There's no such thing as possible best 3D config as it depends on the sight and eye health of each individual. Also, I don't see ghsoting when playing Crysis. I despite Crytek's fake 3D implementation and I would prefer a 3D rendered by 3D Vision drivers, but at least Crytek 3D doesn't show ghosting, just a halo effect arround the gun.
There's no such thing as possible best 3D config as it depends on the sight and eye health of each individual. Also, I don't see ghsoting when playing Crysis. I despite Crytek's fake 3D implementation and I would prefer a 3D rendered by 3D Vision drivers, but at least Crytek 3D doesn't show ghosting, just a halo effect arround the gun.
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='cybereality' date='03 April 2011 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1301842209' post='1218570']
Thats great, but the game is not even actually rendered in 3D, its all fake.
The article you linked to states that the Demo is the fake.
"The final game has a lot more depth and a lot of progress happened. The 360 demo did not integrate the updates and thus 360 demo is not representative regarding S3D."
Why state something that is not supported by your "proof"?
The article you linked to states that the Demo is the fake.
"The final game has a lot more depth and a lot of progress happened. The 360 demo did not integrate the updates and thus 360 demo is not representative regarding S3D."
Why state something that is not supported by your "proof"?
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.
[quote name='Capt Proton' date='04 April 2011 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1301873661' post='1218771']
The article you linked to states that the Demo is the fake.[/quote]
And it is the XBOX 360 demo, nothing mentioned about the pc version, haha. Crysis 2 looks like any other 3d supported pc game, we know Crysis 2 is not 3D Vision Ready, some 3D Vision Ready games look worse than Crysis 2, lol.
The article you linked to states that the Demo is the fake.
And it is the XBOX 360 demo, nothing mentioned about the pc version, haha. Crysis 2 looks like any other 3d supported pc game, we know Crysis 2 is not 3D Vision Ready, some 3D Vision Ready games look worse than Crysis 2, lol.
Windows 10 home x64
P9X79
i7-3820 @ 3.6-3.8 GHz
GTX 970 SSC
16GB 4x4 DDR3 RAM
SSD 850 PRO 256GB
VG248QE 144Hz
It's not using a dual frame rendering technique like we are normally used to. It can be tweaked to look a lot better than default but it is no where near as good as it could have been with normal 3D rendering.
It's not using a dual frame rendering technique like we are normally used to. It can be tweaked to look a lot better than default but it is no where near as good as it could have been with normal 3D rendering.
It does not looks better..infact with these settings the gun looks way to close and to big in size...
Also,the crossair isn't placed correctly and the gun seems to touch the ground...
[quote name='Arioch' date='04 April 2011 - 06:58 AM' timestamp='1301918286' post='1219009']
It's not using a dual frame rendering technique like we are normally used to. It can be tweaked to look a lot better than default but it is no where near as good as it could have been with normal 3D rendering.
[/quote]
I disagree, having played this game for 11+ hours, and to be honest, I don't think it matters much what rendering technique one is using so long as what the eyes percieve is 3D. Dual camera is always going to produce a certain set of results that are always good (done correctly), but if the same effect can be achieved with alternative methods, it shouldn't be criticized based on it not being the standard approach. Again, all that matters is the final product of what the eyes perceive.
I had a good friend that knows nothing about 3D Vision per se view Crysis 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 just to gather his thoughts, since he would know nothing about the differences in the two games's rendering methods. He thought that Crysis 2 looked just as good save for the small and minor anomalies around the gun. I use a Mits DLP and the gun anomalies are barely noticeable. It might be more noticeable with LCD's. I don't know.
I tended to agree with his findings.
I also thought that Nvidia was a little tough on their rating of Crysis 2 being "fair" where as Cryis 1 shouldn't be categorized as "good" but should be in the "not recomended category."
I at least think Crysis 2, as it stands now with no further patching, is somewhere in the Good to Excellent range.
[quote name='Arioch' date='04 April 2011 - 06:58 AM' timestamp='1301918286' post='1219009']
It's not using a dual frame rendering technique like we are normally used to. It can be tweaked to look a lot better than default but it is no where near as good as it could have been with normal 3D rendering.
I disagree, having played this game for 11+ hours, and to be honest, I don't think it matters much what rendering technique one is using so long as what the eyes percieve is 3D. Dual camera is always going to produce a certain set of results that are always good (done correctly), but if the same effect can be achieved with alternative methods, it shouldn't be criticized based on it not being the standard approach. Again, all that matters is the final product of what the eyes perceive.
I had a good friend that knows nothing about 3D Vision per se view Crysis 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 just to gather his thoughts, since he would know nothing about the differences in the two games's rendering methods. He thought that Crysis 2 looked just as good save for the small and minor anomalies around the gun. I use a Mits DLP and the gun anomalies are barely noticeable. It might be more noticeable with LCD's. I don't know.
I tended to agree with his findings.
I also thought that Nvidia was a little tough on their rating of Crysis 2 being "fair" where as Cryis 1 shouldn't be categorized as "good" but should be in the "not recomended category."
I at least think Crysis 2, as it stands now with no further patching, is somewhere in the Good to Excellent range.
i don't say crysis 2 is a fake 3d but is not like other games, in fact when i enable 3d the performance drop is very low in the same scene i go from 44 fps to 40 fps, i have never seen in any game a so performing 3d, so there must be something different, and i'm talking about retail version, just bought today.
btw the effect is not bad, i have another problem but i'll make a new thread for that..
about the "fair" rating i don't understand why it has been rated fair, i haven't seen any wrong depth anywhere, ok i've just played the first level but everything looks perfect for now.
i don't say crysis 2 is a fake 3d but is not like other games, in fact when i enable 3d the performance drop is very low in the same scene i go from 44 fps to 40 fps, i have never seen in any game a so performing 3d, so there must be something different, and i'm talking about retail version, just bought today.
btw the effect is not bad, i have another problem but i'll make a new thread for that..
about the "fair" rating i don't understand why it has been rated fair, i haven't seen any wrong depth anywhere, ok i've just played the first level but everything looks perfect for now.
I'm testing the retail version and is exactly the same so called "fake" 3d that i've seen on the above video, so [quote]"The final game has a lot more depth and a lot of progress happened. The 360 demo did not integrate the updates and thus 360 demo is not representative regarding S3D."[/quote] is not much true, i see exactly the same effect.
to make sure the images are the same i've tried to look on a building angle, theorically (and also in other games) if you put your point of view exactly perpendicular to the side and strafing a bit you should see the other side of the building with 1 eye only, this does not happen in crysis 2, when i see the other side i see that with both eyes, no way to see that with just one.
so i can say they have invented a new way to do a good 3d without losing too much performances and the effect is still nice... btw i would like to have it as an option and i would like to see the same image how would really be with a proper 3d
it's a technique that stays in the middle between a real 3d and a professional 2d to 3d conversion, playing with depths without rendering twice
EDIT: ok with higher depths i see the "halo" around the weapon, now i get the point, obviously as is only 1 image they have to approximate because they don't know what's behind the weapon so here's tha halo explained, i think fair rating is exact, this is not 3d even if is nice to see.
i really hope that this kind of 3d will stay isolated to this game, i don't want future games to use this technique, or at least let us able to choose.
I'm testing the retail version and is exactly the same so called "fake" 3d that i've seen on the above video, so
"The final game has a lot more depth and a lot of progress happened. The 360 demo did not integrate the updates and thus 360 demo is not representative regarding S3D."
is not much true, i see exactly the same effect.
to make sure the images are the same i've tried to look on a building angle, theorically (and also in other games) if you put your point of view exactly perpendicular to the side and strafing a bit you should see the other side of the building with 1 eye only, this does not happen in crysis 2, when i see the other side i see that with both eyes, no way to see that with just one.
so i can say they have invented a new way to do a good 3d without losing too much performances and the effect is still nice... btw i would like to have it as an option and i would like to see the same image how would really be with a proper 3d
it's a technique that stays in the middle between a real 3d and a professional 2d to 3d conversion, playing with depths without rendering twice
EDIT: ok with higher depths i see the "halo" around the weapon, now i get the point, obviously as is only 1 image they have to approximate because they don't know what's behind the weapon so here's tha halo explained, i think fair rating is exact, this is not 3d even if is nice to see.
i really hope that this kind of 3d will stay isolated to this game, i don't want future games to use this technique, or at least let us able to choose.
If you remember in Crysis 1, many shader effects above medium were rendered in 2D using nVidia's 3D Vision. (BTW Crysis looked fine in red/cyan using iz3D drivers.) I wonder if the reason Crytek are reticent to allow dual frame rendering is because Crysis 2's engine suffers the same 3D issues as the first game?
If you remember in Crysis 1, many shader effects above medium were rendered in 2D using nVidia's 3D Vision. (BTW Crysis looked fine in red/cyan using iz3D drivers.) I wonder if the reason Crytek are reticent to allow dual frame rendering is because Crysis 2's engine suffers the same 3D issues as the first game?
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
In my opinion the 3D method using in Crysis is not bad, but need some tweaking to increase deph "r_StereoScreenDist = 9.0" (it is something like Nvidia convergence). Also into the game I reduce Stereoscopic 3D power to 5% to reduce anomalies. The gun deph is a patch not well done. But forguetting the gun deph (the weapon, or a door too close) the rest of the scene render decently.
In my opinion Nvidia 3d Vision (and this crytec 3d system) works better with third person camera views than with first person, just because to perceive a good deph it is needed normally to increase convergence, and this normally produces an incorrect viewing of all located too close (the weapon deph normally).
In my opinion the 3D method using in Crysis is not bad, but need some tweaking to increase deph "r_StereoScreenDist = 9.0" (it is something like Nvidia convergence). Also into the game I reduce Stereoscopic 3D power to 5% to reduce anomalies. The gun deph is a patch not well done. But forguetting the gun deph (the weapon, or a door too close) the rest of the scene render decently.
In my opinion Nvidia 3d Vision (and this crytec 3d system) works better with third person camera views than with first person, just because to perceive a good deph it is needed normally to increase convergence, and this normally produces an incorrect viewing of all located too close (the weapon deph normally).
It really depends on your personal preference. I prefer first person views in most games where it is available and high depth works well with it for me. I can adjust the convergence to the level I prefer depending on the game because my eyes have gotten used to the way I play in 3D. Held weapons aren't really an issue when you play games like Oblivion because I don't pull them out unless I am fighting.
I really don't want the Crytek method to catch on for PC 3D gaming. The method, even with lots of tweaking, looks no where near as good as a game using true dual rendering, like other FPS games like Bad Company 2 and Bulletstorm did. Sure, it's good for consoles because you have a fixed platform where you really can't afford anything to impact the performance more than what people playing in 2D have already. People who have 3D Vision are aware of the performance impact and can adjust accordingly, be it with more powerful hardware or lowering settings to increase the performance. Not to be an ass, but people that purchase 3D Vision and complain about the normal 50% or so performance loss should have done some research before spending their money on the kit.
It really depends on your personal preference. I prefer first person views in most games where it is available and high depth works well with it for me. I can adjust the convergence to the level I prefer depending on the game because my eyes have gotten used to the way I play in 3D. Held weapons aren't really an issue when you play games like Oblivion because I don't pull them out unless I am fighting.
I really don't want the Crytek method to catch on for PC 3D gaming. The method, even with lots of tweaking, looks no where near as good as a game using true dual rendering, like other FPS games like Bad Company 2 and Bulletstorm did. Sure, it's good for consoles because you have a fixed platform where you really can't afford anything to impact the performance more than what people playing in 2D have already. People who have 3D Vision are aware of the performance impact and can adjust accordingly, be it with more powerful hardware or lowering settings to increase the performance. Not to be an ass, but people that purchase 3D Vision and complain about the normal 50% or so performance loss should have done some research before spending their money on the kit.
[quote name='Arioch' date='23 April 2011 - 05:52 AM' timestamp='1303552327' post='1229204']
It really depends on your personal preference. I prefer first person views in most games where it is available and high depth works well with it for me. I can adjust the convergence to the level I prefer depending on the game because my eyes have gotten used to the way I play in 3D. Held weapons aren't really an issue when you play games like Oblivion because I don't pull them out unless I am fighting.
I really don't want the Crytek method to catch on for PC 3D gaming. The method, even with lots of tweaking, looks no where near as good as a game using true dual rendering, like other FPS games like Bad Company 2 and Bulletstorm did. Sure, it's good for consoles because you have a fixed platform where you really can't afford anything to impact the performance more than what people playing in 2D have already. People who have 3D Vision are aware of the performance impact and can adjust accordingly, be it with more powerful hardware or lowering settings to increase the performance. Not to be an ass, but people that purchase 3D Vision and complain about the normal 50% or so performance loss should have done some research before spending their money on the kit.
[/quote]
I completely agree.
Those of us who have embraced 3DVision know that, if the game developers follow a few simple steps to insure stereo compatibility (accurate skybox, shadows, and water effects, crosshair), 3DVision can transform their content into something that transcends a video game.
I am an older graphics professional who holds 3 patents in real-time rendering techniques and I lived through the "virtual reality" hype of the early 1990s.
Stereoscopy has always been considered a key element of virtual reality.
Unfortunately it was almost always presented using low-resolution head mounted displays and using rendering techniques which are far from realistic.
Combined with modern rendering methods, Nvidia's 3DVision creates a truly immersive and compelling experience, that can realise the promise of a "virtual reality".
Unfortunately, Crytek's stereoscopic implementation lacks the depth and convergence to make Crysis2 very convincing as an actual experience.
Moreover significant compromises on antialiasing and texture resolution and LOD sadly make Crysis2 seem like a last-generation video game.
Hopefully Crytek will allow high res mods, and open up the content to full and real antialiasing 3DVision through the "driver" option.
Until then, I will enjoy Bulletstorm, which has very good 3DVision compatibility.
[quote name='Arioch' date='23 April 2011 - 05:52 AM' timestamp='1303552327' post='1229204']
It really depends on your personal preference. I prefer first person views in most games where it is available and high depth works well with it for me. I can adjust the convergence to the level I prefer depending on the game because my eyes have gotten used to the way I play in 3D. Held weapons aren't really an issue when you play games like Oblivion because I don't pull them out unless I am fighting.
I really don't want the Crytek method to catch on for PC 3D gaming. The method, even with lots of tweaking, looks no where near as good as a game using true dual rendering, like other FPS games like Bad Company 2 and Bulletstorm did. Sure, it's good for consoles because you have a fixed platform where you really can't afford anything to impact the performance more than what people playing in 2D have already. People who have 3D Vision are aware of the performance impact and can adjust accordingly, be it with more powerful hardware or lowering settings to increase the performance. Not to be an ass, but people that purchase 3D Vision and complain about the normal 50% or so performance loss should have done some research before spending their money on the kit.
I completely agree.
Those of us who have embraced 3DVision know that, if the game developers follow a few simple steps to insure stereo compatibility (accurate skybox, shadows, and water effects, crosshair), 3DVision can transform their content into something that transcends a video game.
I am an older graphics professional who holds 3 patents in real-time rendering techniques and I lived through the "virtual reality" hype of the early 1990s.
Stereoscopy has always been considered a key element of virtual reality.
Unfortunately it was almost always presented using low-resolution head mounted displays and using rendering techniques which are far from realistic.
Combined with modern rendering methods, Nvidia's 3DVision creates a truly immersive and compelling experience, that can realise the promise of a "virtual reality".
Unfortunately, Crytek's stereoscopic implementation lacks the depth and convergence to make Crysis2 very convincing as an actual experience.
Moreover significant compromises on antialiasing and texture resolution and LOD sadly make Crysis2 seem like a last-generation video game.
Hopefully Crytek will allow high res mods, and open up the content to full and real antialiasing 3DVision through the "driver" option.
Until then, I will enjoy Bulletstorm, which has very good 3DVision compatibility.
Each to their own i guess, and all are different and have different preferences over different things. Crysis 2 3D at 15% depth is spot on for me personally, as with just about all other types of games. Most games i have tried at 100% depth is like looking through a tube (only way i can discribe it) and not natural. I don't like popouts either, i guess this is because i don't perceive things this way in natural life environments, dimentionally.
Each to their own i guess, and all are different and have different preferences over different things. Crysis 2 3D at 15% depth is spot on for me personally, as with just about all other types of games. Most games i have tried at 100% depth is like looking through a tube (only way i can discribe it) and not natural. I don't like popouts either, i guess this is because i don't perceive things this way in natural life environments, dimentionally.
Windows 10 home x64
P9X79
i7-3820 @ 3.6-3.8 GHz
GTX 970 SSC
16GB 4x4 DDR3 RAM
SSD 850 PRO 256GB
VG248QE 144Hz
r_Gamma=2
r_StereoGammaAdjustment=1
r_useEdgeAA=3
r_PostMSAA=2
r_TexMaxAnisotropy=16
g_skipIntro=1
r_StereoStrength = 4
r_StereoScreenDist = 0.49
r_StereoEyeDist = 0.022
r_StereoNearGeoScale = 6
ENJOY
r_Gamma=2
r_StereoGammaAdjustment=1
r_useEdgeAA=3
r_PostMSAA=2
r_TexMaxAnisotropy=16
g_skipIntro=1
r_StereoStrength = 4
r_StereoScreenDist = 0.49
r_StereoEyeDist = 0.022
r_StereoNearGeoScale = 6
ENJOY
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
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/3d-in-crysis-2-demo-not-actually-3d
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/3d-in-crysis-2-demo-not-actually-3d
check my blog - cybereality.com
Thats great, but the game is not even actually rendered in 3D, its all fake.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/3d-in-crysis-2-demo-not-actually-3d
[/quote]
The article you linked to states that the Demo is the fake.
"The final game has a lot more depth and a lot of progress happened. The 360 demo did not integrate the updates and thus 360 demo is not representative regarding S3D."
Why state something that is not supported by your "proof"?
Thats great, but the game is not even actually rendered in 3D, its all fake.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/3d-in-crysis-2-demo-not-actually-3d
The article you linked to states that the Demo is the fake.
"The final game has a lot more depth and a lot of progress happened. The 360 demo did not integrate the updates and thus 360 demo is not representative regarding S3D."
Why state something that is not supported by your "proof"?
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 article you linked to states that the Demo is the fake.[/quote]
And it is the XBOX 360 demo, nothing mentioned about the pc version, haha. Crysis 2 looks like any other 3d supported pc game, we know Crysis 2 is not 3D Vision Ready, some 3D Vision Ready games look worse than Crysis 2, lol.
The article you linked to states that the Demo is the fake.
And it is the XBOX 360 demo, nothing mentioned about the pc version, haha. Crysis 2 looks like any other 3d supported pc game, we know Crysis 2 is not 3D Vision Ready, some 3D Vision Ready games look worse than Crysis 2, lol.
Windows 10 home x64
P9X79
i7-3820 @ 3.6-3.8 GHz
GTX 970 SSC
16GB 4x4 DDR3 RAM
SSD 850 PRO 256GB
VG248QE 144Hz
It does not looks better..infact with these settings the gun looks way to close and to big in size...
Also,the crossair isn't placed correctly and the gun seems to touch the ground...
It does not looks better..infact with these settings the gun looks way to close and to big in size...
Also,the crossair isn't placed correctly and the gun seems to touch the ground...
Intel I7 3820 3.8 Ghz,MSI MS7760 Motherboard, 6GB )2x MSI GTX670 (SLI),OCZ Vertex 230Gb SSD,OCZ Agility 120Gb SSD, Asus 3D VG278HR ,Optoma HD67 3D DLP Beamer with 95inch 2.5 gain screen.
It's not using a dual frame rendering technique like we are normally used to. It can be tweaked to look a lot better than default but it is no where near as good as it could have been with normal 3D rendering.
[/quote]
I disagree, having played this game for 11+ hours, and to be honest, I don't think it matters much what rendering technique one is using so long as what the eyes percieve is 3D. Dual camera is always going to produce a certain set of results that are always good (done correctly), but if the same effect can be achieved with alternative methods, it shouldn't be criticized based on it not being the standard approach. Again, all that matters is the final product of what the eyes perceive.
I had a good friend that knows nothing about 3D Vision per se view Crysis 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 just to gather his thoughts, since he would know nothing about the differences in the two games's rendering methods. He thought that Crysis 2 looked just as good save for the small and minor anomalies around the gun. I use a Mits DLP and the gun anomalies are barely noticeable. It might be more noticeable with LCD's. I don't know.
I tended to agree with his findings.
I also thought that Nvidia was a little tough on their rating of Crysis 2 being "fair" where as Cryis 1 shouldn't be categorized as "good" but should be in the "not recomended category."
I at least think Crysis 2, as it stands now with no further patching, is somewhere in the Good to Excellent range.
It's not using a dual frame rendering technique like we are normally used to. It can be tweaked to look a lot better than default but it is no where near as good as it could have been with normal 3D rendering.
I disagree, having played this game for 11+ hours, and to be honest, I don't think it matters much what rendering technique one is using so long as what the eyes percieve is 3D. Dual camera is always going to produce a certain set of results that are always good (done correctly), but if the same effect can be achieved with alternative methods, it shouldn't be criticized based on it not being the standard approach. Again, all that matters is the final product of what the eyes perceive.
I had a good friend that knows nothing about 3D Vision per se view Crysis 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 just to gather his thoughts, since he would know nothing about the differences in the two games's rendering methods. He thought that Crysis 2 looked just as good save for the small and minor anomalies around the gun. I use a Mits DLP and the gun anomalies are barely noticeable. It might be more noticeable with LCD's. I don't know.
I tended to agree with his findings.
I also thought that Nvidia was a little tough on their rating of Crysis 2 being "fair" where as Cryis 1 shouldn't be categorized as "good" but should be in the "not recomended category."
I at least think Crysis 2, as it stands now with no further patching, is somewhere in the Good to Excellent range.
btw the effect is not bad, i have another problem but i'll make a new thread for that..
about the "fair" rating i don't understand why it has been rated fair, i haven't seen any wrong depth anywhere, ok i've just played the first level but everything looks perfect for now.
btw the effect is not bad, i have another problem but i'll make a new thread for that..
about the "fair" rating i don't understand why it has been rated fair, i haven't seen any wrong depth anywhere, ok i've just played the first level but everything looks perfect for now.
to make sure the images are the same i've tried to look on a building angle, theorically (and also in other games) if you put your point of view exactly perpendicular to the side and strafing a bit you should see the other side of the building with 1 eye only, this does not happen in crysis 2, when i see the other side i see that with both eyes, no way to see that with just one.
so i can say they have invented a new way to do a good 3d without losing too much performances and the effect is still nice... btw i would like to have it as an option and i would like to see the same image how would really be with a proper 3d
it's a technique that stays in the middle between a real 3d and a professional 2d to 3d conversion, playing with depths without rendering twice
EDIT: ok with higher depths i see the "halo" around the weapon, now i get the point, obviously as is only 1 image they have to approximate because they don't know what's behind the weapon so here's tha halo explained, i think fair rating is exact, this is not 3d even if is nice to see.
i really hope that this kind of 3d will stay isolated to this game, i don't want future games to use this technique, or at least let us able to choose.
to make sure the images are the same i've tried to look on a building angle, theorically (and also in other games) if you put your point of view exactly perpendicular to the side and strafing a bit you should see the other side of the building with 1 eye only, this does not happen in crysis 2, when i see the other side i see that with both eyes, no way to see that with just one.
so i can say they have invented a new way to do a good 3d without losing too much performances and the effect is still nice... btw i would like to have it as an option and i would like to see the same image how would really be with a proper 3d
it's a technique that stays in the middle between a real 3d and a professional 2d to 3d conversion, playing with depths without rendering twice
EDIT: ok with higher depths i see the "halo" around the weapon, now i get the point, obviously as is only 1 image they have to approximate because they don't know what's behind the weapon so here's tha halo explained, i think fair rating is exact, this is not 3d even if is nice to see.
i really hope that this kind of 3d will stay isolated to this game, i don't want future games to use this technique, or at least let us able to choose.
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
In my opinion Nvidia 3d Vision (and this crytec 3d system) works better with third person camera views than with first person, just because to perceive a good deph it is needed normally to increase convergence, and this normally produces an incorrect viewing of all located too close (the weapon deph normally).
In my opinion Nvidia 3d Vision (and this crytec 3d system) works better with third person camera views than with first person, just because to perceive a good deph it is needed normally to increase convergence, and this normally produces an incorrect viewing of all located too close (the weapon deph normally).
- Windows 7 64bits (SSD OCZ-Vertez2 128Gb)
- "ASUS P6X58D-E" motherboard
- "MSI GTX 660 TI"
- "Intel Xeon X5670" @4000MHz CPU (20.0[12-25]x200MHz)
- RAM 16 Gb DDR3 1600
- "Dell S2716DG" monitor (2560x1440 @144Hz)
- "Corsair Carbide 600C" case
- Labrador dog (cinnamon edition)
I really don't want the Crytek method to catch on for PC 3D gaming. The method, even with lots of tweaking, looks no where near as good as a game using true dual rendering, like other FPS games like Bad Company 2 and Bulletstorm did. Sure, it's good for consoles because you have a fixed platform where you really can't afford anything to impact the performance more than what people playing in 2D have already. People who have 3D Vision are aware of the performance impact and can adjust accordingly, be it with more powerful hardware or lowering settings to increase the performance. Not to be an ass, but people that purchase 3D Vision and complain about the normal 50% or so performance loss should have done some research before spending their money on the kit.
I really don't want the Crytek method to catch on for PC 3D gaming. The method, even with lots of tweaking, looks no where near as good as a game using true dual rendering, like other FPS games like Bad Company 2 and Bulletstorm did. Sure, it's good for consoles because you have a fixed platform where you really can't afford anything to impact the performance more than what people playing in 2D have already. People who have 3D Vision are aware of the performance impact and can adjust accordingly, be it with more powerful hardware or lowering settings to increase the performance. Not to be an ass, but people that purchase 3D Vision and complain about the normal 50% or so performance loss should have done some research before spending their money on the kit.
It really depends on your personal preference. I prefer first person views in most games where it is available and high depth works well with it for me. I can adjust the convergence to the level I prefer depending on the game because my eyes have gotten used to the way I play in 3D. Held weapons aren't really an issue when you play games like Oblivion because I don't pull them out unless I am fighting.
I really don't want the Crytek method to catch on for PC 3D gaming. The method, even with lots of tweaking, looks no where near as good as a game using true dual rendering, like other FPS games like Bad Company 2 and Bulletstorm did. Sure, it's good for consoles because you have a fixed platform where you really can't afford anything to impact the performance more than what people playing in 2D have already. People who have 3D Vision are aware of the performance impact and can adjust accordingly, be it with more powerful hardware or lowering settings to increase the performance. Not to be an ass, but people that purchase 3D Vision and complain about the normal 50% or so performance loss should have done some research before spending their money on the kit.
[/quote]
I completely agree.
Those of us who have embraced 3DVision know that, if the game developers follow a few simple steps to insure stereo compatibility (accurate skybox, shadows, and water effects, crosshair), 3DVision can transform their content into something that transcends a video game.
I am an older graphics professional who holds 3 patents in real-time rendering techniques and I lived through the "virtual reality" hype of the early 1990s.
Stereoscopy has always been considered a key element of virtual reality.
Unfortunately it was almost always presented using low-resolution head mounted displays and using rendering techniques which are far from realistic.
Combined with modern rendering methods, Nvidia's 3DVision creates a truly immersive and compelling experience, that can realise the promise of a "virtual reality".
Unfortunately, Crytek's stereoscopic implementation lacks the depth and convergence to make Crysis2 very convincing as an actual experience.
Moreover significant compromises on antialiasing and texture resolution and LOD sadly make Crysis2 seem like a last-generation video game.
Hopefully Crytek will allow high res mods, and open up the content to full and real antialiasing 3DVision through the "driver" option.
Until then, I will enjoy Bulletstorm, which has very good 3DVision compatibility.
baragon
It really depends on your personal preference. I prefer first person views in most games where it is available and high depth works well with it for me. I can adjust the convergence to the level I prefer depending on the game because my eyes have gotten used to the way I play in 3D. Held weapons aren't really an issue when you play games like Oblivion because I don't pull them out unless I am fighting.
I really don't want the Crytek method to catch on for PC 3D gaming. The method, even with lots of tweaking, looks no where near as good as a game using true dual rendering, like other FPS games like Bad Company 2 and Bulletstorm did. Sure, it's good for consoles because you have a fixed platform where you really can't afford anything to impact the performance more than what people playing in 2D have already. People who have 3D Vision are aware of the performance impact and can adjust accordingly, be it with more powerful hardware or lowering settings to increase the performance. Not to be an ass, but people that purchase 3D Vision and complain about the normal 50% or so performance loss should have done some research before spending their money on the kit.
I completely agree.
Those of us who have embraced 3DVision know that, if the game developers follow a few simple steps to insure stereo compatibility (accurate skybox, shadows, and water effects, crosshair), 3DVision can transform their content into something that transcends a video game.
I am an older graphics professional who holds 3 patents in real-time rendering techniques and I lived through the "virtual reality" hype of the early 1990s.
Stereoscopy has always been considered a key element of virtual reality.
Unfortunately it was almost always presented using low-resolution head mounted displays and using rendering techniques which are far from realistic.
Combined with modern rendering methods, Nvidia's 3DVision creates a truly immersive and compelling experience, that can realise the promise of a "virtual reality".
Unfortunately, Crytek's stereoscopic implementation lacks the depth and convergence to make Crysis2 very convincing as an actual experience.
Moreover significant compromises on antialiasing and texture resolution and LOD sadly make Crysis2 seem like a last-generation video game.
Hopefully Crytek will allow high res mods, and open up the content to full and real antialiasing 3DVision through the "driver" option.
Until then, I will enjoy Bulletstorm, which has very good 3DVision compatibility.
baragon
Windows 10 home x64
P9X79
i7-3820 @ 3.6-3.8 GHz
GTX 970 SSC
16GB 4x4 DDR3 RAM
SSD 850 PRO 256GB
VG248QE 144Hz