thanks.
Yeh sorry, a bit exaggerated but you said in your previous post:
"The idea that the two camera views being vastly superior to Crytek's implementation is blown so way out of proportion to be barely comprehensible. Besides a few graphic anomalies, my eyes can barely detect a difference in quality between a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Crysis 2. And I've observed the effect with others that don't know anything about what 3D rendering method that is being used. Some even concluded that Crysis 2 looked better.
Lest, anybody doubt, I've been doing the old Nvidia 3D since 2002, way before 3D Vision's inception.
The idea that Crysis 2 is "fake" 3D and vastly "inferior" quality is mere propaganda rather than scientific analysis of what the eyes perecieve (which is all that matters, rather than how it is being done."
That certainly gives the impression you properly tested it and now you're telling you don't have 3D Vision running the 3d, so you didnt test 3d Vision and yet telling we're way out of proportion.
Well, we're not... it's simply crap in comparison. On a Samsung 2233rz btw. Choosing between Crytek's 3D or a massive framedrop, I would voluntarily pay up another 10% of frames.
Anyone know what causes this? Had to reload the game and I have not attempted to update again.
Anyone know what causes this? Had to reload the game and I have not attempted to update again.
i7 860 21 X 200 = 4.2GHz at 1.4V, MSI P55-GD85, 2 X 4GB Kingston DDR3-1600, GTX 590 with XSPC Razer block, 2 X Corsair Force 3 120GB in RAID 0,4 X Barracuda SATA 7200.10 250GB RAID 0, 2 X Barracuda SATA 7200.11 500 GB RAID 0 for Back Ups, OCZ ZX 1250W PSU, Z-5500s, Pioneer 212D DVD, Lamptron FCT, Windows 7 X64 Home Premium, HAF X. Vision Quest 24" WS LCD, Optoma H66 Projector
Cooling: CPU - Thermochill PA120.2, DC3.25/XSPC Res top, Apogee Xt extreme. Vid Cards - Exos 2, XSPC Razer.